Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26918038›Full record

ArticleJournal of Cancer2016

Development of a New Classification Method for Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma Based on Lymph Node Density and Standard Pathological Risk Factors: The ND Staging System.

Zai-Shang Li, Kai Yao, Peng Chen, Bin Wang, Qi-Wu Mi, Jie-Ping Chen, Yong-Hong Li, Chuang-Zhong Deng, Zhuo-Wei Liu, Zi-Ke Qin and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. What Is New in the Diagnosis and Management of Penile Cancer?Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2017
    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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Zai-Shang Li1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Kai Yao1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Peng Chen4. Department of Urology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumchi, P. R. China.
Bin Wang5. Department of Urology, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Qi-Wu Mi6. Department of Urology, Dong Guan People's Hospital, Guang Dong, P. R. China.
Jie-Ping Chen1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Yong-Hong Li1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Chuang-Zhong Deng1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Zhuo-Wei Liu1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Zi-Ke Qin1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Fang-Jian Zhou1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Hui Han1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Guangzhou, P. R. China; 3. Collaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, P. R. China.
Southern Medical University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNDongguan People’s Hospital · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNXinjiang Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectIn this study, we evaluated the role of lymph node density (LND) and validated whether LND increases the accuracy of survival prediction when combined with the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathological node (N) staging system for penile cancer (7(th) edition).

methodsA total of 270 Chinese penile cancer patients treated between March 1999 and October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. LND was analyzed as a trichotomous variable for the prediction of DSS in this cohort. We developed a new prediction model, which we refer to as the ND staging system, that is based on LND and pathological N staging. The predictive accuracy of this model was further assessed using the concordance index.

resultsLND was correlated with the laterality of lymph node metastasis, extranodal extension, pelvic lymph node metastases, and pathologic tumor (T) and N stages (P<0.05). In separate multivariate Cox regression models, the LND (hazard ratio [HR], 1.966, 95% confidence interval [CI], (1.112-3.473, P=0.020) yielded independent effects on the outcome. According to the LND classification, the 3-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rates for patients with LNDs <7.0%, 7.0 to 16.9%, and ≥17.0% were 90.9%, 66.5%, and 22.2%, respectively (P<7.0%; 7.0%-16.9% =0.006; P7.0-16.9%; ≥17.0% =0.001). The corresponding rates were 95.7%, 76.7%, and 28.1% for the ND1, ND2, and ND3 patients, respectively (PND1-ND2 =0.047; PND2-ND3 <0.001). The indexes indicated that the accuracy of the pathological ND category that incorporated LND was significantly increased.

conclusionLND was associated with some prognosticators and is thus a prognostic factor. The ND staging system that incorporates the LND better reflects the prognoses of penile cancer patients.

Indexed as

lymph node densitylymph node metastasispenile neoplasmprognosisstaging system

Identifiers

PMID26918038
PMCPMC4747879
OpenAlexW2291076377

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.