ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
What affects adequate lymph node harvest in pulmonary resections?-assessment of compliance with a national quality standard.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) quality standard 5.8 for lung cancer lymph node sampling requires sampling of at least one hilar lymph node and three mediastinal lymph nodes. We hypothesized there may be multifactorial reasons for non-compliance, and in this study, we sought to determine these factors in order to identify targets for local interventions. Methods: We built a conceptual model for compliance with standard 5.8, considering tumor, patient, provider, and structural factors. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing pulmonary resection for lung cancer at a single tertiary care center from 2022 to 2023 who met criteria to be considered for the CoC Standard 5.8. Resections that met the standard were compared to those that did not. Results: Out of 210 resections, 80.5% (n=169) were compliant, meeting the minimal institutional threshold set by the CoC. Most non-compliant cases were due to missing mediastinal stations whereas a minority (n=8, 3.8%) lacked a sampled hilar node. There was wide surgeon variability with compliance: 93%, 87.5%, and 70.9% (P=0.002). Resections done for adenocarcinoma were more likely to be compliant than other histology (86% for adenocarcinoma versus 75% for carcinoid and squamous; P=0.02). The overall number of lymph nodes sampled correlated with compliance (13.0±6.6 in non-compliant cases versus 17.5±9.6 in compliant cases; P<0.001). The following examined variables were not associated with compliance: previous autoimmune disorder, fungus/environmental exposure, previous cancers, clinical node status, calcified lymph nodes on imaging, pre-operative radiation to the chest/mediastinum, pre-operative chemotherapy, and pre-operative immunotherapy. Conclusions: In our single center, we found non-adenocarcinoma histology, overall fewer nodes sampled, and surgeon variability were associated with non-compliance with the quality standard. A multi-center study is needed to assess structural factors that may contribute to non-compliance.
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.