ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2011
Clinical presentation of carcinoma of unknown primary: 14 years of experience.
Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adenocarcinoma of unknown primary presenting with congestive heart failure in a middle-aged Ethiopian woman: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is a histologically confirmed metastatic cancer without a definitive primary site after performing a detailed medical examination. The purpose of the study was to classify unfavorable CUPs into more reliable disease entities, which reflect the clinical course. We reviewed the medical records of patients diagnosed with a CUP between January 1995 and March 2008. Patients were classified into a conventional favorable-risk group and a newly proposed unfavorable-risk group according to the clinicopathologic features. Five hundred eighty-six patients were diagnosed with CUPs. Fifty-six (9.6%) patients were classified in the conventional favorable-risk group, and 486 (82.9%) patients were classified in the unfavorable-risk group. We further classified the 486 patients into six subgroups with an unfavorable risk, while excluding 29 patients (5.0%) who were not classifiable. The overall survival of the conventional favorable-risk group was 47.0 months (95% CI, 11.1~82.9 months), which was significantly longer than that of any subgroup of the newly proposed unfavorable-risk group (P < 0.001). Patients with squamous cell carcinoma in the abdominopelvic cavity showed similar overall survival with unfavorable-risk group (P = 0.484). Women with non-papillary malignant ascites had a survival in between the favorable and unfavorable groups (P < 0.001). The newly proposed unfavorable-risk group may assist in classifying CUP patients with an unfavorable risk in a clinically more meaningful way. Squamous cell carcinoma in the abdominopelvic cavity should be considered in the unfavorable-risk group and women with non-papillary malignant ascites in an intermediate-risk group. Further studies with molecular profiling would help in classifying and treating patients with CUPs and an unfavorable risk.
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.