ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
The critical role of accurate neoplastic cell percentage (NCP) assessment: investigating targeted training strategies for pulmonary biopsy and cytology specimens.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in non-small cell lung cancer: transforming diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic evaluation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer diagnostics and therapeutics have widely changed, and in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), molecular analysis is crucial to identify actionable biomarkers. Targeted therapies specifically interfere with molecular mechanisms involved in tumor growth and proliferation to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life compared to conventional chemotherapy. However, suboptimal testing practices, including errors in neoplastic cell percentage (NCP) assessment, limit reliable downstream analyses, and therefore, hinder accurate targeted therapy decisions for NSCLC patients. This study conducted two assessment rounds in which participants evaluated cytology or biopsy cases to examine NCP assessment accuracy and molecular testing decisions among pathologists and non-pathologists. No evidence was found for changes in NCP assessment performance across rounds (OR = 1.996, 95% CI = [0.600;6.644], p = 0.260) and they were also not influenced by professional background (OR = 0.932, 95% CI = [0.611;1.421], p = 0.743). However, prior training in NCP assessment showed potential benefit for accurate NCP estimation. Additionally, incorrect NCP assessments were significantly linked to subsequent molecular testing decision errors (OR = 2.327, 95% CI = [1.286;4.212], p = 0.005), and the inter-observer agreement for cytology cases was poor with higher error rates for cytology cases compared to biopsy cases (OR = 2.389, 95% CI = [0.967;5.906], p = 0.059). In conclusion, a continuing need for training focusing on harmonization of NCP assessment and molecular testing decision-making remains. Ultimately, such assessment improvements will enhance accuracy of downstream precision medicine for NSCLC patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42101621What 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.