ArticleCancer medicine2026
Application of Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in the Diagnosis of Pneumonia in Patients With Cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. 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.
- Rapid, season-specific PCR testing versus traditional diagnostics for pneumonia in the emergency department.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the development of new sequencing technologies, metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) has become a diagnostic tool for respiratory tract infections. Patients with cancer may develop pneumonia caused by infections or antitumor therapy. Therefore, pneumonia in patients with cancer is more complex than that in healthy individuals. Currently, few reports are available on the use of mNGS for diagnosing pneumonia in patients with cancer.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 14 patients with cancer diagnosed with pneumonia in March 2023 were enrolled from the Emergency Department of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Cancer Hospital. Sputum samples from the patients were examined using conventional tests and mNGS to identify pathogens. The mNGS and conventional test results were compared to assess the diagnostic yield in patients with cancer.
resultsThe overall pathogen detection rate of mNGS was 64.29% (9/14), with corresponding diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, false-negative rate and false-positive rate of 90.00%, 25.00%, 10.00% and 75.00%, respectively. Among 13 paired sputum specimens, mNGS exhibited a numerically higher pathogen detection rate (61.54%, 8/13) than conventional diagnostic assays (38.46%, 5/13). McNemar's paired chi-square test demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the two detection methods (p = 0.37), and Kappa concordance analysis generated a coefficient of 0.27 (p = 0.23), suggesting poor inter-method consistency. Compared with conventional tests, mNGS detected additional pathogens in 8 specimens and identified a greater number of pathogens in 9/14 (64%) samples. Moreover, mNGS results led to diagnostic revisions and subsequent antimicrobial therapy adjustments in 64% (9/14) of enrolled patients. Additionally, mNGS detected antibiotic resistance genes in five patients, which provided guidance for antibiotic selection.
conclusionsMetagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) showed potential value in pathogen detection, as it appeared to identify pathogens more rapidly and comprehensively than conventional methods. It may provide auxiliary support for the diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia in this vulnerable population.
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.