ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2026
Prognostic implications of dominant lesion misidentification in multiple primary lung cancer.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical resection remains the cornerstone of treatment for multiple primary lung cancer (MPLC). Given that the dominant lesion (DL) primarily determines the prognosis of patients with MPLC, accurate identification of the DL is crucial. This study aims to investigate the prognostic impact of preoperative misidentification of the DL on patients with MPLC. Methods: Patients with clinical stage I MPLC between January 2014 and December 2021 were retrospectively collected. The DL was preoperatively identified based on the mean diameter of lesions on computed tomography (CT) images, with postoperative confirmation via pathological examination results. Patients were categorized into the Inconsistent group (IG) if preoperative misidentification of the DL led to two scenarios: (I) a discrepancy between the actual surgical procedure performed and the optimal surgical approach retroactively determined based on postoperative assessment; or (II) prioritized resection of secondary lesions followed by staged resection of the DL. All remaining patients, in whom preoperative DL identification was consistent with postoperative confirmation and surgical procedures aligned with the DL-guided strategy, were assigned to the Consistent group (CG). Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to mitigate confounding effects from intergroup clinical characteristic variances. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were assessed, with prognostic factors evaluated using multivariate cox regression analysis. Results: From an initial cohort of 159 patients, 78 patients were selected through 1:2 PSM. All covariates demonstrated satisfactory balance between groups after matching, with no statistically significant differences observed. Five-year OS rates were 96.15% [95% confidence interval (CI): 91.7-98.3%] for IG and 98.08% (95% CI: 94.2-99.4%) for CG. Corresponding RFS rates were 62.86% (95% CI: 54.8-70.1%) and 91.54% (95% CI: 85.1-95.3%), respectively. Multivariable analysis identified inconsistent surgery [hazard ratio (HR) 5.341; 95% CI: 1.085-26.282; P=0.04] and receipt of postoperative adjuvant therapy (HR 5.613; 95% CI: 1.359-23.174; P=0.02) as independent risk factors of RFS. Conclusions: In patients with MPLC, preoperative misidentification of the DL may potentially affect prognosis due to the difference of surgical approach. Consequently, accurate preoperative identification of DLs is essential for optimizing surgical planning.
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.