ArticlePloS one2017
No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival.
Article in PloS one, 2017. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum levels in patients with high risk resected melanoma treated in an adjuvant bevacizumab trial.British journal of cancer · 2018Trial
- Disease-Associated Risk Variants inCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Article
- Genetic polymorphisms may influence the vertical growth rate of melanoma.Journal of Cancer · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The prognostic improvement attributed to genetic markers over current prognostic system has not been well studied for melanoma. The goal of this study is to evaluate the added prognostic value of Vitamin D Pathway (VitD) SNPs to currently known clinical and demographic factors such as age, sex, Breslow thickness, mitosis and ulceration (CDF). We utilized two large independent well-characterized melanoma studies: the Genes, Environment, and Melanoma (GEM) and MD Anderson studies, and performed variable selection of VitD pathway SNPs and CDF using Random Survival Forest (RSF) method in addition to Cox proportional hazards models. The Harrell's C-index was used to compare the performance of model predictability. The population-based GEM study enrolled 3,578 incident cases of cutaneous melanoma (CM), and the hospital-based MD Anderson study consisted of 1,804 CM patients. Including both VitD SNPs and CDF yielded C-index of 0.85, which provided slight but not significant improvement by CDF alone (C-index = 0.83) in the GEM study. Similar results were observed in the independent MD Anderson study (C-index = 0.84 and 0.83, respectively). The Cox model identified no significant associations after adjusting for multiplicity. Our results do not support clinically significant prognostic improvements attributable to VitD pathway SNPs over current prognostic system for melanoma survival.
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.