ArticleScientific reports2026
Characterization of bronchiectasis in lung cancer using German claims data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Bronchiectasis is a chronic pulmonary disease characterized by pathological bronchial enlargement due to various underlying etiologies, leading to symptoms such as chronic cough, sputum production, and recurrent respiratory infections. However, the impact of comorbid bronchiectasis on the clinical course of lung cancer remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the role of bronchiectasis as a comorbidity and complication in patients with lung cancer, specifically in relation to survival, the incidence of pneumonia and healthcare costs. In this retrospective analysis, we utilized claims data from 36,272 German lung cancer patients. Patients with and without comorbid bronchiectasis were matched using propensity score matching (1:1). The minimum follow-up period for all patients was three years. Survival differences were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the Log-Rank test. The occurrence of pneumonia was analyzed using absolute and relative frequencies and compared with a McNemar test for paired samples. To compare costs between the matched groups, we used means with standard deviation and paired t-tests. A total of 572 patients (1.6%) had bronchiectasis, of these, 63.6% were diagnosed prior to lung cancer (PRE bronchiectasis), while 36.4% received the diagnosis thereafter (POST bronchiectasis). No significant difference in survival was observed in the PRE cohort, while the risk for death was significantly higher in bronchiectasis patients in the POST cohort compared to controls (HR = 2.22; 95% CI 1.71-2.87; p < 0.001). Among patients undergoing systemic therapy or radiotherapy, patients with bronchiectasis developed pneumonia more often during follow-up, compared patients without bronchiectasis (PRE: 62.4% vs. 45.3%, p < 0.001; POST: 64.9% vs. 44.2%, p < 0.001). Total costs, as well as expenses for inpatient hospital treatment, doctor visits, and medications, were significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis. However, after adjusting for survival time, these differences were no longer significant. Pre-existing bronchiectasis does not appear to adversely affect survival in patients with lung cancer. In contrast, incident bronchiectasis developing during follow-up is associated with significantly worse outcomes. Clinically, patients with bronchiectasis should be monitored closely for infectious complications, particularly pneumonia.
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.