ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2022
Prognostic analysis and clinical characteristics of dual primary lung cancer: a population study based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- CD4Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Clinical features and prognostic nomogram development for cancer-specific death in patients with dual primary lung cancer: a population-based study from SEER database.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of 5-year survival in elderly NSCLC patients using oxidative stress markers.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Multiple factors affecting perioperative antibiotherapy in minimally invasive lung surgery: a retrospective case-control study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Editorial on "robotic versus thoracoscopic combined anatomic subsegmentectomy for early stage lung cancer: early results of a cohort study".Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe peculiarity and the lack of clinical studies of dual primary lung cancer (DPLC) led to limited knowledge about its clinical characteristics and prognosis. This study performed a retrospective analysis to assess the prognostic factors and clinical characteristics of DPLC.
methodsA total of 1419 DPLC patients from SEER were analyzed by univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses. The independent prognostic factors were included to establish a nomogram. The accuracy and reliability of prognostic model were evaluated by C indexes, calibration plots, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analyses (DCA) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) scores. Chi-square test was used to assess the differences between DPLC and single primary lung cancer (SPLC) or synchronous DPLC (sDPLC) and metachronous DPLC (mDPLC).
resultsCox regression analysis showed that age, sex, histological type, stage, lymph node (LN) metastasis, surgery, chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors, we included these factors to establish a nomogram. In the training cohort, the C index was 0.690, and the area under curves (AUC) of 3 and 5-year survival time were 0.720 and 0.723. The calibration plots in training cohort and validation cohort were in excellent agreement. DCA and IDI showed that the predictive effect of the novel prognostic model was better than the model based on 8th AJCC TNM system. Chi-square test indicated that DPLC and SPLC had statistical differences on pathological and clinical features.
conclusionsThe clinical and pathological characteristics of DPLC were different from the SPLC. The nomogram could provide accurate and individualized survival predictions for DPLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.