Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25973222›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2015

External validation of a prediction model for pathologic N2 among patients with a negative mediastinum by positron emission tomography.

Farhood Farjah, Leah M Backhus, Thomas K Varghese, James P Manning, Aaron M Cheng, Michael S Mulligan, Douglas E Wood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Prediction Model to Help with the Assessment of Adenopathy in Lung Cancer: HAL.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
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

7 authors.

Farhood Farjah1 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Leah M Backhus1 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Thomas K Varghese1 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
James P Manning1 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Aaron M Cheng1 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Michael S Mulligan1 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Douglas E Wood1 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.

Funding

CRN4: Cancer Research Resources & Collaboration in Integrated Health Care SystemsU24CA171524 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI KUSHI, LAWRENCE H · 2012 to 2016
$16.0M
NCI NIH HHS U24 CA171524
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA prediction model for pathologic N2 (pN2) among lung cancer patients with a negative mediastinum by positron emission tomography (PET) was recently internally validated. Our study sought to determine the external validity of that model.

methodsA cohort study [2005-2013] was performed of lung cancer patients with a negative mediastinum by PET. Previously published model coefficients were used to estimate the probability of pN2 based on tumor location and size, nodal enlargement by computed tomography (CT), maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the primary tumor, N1 disease by PET, and pretreatment histology.

resultsAmong 239 patients, 18 had pN2 [7.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.5-12%]. Model discrimination was excellent (c-statistic 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75-0.85) and the model fit the data well (P=0.191). The accuracy of the model was as follows: sensitivity 100%, 95% CI: 81-100%; specificity 49%, 95% CI: 42-56%; positive predictive value (PPV) 14%, 95% CI: 8-21%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 100%, 95% CI: 97-100%. CI inspection revealed a significantly higher c-statistic in this external validation cohort compared to the internal validation cohort. The model's apparently poor specificity for patient selection is in fact significantly better than usual care (i.e., aggressive but allowable guideline concordant staging) and minimum guideline mandated selection criteria for invasive staging.

conclusionsA prediction model for pN2 is externally valid. The high NPV of this model may allow pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons to more comfortably minimize the number of invasive procedures performed among patients with a negative mediastinum by PET.

Indexed as

Lung neoplasmsmediastinumneoplasm stagingpositron emission tomography (PET)

Identifiers

PMID25973222
PMCPMC4419324

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.