ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Prognostic comparison of ablation and laser excision in a population-based cohort of stage III-IV pulmonary malignant tumors.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAblation (AL) and laser excision (LE) have shown broad application prospects in treating pulmonary malignant tumor (PMT). This study is the first to directly explore the differences in outcomes between AL and LE in treating patients with PMT at III–IV stages.
methodsThe study included 157 PMT patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the impact of clinical feature imbalances on confounding factors between the AL and LE groups. Kaplan-Meier curves, cumulative incidence function, univariable Cox regression analysis, and multivariable Cox regression analysis were used to explore prognostic factors for overall survival (OS)/cancer-specific survival (CSS).
resultsBefore PSM, a trend was observed indicating poorer OS, crude CSS, and net CSS in the AL group compared to the LE group (p = 0.019–0.071). After PSM, the LE group demonstrated significantly longer OS (median: 18.00 months) than the AL group (median: 13.00 months; p = 0.048). Similarly, crude CSS (p = 0.017) and net CSS (p = 0.028) were superior in the LE group. In the post-PSM multivariable analysis, LE remained associated with improved OS (adjusted HR = 0.52 [95% CI 0.32–0.86]; p = 0.011). The findings were robust across multiple sensitivity analyses: the change-in-estimate analysis showed ≤ 6.3% variation in the treatment HR upon omission of any single covariate; a 60-day landmark analysis yielded a consistent HR (0.56 [95% CI 0.34–0.93]; p = 0.025); and, in the full cohort, IPTW and propensity-score stratification produced comparable HRs (0.63 [95% CI 0.39–1.02], p = 0.060; and 0.53 [95% CI 0.32–0.89], p = 0.016). Stage IV remained an independent predictor of worse OS compared to stage III (HR = 3.35 [95% CI 1.99–5.65]; p < 0.001).
conclusionLE may offer a better prognosis than AL in treating patients with advanced-stage PMTs.
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.