Prognostic value of spread through air spaces in operated lung squamous cell carcinoma patients: A meta-analysis
Rattachement africain : cn. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: The presence of spread through air spaces (STAS) predicts poor long-term survival of lung cancer patients. However, the association between STAS and prognosis of operated lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) remains unclear at this time. The aim of this meta-analysis was to further identify the prognostic value of STAS in surgical LSCC patients. METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched up to April 12, 2025 for relevant studies. The primary and secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival/cancer-specific survival, respectively. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined and all statistical analyses were conducted by STATA 15.0 software. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies involving 2884 cases were included and reviewed. The pooled results demonstrated that the presence of STAS was significantly associated with poor progression-free survival (HR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.57-2.16, P< .001). Besides, STAS predicted poorer overall survival (HR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.23-2.51, P = .002) and cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.33-2.26, P < .001) in surgical LSCC. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, STAS was identified as a novel and valuable prognostic risk factor for operated LSCC patients. However, more prospective high-quality studies are still needed to verify above findings.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Prognostic value of spread through air spaces in operated lung squamous cell carcinoma patients: A meta-analysis
- Date Crossref
- 20/06/2025
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.