ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
The role of growth heterogeneity in solid nodular non-small cell lung cancer in clinical practice: a narrative review.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer related mortality worldwide, and early detection and precise stratified management are crucial for improving patient outcomes. Tumor growth kinetics, as a characterization of its proliferation and malignant differentiation, is a key decision-making factor and research hotspot in clinical practice today. This study aimed to elucidate the growth kinetics of solid nodular non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as a critical determinant of early diagnosis, prognostic evaluation, and treatment strategy selection, and to address the challenge that significant heterogeneity in tumor growth poses to risk stratification and clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a retrospective search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, focusing on the current research status of solid nodular NSCLC, particularly in terms of molecular mechanisms, prognosis, modeling prediction, and management strategies related to its growth heterogeneity, with the aim of exploring future research directions. Key Content and Findings: Volume doubling time (VDT) serves as a key metric for evaluating nodule dynamics. While earlier studies suggested a generally rapid growth pattern (VDT <400 days) in solid nodular NSCLC, recent evidence reveals considerable heterogeneity, with some tumors demonstrating indolent growth pattern (VDT >40-600 days). The prognosis of rapidly growing nodules is usually poor, so nodule management recommendations should be personalized based on growth dynamics and patient characteristics. Traditional radiological features, and deep learning models show promise for growth risk stratification but require large-scale external validation and refinement. Molecular and pathological studies suggest that the tumor microenvironment and immune cell infiltration may contribute to growth heterogeneity, though direct mechanistic evidence remains limited. Artificial intelligence (AI) based approaches exhibit significant potential in predicting individual tumor growth behavior. Conclusions: Growth heterogeneity in solid nodular NSCLC carries substantial clinical significance but remains insufficiently studied. Future research should prioritize imaging based modeling to predict individualized growth dynamics. Integrating multi-omics analyses may help elucidate the molecular factors underlying growth heterogeneity. AI driven risk stratification based on large-scale multi center sequence data can achieve truly personalized and growth oriented management strategies.
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.