2023
Comparative genomics between matched solid and lepidic portions of semi-solid lung adenocarcinomas
Woodard G, Ding V, Cho C, Brand N, Kratz J, Jones K, Jablons D. Comparative genomics between matched solid and lepidic portions of semi-solid lung adenocarcinomas. Lung Cancer 2023, 180: 107211. PMID: 37121213, PMCID: PMC10900430, DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107211.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsInvasive portionDriver mutationsSolid adenocarcinomaLung cancer driver mutationsNext-generation sequencingWarrants further studyLobar resectionClinical characteristicsSurgical databaseAsian patientsInvasive cancerPoor prognosisLung cancerLung lesionsInvasive componentInvasive solid tumorsNormal lungLepidicStage IPromising biomarkerSolid tumorsCancer developmentSame time periodGenes SPP1Gene expression
2022
Thoracic CT follow-up after non-small-cell lung cancer resection
Woodard G, Boffa D, Blasberg J. Thoracic CT follow-up after non-small-cell lung cancer resection. The Lancet Oncology 2022, 23: e484. PMID: 36328013, DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00618-0.Commentaries, Editorials and Letters
2019
Incorporation of a Molecular Prognostic Classifier Improves Conventional Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Staging
Kratz JR, Haro GJ, Cook NR, He J, Van Den Eeden SK, Woodard GA, Gubens MA, Jahan TM, Jones KD, Kim IJ, He B, Jablons DM, Mann MJ. Incorporation of a Molecular Prognostic Classifier Improves Conventional Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Staging. Journal Of Thoracic Oncology 2019, 14: 1223-1232. PMID: 30959120, DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2019.03.015.Peer-Reviewed Original Research
2016
Significance of different response evaluation criteria in predicting progression‐free survival of lung cancer with certain imaging characteristics
Yang D, Woodard G, Zhou C, Wang X, Liu Z, Ye Z, Li K. Significance of different response evaluation criteria in predicting progression‐free survival of lung cancer with certain imaging characteristics. Thoracic Cancer 2016, 7: 535-542. PMID: 27766777, PMCID: PMC5130210, DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.12363.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsProgression-free survivalResponse Evaluation CriteriaTumor cavitationPrognostic informationTreatment responseTumor responseTumor densitySignificant differencesPrediction of PFSRadiographic treatment responseAdditional prognostic informationUseful prognostic signCertain radiographic signsPrognostic signTumor diameterLung cancerShort-axis sizeRadiographic signsTumor assessmentPatientsSolid tumorsTumor changesRECIST1.1Imaging characteristicsPFS
2012
Laparoscopic vs Open Gastric Bypass Surgery: Differences in Patient Demographics, Safety, and Outcomes
Banka G, Woodard G, Hernandez-Boussard T, Morton JM. Laparoscopic vs Open Gastric Bypass Surgery: Differences in Patient Demographics, Safety, and Outcomes. JAMA Surgery 2012, 147: 550-556. PMID: 22786543, DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2012.195.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsLRYGB patientsGastric bypassMore complicationsOpen gastric bypass surgeryQuality Patient Safety IndicatorsRetrospective cohort studyGastric bypass surgeryHigh-volume hospitalsLonger median lengthNationwide Inpatient SamplePopulation-based studyLength of stayPatient safety indicatorsLower odds ratioHigher total chargesNumber of proceduresLRYGB cohortsNonroutine dispositionLaparoscopic RouxOpen RouxBypass surgeryPatient demographicsCohort studyComorbidity differencesMedian length