ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Three-dimensional anatomical reconstruction as a guideline-anchored framework for choosing between lung-sparing resection and image-guided ablation in deep subsolid pulmonary nodules: a thoracic surgeon's perspective.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
Low-dose computed tomography screening has markedly increased the detection of small, deeply located subsolid pulmonary nodules, and local therapy for these lesions now encompasses anatomical segmentectomy, tailored sublobar resection, lobectomy, and image-guided thermal ablation. Although multidisciplinary pathways already inform modality selection, three-dimensional (3D) anatomical reconstruction - despite its established role in segmentectomy planning - is rarely used as a shared patient-specific dataset to guide both resection and ablation decisions. In this perspective, a thoracic surgeon argues that, for a deep or cross-segment subsolid nodule with an established indication for local therapy, a single patient-specific 3D dataset can inform both branches of the decision. The same volumetric anatomy - including nodule size and consolidation-to-tumor ratio, segmental boundaries, bronchovascular relationships, pleura, and the chest wall - is first used to determine whether adequate-margin lung-sparing resection is achievable and, if it is not, to assess whether ablation is anatomically feasible through three sequential filters: trajectory safety, perilesional structural risk, and predicted ablative coverage. The approach is illustrated with a representative case and discussed in the contexts of multifocal disease, the post-resection lung, and perivascular lesions, together with the trade-offs associated with forgoing nodal staging and tissue diagnosis. The framework does not expand indications beyond those already supported by guidelines. Rather, it operationalizes these recommendations through patient-specific anatomy, with the aim of making modality selection more transparent, reproducible, and auditable. It remains an unvalidated, single-center proposal that requires prospective evaluation.
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.