Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28042955›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2017

A novel nomogram based on LODDS to predict the prognosis of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Xue-Lian Xu, Hao Cheng, Meng-Si Tang, Hai-Liang Zhang, Rui-Yan Wu, Yan Yu, Xuan Li, Xiu-Min Wang, Jia Mai, Chen-Lu Yang and 6 more

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A prognostic system for epithelial ovarian carcinomas using machine learning.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

16 authors.

Xue-Lian XuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Hao ChengThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Meng-Si TangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Hai-Liang ZhangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Rui-Yan WuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Yan YuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Xuan LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Xiu-Min WangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Jia MaiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Chen-Lu YangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Lin JiaoState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Zhi-Ling LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Zhen-Mei ZhongState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Rong DengState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Jun-Dong LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Xiao-Feng ZhuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510060, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo develop and validate a nomogram based on log of odds between the number of positive lymph node and the number of negative lymph node (LODDS) in predicting the overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 10,692 post-operative EOC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and randomly divided into training (n = 7,021) and validation (n = 3,671) cohorts. Multiple clinical pathological parameters were assessed and compared with outcomes. Parameters significantly correlating with outcomes were used to build a nomogram. Bootstrap validation was subsequently used to assess the predictive value of the model.

resultsIn the training set, age at diagnosis, race, marital status, tumor location, stage, grade and LODDS were correlated significantly with outcome in both the univariate and multivariate analyses and were used to develop a nomogram. The nomogram demonstrated good accuracy in predicting OS and CSS, with a bootstrap-corrected concordance index of 0.757 (95% CI, 0.746-0.768) for OS and 0.770 (95% CI, 0.759-0.782) for CSS. Notably, in this population our model performed favorably compared to the currently utilized Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) model, with concordance indices of 0.699 (95% CI, 0.688-0.710, P < 0.05) and 0.719 (95% CI, 0.709- 0.730, P < 0.05) for OS and CSS, respectively. Using our nomogram in the validation cohort, the C-indices were 0.757 (95% CI, 0.741-0.773, P < 0.05, compared to FIGO) for OS and 0.762 (95% CI, 0.746-0.779, P < 0.05, compared to FIGO) for CSS.

conclusionsLODDS works as an independent prognostic factor for predicting survival in patients with EOC regardless of the tumor stage. By incorporating LODDS, our nomogram may be superior to the currently utilized FIGO staging system in predicting OS and CSS among post-operative EOC patients.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesNomogramsAgedArea Under CurveCarcinoma, Ovarian EpithelialFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialNeoplasm StagingOdds RatioOvarian Neoplasmsepithelial ovarian cancerLODDSnomogramprognosisSEER

Identifiers

PMID28042955
PMCPMC5352387

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.