ArticleLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2015
Validation of survival prognostic models for non-small-cell lung cancer in stage- and age-specific groups.
Article in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Decision support systems for incurable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Pooled it
- Lightweight hybrid foundation model for lung cancer prognosis based on low-dose chest X-ray images.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Preclinical Metrics Correlate With Drug Activity in Phase II Trials of Targeted Therapies for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Lung cancer prognostic index: a risk score to predict overall survival after the diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePrognostic models have been proposed to predict survival for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). It is important to evaluate whether these models perform better than performance status (PS) alone in stage- and age-specific subgroups. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe validation cohort included 2060 stage I and 1611 stage IV NSCLC patients from 23CALGB studies. For stage I, Blanchon (B), Chansky (C) and Gail (G) models were evaluated along with the PS only model. For stage IV, Blanchon (B) and Mandrekar (M) models were compared with the PS only model. The c-index was used to assess the concordance between survival and risk scores. The c-index difference (c-difference) and the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were used to determine the improvement of these models over the PS only model.
resultsFor stage I, B and PS have better survival separation. The c-index for B, PS, C and G are 0.61, 0.58, 0.57 and 0.52, respectively, and B performs significantly better than PS with c-difference=0.034. For stage IV, B, M and PS have c-index 0.61, 0.64 and 0.60, respectively; B and M perform significantly better than PS with c-difference=0.015 and 0.033, respectively.
conclusionAlthough some prognostic models have better concordance with survival than the PS only model, the absolute improvement is small. More accurate prognostic models should be developed; the inclusion of tumor genetic variants may improve prognostic models.
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.