ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2015
Prognostic value of age in neurological cancer: an analysis of 22,393 cases from the SEER database.
Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2015. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pre-diagnostic risk factors for brain cancer incidence and survival: insights from the Golestan Cohort Study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- A new instrument for estimation of survival in elderly patients irradiated for metastatic spinal cord compression from breast cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Article
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
Although the risk of neurological cancer (NC) is age-dependent, few studies have evaluated the prognostic value of age in determining NC survival in a large population. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the long-term survival of young and elderly NC patients. We searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results database and identified 22,393 patients who were diagnosed with NC between 1988 and 2003 and were treated with surgery. Patients were categorized as young (≤40 years old) or elderly (>40 years old), and 5-year NC-specific survival (NCSS) data were obtained for each patient. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the Cox proportional hazards model were used to analyze long-term survival outcomes and risk factors. The two groups differed significantly in terms of pathological grade, histological type, stage, and tumor size (P < 0.001). A difference in 5-year NCSS rates (63.8 and 19.0% in young and elderly patients, respectively) was detected by uni- and multivariate analyses. A stratified analysis of age on cancer survival revealed significant differences at T1-T4 stages. Age has prognostic value for determining NC risk. NCSS is higher in young than in elderly NC patients.
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.