ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2026
A predictive model for fusion gene positivity in treatment-naive advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 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
Background: Fusion gene-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents a distinct molecular subtype with unique clinical and biological features. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) is the gold standard for detecting ALK, ROS1, and RET fusions, it is costly, time-consuming, and occasionally limited by insufficient tissue samples. Therefore, a simple bedside predictive tool is urgently needed to identify patients likely to harbor fusion genes and prioritize testing. This study aims to establish a predictive model for fusion gene positivity and scoring system for fusion genes, assisting clinicians in early identification of patients likely to harbor fusion genes before rapid disease progression occurs, thereby preventing patients from missing optimal treatment opportunities due to rapid disease deterioration. The scoring system can also help prioritize fusion gene testing when tissue samples are insufficient. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 448 NSCLC patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University between June 2015 and October 2024, meeting the study's inclusion criteria. These patients were categorized into the fusion gene-positive group (130 cases) and the driver-negative group (318 cases). Baseline data between the two groups were compared to identify factors potentially associated with fusion gene-positive. Univariate logistic regression analysis was utilized for screening these factors, which were then included in a multivariate analysis to construct a predictive model for fusion gene-positive. The model's discrimination and calibration were subsequently assessed. Each factor was assigned scores based on the regression coefficient β value in the model, leading to the transformation of the model into a scoring system. Results: Analysis shows that specific factors independently associated with fusion gene positivity include age, history of thrombosis, carbohydrate antigen 153 (CA153) levels, and vertebral body metastasis. Utilizing these four indicators, we developed a predictive scoring system that effectively evaluates the likelihood of patients testing positive for fusion genes [area under the curve (AUC) =0.797]. Conclusions: The novel scoring model can assess the positivity of the fusion gene. Our research indicates that this score incorporates age, the presence or absence of thrombosis, CA153 levels, and the presence or absence of vertebral metastasis.
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.