Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25759535›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2015

Absolute monocyte and lymphocyte count prognostic score for patients with gastric cancer.

Wan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Kyu Yeoun Won, Sung Il Choi, Se Hyun Kim, Sung Wook Chun, Young Lim Oh, Tae Hwa Lee, Young Ok Kim and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wan Kyu EoWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Da Wun JeongWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Hye Jung ChangWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Kyu Yeoun WonWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Sung Il ChoiWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Se Hyun KimWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Sung Wook ChunWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Young Lim OhWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Tae Hwa LeeWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Young Ok KimWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Ki Hyung KimWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Yong Il JiWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Ari KimWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Heung Yeol KimWan Kyu Eo, Da Wun Jeong, Hye Jung Chang, Department of Hematology/Medical Oncology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul 134727, South Korea.
Wonkwang University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo measure the prognostic significance of absolute monocyte count/absolute lymphocyte count prognostic score (AMLPS) in patients with gastric cancer.

methodsWe retrospectively examined the combination of absolute monocyte count (AMC) and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) as prognostic variables in a cohort of 299 gastric cancer patients who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2013 and were followed at a single institution. Both AMC and ALC were dichotomized into two groups using cut-off points determined by receiving operator characteristic curve analysis. An AMLPS was generated, which stratified patients into three risk groups: low risk (both low AMC and high ALC), intermediate risk (either high AMC or low ALC), and high risk (both high AMC and low ALC). The primary objective of the study was to validate the impact of AMLPS on both disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), and the second objective was to assess the AMLPS as an independent prognostic factor for survival in comparison with known prognostic factors.

resultsUsing data from the entire cohort, the most discriminative cut-off values of AMC and ALC selected on the receiver operating characteristic curve were 672.4/μL and 1734/μL for DFS and OS. AMLPS risk groups included 158 (52.8%) patients in the low-risk, 128 (42.8%) in the intermediate-risk, and 13 (4.3%) in the high-risk group. With a median follow-up of 37.2 mo (range: 1.7-91.4 mo), five-year DFS rates in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 83.4%, 78.7%, and 19.8%, respectively. And five-year OS rates in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 89.3%, 81.1%, and 14.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis performed with patient- and tumor-related factors, we identified AMLPS, age, and pathologic tumor-node-metastasis stage as the most valuable prognostic factors impacting DFS and OS.

conclusionAMLPS identified patients with a poor DFS and OS, and it was independent of age, pathologic stage, and various inflammatory markers.

Indexed as

Leukocyte CountLymphocytesMonocytesAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGastrectomyHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProportional Hazards ModelsAbsolute lymphocyte countMonocytesStomach neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25759535
PMCPMC4351217
OpenAlexW2171431790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.