ArticleOral oncology2016
Individualized risk prediction of outcomes for oral cavity cancer patients.
Article in Oral oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A New Personalized Oral Cancer Survival Calculator to Estimate Risk of Death From Both Oral Cancer and Other Causes.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2023Article
- Head and neck cancer predictive risk estimator to determine control and therapeutic outcomes of radiotherapy (HNC-PREDICTOR): development, international multi-institutional validation, and web implementation of clinic-ready model-based risk stratification for head and neck cancer.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2023Article
- Development and Assessment of a Model for Predicting Individualized Outcomes in Patients With Oropharyngeal Cancer.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Impact of extrinsic tongue muscle invasion on stage migration in AJCC 8th edition staging of oral cavity carcinoma.Oral oncology · 2020Article
- Development of a Machine Learning Model for Survival Risk Stratification of Patients With Advanced Oral Cancer.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Article
- Individualized prognostic calculators in the precision oncology era.Oncotarget · 2019Article
- Individualized survival prediction for patients with oropharyngeal cancer in the human papillomavirus era.Cancer · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOptimal management of oral cancer relies upon accurate and individualized risk prediction of relevant clinical outcomes. Individualized prognostic calculators have been developed to guide patient-physician communication and treatment-related decision-making. However it is critical to scrutinize their accuracy prior to integrating into clinical care.
aimTo compare and evaluate oral cavity cancer prognostic calculators using an independent dataset.
methodsFive prognostic calculators incorporating patient and tumor characteristics were identified that evaluated five-year overall survival. A total of 505 patients with previously untreated oral cancer diagnosed between 2003 and 2014 were analyzed. Calculators were applied to each patient to generate individual predicted survival probabilities. Predictions were compared among prognostic tools and with observed outcomes using Kaplan-Meier plots, ROC curves and calibration plots.
resultsCorrelation between the five calculators varied from 0.59 to 0.86. There were considerable differences between individual predictions from pairs of calculators, with as many as 64% of patients having predictions that differed by more than 10%. Four of five calculators were well calibrated. For all calculators the predictions were associated with survival outcomes. The area under the ROC curve ranged from 0.65 to 0.71, with C-indices ranging from 0.63 to 0.67. An average of the 5 predictions had slightly better performance than any individual calculator.
conclusionFive prognostic calculators designed to predict individual outcomes of oral cancer differed significantly in their assessments of risk. Most were well calibrated and had modest discriminatory ability. Given the increasing importance of individualized risk prediction, more robust models are needed.
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.