Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26912060›Full record

ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2016

Prognostic value of three different lymph node staging systems in the survival of patients with gastric cancer following D2 lymphadenectomy.

Chen Jian-Hui, Cai Shi-Rong, Wu Hui, Chen Si-le, Xu Jian-Bo, Zhai Er-Tao, Chen Chuang-Qi, He Yu-Long

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Chen Jian-HuiDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Cai Shi-RongDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Wu HuiDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Chen Si-leDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Xu Jian-BoDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Zhai Er-TaoDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
Chen Chuang-QiDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China.
He Yu-LongDivision of Gastrointestinal Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510080, China. YLH@medmail.com.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) was defined as the log of the ratio between the number of positive lymph nodes and the number of negative lymph nodes, which is a novel and promising nodal staging system for gastric cancer. Here, we aimed to compare the prognostic effect of pN, lymph node ratio (LNR) and LODDS. The association between overall survival and pN, LNR and LODDS was retrospectively analysed. The discriminatory ability and monotonicity of gradients (linear trend χ (2) score), homogeneity ability (likelihood ratio test) and prognostic stratification ability (Akaike information criterion [AIC] and receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve) were compared among three lymph node staging systems. The pN, LNR and LODDS were all identified as independent prognostic factors for gastric cancer patients in the multivariate analysis. LODDS showed the best prognostic performance (linear trend χ (2) score 266.743, likelihood ratio χ (2) test score 427.771, AIC value 5670.226, area under the curve (AUC) 0.793), followed by LNR and pN. In patients with different levels of retrieved lymph nodes (≤10, 11-14, 15-25 and >25), LODDS was the most powerful for prognostic prediction and discrimination of the heterogeneity among the subgroups. Significant differences in survival were observed among patients in different LODDS subgroups after being classified according to the pN and LNR classifications. LODDS appears to be a more powerful system for predicting the overall survival of gastric cancer patients, as compared to LNR and pN, and may serve as an alternative nodal staging system for gastric cancer.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsGastric cancerLog odds of positive lymph nodesLymph node ratioNodal systemPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID26912060
PMCPMC4999458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.