ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Prognostic value of emotional distress in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Emotional distress and clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a protocol for the prospective observational NeoFUSE-Lung cohort study.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the association between emotional distress (ED) and the efficacy of anti-tumor therapies in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Eligible studies were cohort studies investigating the association between ED and treatment outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC receiving anti-tumor therapies. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4, R 4.2.3, and Stata 13.0. Results: Eight studies involving 911 patients were included, and the overall risk of bias was judged to be acceptable. Two studies involved treatment regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), another two focused solely on chemotherapy, while the remaining four included patients receiving various therapies involving chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or targeted therapy. Meta-analysis showed that ED was significantly associated with reduced overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.50-2.28), an increased risk of progression (HR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.22-2.66), and a lower objective response rate (ORR) (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.80). These associations were generally consistent across treatment subgroups, without significant interaction effects. Sensitivity analysis supported the stability of the OS results. Additionally, subgroup analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant differences by age or timing of ED assessment, although the direction of effects was consistent. The certainty of evidence was low for OS and ORR, and very low for PFS. Conclusions: ED is significantly associated with poorer prognosis in patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing active anti-tumor therapies, contributing to both reduced short-term efficacy and diminished long-term survival. Further research should focus on elucidating the underlying mechanisms and exploring effective strategies to improve clinical outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC and ED.
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.