Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36263628›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of oncology2022

Exploring histopathological and serum biomarkers in lung adenocarcinoma: Clinical applications and translational opportunities (Review).

Miguel A Ortega, Fátima Navarro, Leonel Pekarek, Oscar Fraile-Martínez, Cielo García-Montero, Miguel A Saez, Monica Arroyo, Jorge Monserrat, Melchor Alvarez-Mon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Advances in combined neuroendocrine carcinoma of lung cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Miguel A OrtegaDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.
Fátima NavarroDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.
Leonel PekarekDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.
Oscar Fraile-MartínezDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.
Cielo García-MonteroDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.
Miguel A SaezDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.
Monica ArroyoDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.
Jorge MonserratDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.
Melchor Alvarez-MonDepartment of Medicine and Medical Specialties, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Alcala, Alcala de Henares, 28801 Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer represents one of the most common neoplasms and the main cause of cancer‑associated death worldwide. Its relationship with different risk factors such as tobacco, which is its main etiological factor, has been clearly established and despite the numerous advances achieved in the diagnosis, treatment and follow‑up of these patients, the life expectancy of these patients is notably limited. Furthermore, its treatment is not exempt from comorbidities and frequently it neither provides optimal control of the disease nor improve the quality of life of these patients. Despite the possibility of performing screening tests in patients at risk, their implementation in daily clinical practice is complex and most of them are diagnosed at an advanced stage of their disease where systemic radiotherapy or chemotherapy treatments slightly improve their prognosis. Lung adenocarcinoma is the most representative type of lung cancer, with specific epidemiological, molecular and clinical features. Thus, a growing number of studies are being conducted to find potential therapeutic targets based on the study of different molecular pathways, improving the outcome for these patients. In addition, a broad spectrum of serological, immunohistochemical and genetic markers are being evaluated for use in the screening and follow‑up of these patients in daily clinical practice, but unlike for other tumors, they are currently not implemented in the early diagnosis of the disease. Therefore, the aim of the present review was to summarize the main advances that have occurred in the development of serological and histological markers and their therapeutic implications in patients diagnosed with lung adenocarcinoma, explaining the limitations that have been observed and analyzing the future perspectives in the clinical management of this disease.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma of LungLung NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorGenetic MarkersHumansPrognosisQuality of LifeBiomarkers, TumorGenetic Markerscirculating tumor cellshistological markerslung adenocarcinomamicroRNAserological markers

Identifiers

PMID36263628
PMCPMC9635864

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.