Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
BMC Pulmonary Medicine · October 24, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Lung adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) is a rare and aggressive subtype. This exploratory study aimed to evaluate the real-world clinical, pathological, and survival outcomes of patients with ASC receiving neoadjuvant therapy compared to adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC). We retrospectively screened 702 lung cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy between January 2018 and February 2025. Finally, 19 ASCs, 75 LUADs, and 208 LUSCs met the inclusion criteria. All LUAD/LUSC patients received neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NIC). ASC patients received chemotherapy ( n = 3), targeted therapy ( n = 3), or NIC ( n = 13). Pathological response, surgical safety, and survival (OS and PFS) were analyzed. ASC in NIC group exhibited a significantly higher residual tumor percentage compared to LUAD and LUSC ( P = 0.014). The Major Pathological Response (MPR) rate was markedly lower in ASC (23.1%) than in LUAD (50.7%) and LUSC (58.7%) ( P = 0.030). Crucially, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant differences in OS ( P = 0.907) or PFS ( P = 0.627) among the three histological groups. Within the ASC cohort, the recurrence rates for patients receiving NIC and NTC were only 7.7% (1/13) and 0.0% (0/3), compared to 66.7% (2/3) for those receiving chemotherapy alone. In this small exploratory cohort, NIC and NTC achieved superior pathological regression and systemic control over chemotherapy alone in ASC. Despite relative resistance to NIC versus LUAD/LUSC, survival was comparable. High‑quality R0 resection may offset suboptimal pathological responses. Collectively, these findings hint at a potential pathological‑survival paradox in ASC, warranting prospective validation.