ArticleScientific reports2016
Prognostic risk model development and prospective validation among patients with cervical cancer stage IB2 to IIB submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- An 8-gene DNA methylation signature predicts the recurrence risk of cervical cancer.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- An 8‑gene signature predicts the prognosis of cervical cancer following radiotherapy.Molecular medicine reports · 2019Article
- Analysis of microRNA expression profiles reveals a 5‑microRNA prognostic signature for predicting overall survival time in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.Oncology reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was designed to develop a risk model for disease recurrence among cervical cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery. Data for 853 patients were obtained from a retrospective study and used to train the model, and then data for 447 patients from a prospective cohort study were employed to validate the model. The Cox regression model was used for calculating the coefficients of the risk factors. According to risk scores, patients were classified into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups. There were 49 (49/144, 34%) recurrences observed in the high-risk group (with a risk score ≥ 2.65), compared with 3 (3/142, 2%) recurrences in the low-risk group (with a risk score < 0.90). Disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly different (log-rank p < 0.001) among the three risk groups; the risk model also revealed a significant increase in the accuracy of predicting 5-year DFS with the area under the ROC curve (AUC = 0.754 for risk model vs 0.679 for FIGO stage system); the risk model was also validated with data from the prospective study (log-rank p < 0.001, AUC = 0.766). Both high-risk and intermediate-risk patients can be more effectively identified by this risk model.
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.