ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2025
Multidisciplinary approach for patients with early and locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): 2nd Spanish Lung Cancer Group (GECP) expert consensus statement.
Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving neoadjuvant and perioperative therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Resectability in a Country With Limited Diagnostic and Therapeutic Resources: A Colombian Expert Consensus.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In light of the ongoing advancements in the treatment of patients with early- and locally advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the members of the Spanish Lung Cancer Group (GECP) deemed it necessary to update its 2023 consensus suggestions for the management of these patients. Methods: From July to November 2024, a panel of experts, including thoracic surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists, was convened. The consensus process was developed using a mixed approach that incorporated Delphi and nominal group techniques. The consensus coordination group reviewed the relevant scientific literature for the update and developed a questionnaire for the panel of experts to vote on. Two rounds of voting were conducted, followed by a final nominal group meeting to discuss clinical situations where consensus had not been reached and draw final conclusions. In instances where high-quality scientific data were not available or were the subject of controversy, final suggestions were based on the expertise of the participants. Results: Thirty experts from the multidisciplinary team participated in the voting and discussions. The document was updated to incorporate recent advancements in molecular diagnosis and biomarkers, the role of the multidisciplinary thoracic committee, criteria for neoadjuvant/perioperative treatment, approaches to inoperable/unresectable disease, and adjuvant treatment. Proposals that did not require updating were not voted on again and remain part of the document, maintaining their first version. Conclusions: Updated suggestions were developed for the most relevant situations in the treatment of patients with early-stage and locally advanced NSCLC. These suggestions will support clinical decision-making in daily practice. This paper presents the statements developed by the expert panel and summarizes the scientific evidence supporting them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.