ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Evaluation of prognostic value of vascular endothelial growth factor and endocan in non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction of microinvasive spread in stage T1 non-small cell lung cancer based on a preoperative tumor margin CT radiomics model.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: No reliable, easily measurable biomarker currently exists for the screening or prognosis of lung cancer. The present study evaluates the potential utility of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and endocan, which can be readily measured in blood samples, as biomarkers for screening and prognostic assessment in lung cancer. Materials and methods: Included in the study were 38 patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 29 controls. All patients underwent surgical intervention and were monitored for 1 month postoperatively. Serum VEGF and endocan levels were measured preoperatively and postoperatively. Clinical characteristics, laboratory data, and histopathological findings were recorded for all participants. Results: The preoperative VEGF levels of the patients were significantly higher than those of the controls (p = 0.001), while postoperative VEGF levels decreased significantly following surgery (p < 0.001). The endocan levels of the patients and controls were similar preoperatively. Additionally, endocan levels were significantly increased after the surgery in the patient group (p < 0.001). A comparison of VEGF and endocan levels according to TNM staging and tumor histopathology revealed no significant differences. Conclusion: VEGF can serve as a potential biomarker for screening and prognostic assessment in early-stage NSCLC. In contrast, endocan did not demonstrate utility for such clinical purposes. VEGF may also be considered for the evaluation of treatment efficacy following surgical intervention.
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.