ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2006
Proposal of a scoring scale as a survival predictor in intracranial oligodendrogliomas.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health-related quality of life and cognitive functioning in long-term anaplastic oligodendroglioma and oligoastrocytoma survivors.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2014Article
- Factors affecting prognosis of patients with intracranial anaplastic oligodendrogliomas: a single institutional review of 70 patients.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHistological, clinical and radiological features, and molecular genetic analysis are among the factors that have been considered in defining the prognosis of oligodendrogliomas (OD), but they have yielded conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to test out a scoring scale based on clinical, radiological, pathological and molecular features. MATERIAL AND
methodTo identify factors with prognostic significance, we analyzed 87 treated patients with a histological diagnosis of OD. Of the parameters analyzed, age, onset, clinical status, radiological enhancement, histological necrosis, mitosis and chromosomal anomalies emerged as significant prognosis factors using univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis revealed age and chromosomal anomalies as independent factors of survival.
resultsThe factors with a significant prognostic value were combined to determine which grouping factors best predict outcome. The proposed score is a pure number resulting from a combination of: 2 major factors: age and chromosomal anomalies (scored 3-0); 5 minor factors: onset, clinical examination, necrosis, mitoses (scored 1-0), and radiological enhancement (scored 2-0). According to our scale, 10 survival curves were produced for overall survival. Recursive partitioning of patients with the nearest score and outcome produced four groups with a significant difference in survival (p=10(-5)). The power of both the scale and the partitioned groups for predicting outcome was more accurate than the WHO and St Anne grading systems, and the molecular sub-classification.
conclusionsOur scale is a plausible way of classifying patients harboring intracranial OD according to expected survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.