Observational studyBMC cancer2026
Stage-dependent prognostic value of clinical and pathological T staging in resected lung adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study.
Observational study in BMC cancer, 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
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative CT-based clinical T staging guides surgical planning in lung adenocarcinoma, whereas pathological T staging remains the postoperative reference standard. Prior studies have demonstrated discordance between clinical and pathological TNM staging in lung cancer, but stage-specific T-stage migration, comparative prognostic value, and implications for surgical decision thresholds in lung adenocarcinoma remain insufficiently defined.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter cohort study included 10,767 patients with surgically resected invasive lung adenocarcinoma. Clinical tumor size and T stage were obtained from official preoperative CT reports using the maximum reported tumor diameter, whereas pathological tumor size and T stage were obtained from final surgical pathology reports. Concordance, stage migration, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) performance were assessed across T categories. Survival analyses were performed in 6,279 patients with follow-up data, and C-index was used to compare the prognostic discrimination of clinical versus pathological tumor size.
resultsCT-based tumor size exceeded pathological measurement on average (mean, 1.83 cm vs. 1.51 cm), with downstaging predominating across cT1c-T3 tumors. Clinical-pathological T-stage agreement followed a stage-dependent pattern, with concordance highest at the extremes (T1a, T4) and lowest at intermediate stages, a finding supported by ROC analysis. Both clinical and pathological T staging stratified disease-free and overall survival. C-index analysis suggested a modest stage-dependent crossover in prognostic discrimination: clinical tumor size showed better discrimination in early-stage disease (cT1a-T1b), whereas pathological tumor size performed better in advanced stages (T3-T4).
conclusionsClinical and pathological T staging provide complementary, context-dependent information across the disease spectrum. Clinical staging showed higher concordance with pathological staging and slightly better prognostic discrimination in early-stage tumors (T1a-T1b), whereas pathological staging offered stronger discrimination in advanced disease. These findings refine the interpretation of T staging in resected invasive lung adenocarcinoma by emphasizing measurement source, disease-stage context, and uncertainty around operative decision thresholds.
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.