ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Radiofrequency identification-guided localization enables sublobar resection for small and early-stage lung cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRecent trials have expanded the role of sublobar resection for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer; however, accurate intraoperative localization remains challenging for small, ground-glass-dominant, or deeply located lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of a radiofrequency identification (RFID) marking system on recurrence outcomes following sublobar resection.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 297 patients with clinical N0 primary lung cancer who underwent sublobar resection (partial resection, n = 160; segmentectomy, n = 137). Patients were categorized according to RFID use. Clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical outcomes, and recurrence patterns were compared between groups. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS).
resultsIn the partial resection cohort, the RFID group showed a lower recurrence rate than the non-RFID group (3.4 vs. 22.2%, P < 0.001) with no local recurrences observed. However, after excluding adenocarcinoma in situ and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma to reduce selection bias, differences in recurrence were no longer significant. In the segmentectomy cohort, recurrence rates were comparable between groups (0 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.288), and no local recurrences occurred in the RFID group. On multivariable Cox analysis, consolidation-to-tumor ratio was the strongest predictor of RFS, whereas RFID use was not independently associated with improved RFS.
conclusionsRFID marking was preferentially applied to small, ground-glass-dominant, and deeply located tumors, enabling sublobar resection for lesions that are difficult to localize intraoperatively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42301448What 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.