Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28707462›Full record

Observational studyCancer research and treatment2018

Pretreatment Serum Amyloid A and C-reactive Protein Comparing with Epstein-Barr Virus DNA as Prognostic Indicators in Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Prospective Study.

Qiu-Yan Chen, Qing-Nan Tang, Lin-Quan Tang, Wen-Hui Chen, Shan-Shan Guo, Li-Ting Liu, Chao-Feng Li, Yang Li, Yu-Jing Liang, Xue-Song Sun and 11 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Cancer research and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03601390 (Combining Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Plasma EBV DNA to Evaluate the Hazard of Progression in the Follow-up of Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

NCT03601390 completednot on this map

Combining Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Plasma EBV DNA to Evaluate the Hazard of Progression in the Follow-up of Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

TypeobservationalSponsorSun Yat-sen UniversityRan2018 to 2020Enrolled387ConditionsNasopharyngeal CarcinomaArmsPET/CT and EBV DNA
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Inflammation and tumor microenvironment.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

21 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Qiu-Yan ChenSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Qing-Nan TangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Lin-Quan TangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Wen-Hui ChenDepartment of Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Shan-Shan GuoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Li-Ting LiuSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Chao-Feng LiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yang LiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yu-Jing LiangSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Xue-Song SunSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Ling GuoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Hao-Yuan MoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Rui SunSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Dong-Hua LuoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yu-Ying FanSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yan HeSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Ming-Yuan ChenSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Ka-Jia CaoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Chao-Nan QianSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Xiang GuoSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Hai-Qiang MaiSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South ChinaSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe measuring Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA is an important predictor of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). This study evaluated the predictive value of pretreatment serum amyloid A (SAA) and C-reactive protein (CRP) comparing with EBV DNA in patients with NPC. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn an observational study of 419 non-metastatic NPC patients, we prospectively evaluated the prognostic effects of pretreatment SAA, CRP, and EBV DNA on survival. The primary endpoint was progress-free survival (PFS).

resultsThe median level of SAA and CRP was 4.28 mg/L and 1.88 mg/L, respectively. For the highSAA group (> 4.28 mg/L) versus the low-SAA (≤ 4.28 mg/L) group and the high-CRP group (> 1.88 mg/L) versus the low-CRP (≤ 1.88 mg/L) group, the 5-year PFS was 64.5% versus 73.1% (p=0.013) and 65.2% versus 73.3% (p=0.064), respectively. EBV DNA detection showed a superior predictive result, the 5-year PFS in the EBV DNA ≥ 1,500 copies/mL group was obviously different than the EBV DNA < 1,500 copies/mL group (62.2% versus 77.8%, p < 0.001). Multifactorial Cox regression analysis confirmed that in the PFS, the independent prognostic factors were including EBV DNA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.788; p=0.009), tumour stage (HR, 1.903; p=0.021), and node stage (HR, 1.498; p=0.049), but the SAA and CRP were not included in the independent prognostic factors.

conclusionThe results of SAA and CRP had a certain relationship with the prognosis of NPC, and the prognosis of patients with high level of SAA and CRP were poor. However, the predictive ability of SAA and CRP was lower than that of EBV DNA.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinomaC-Reactive ProteinDNA, ViralEpstein-Barr Virus InfectionsFemaleHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingPrognosisC-Reactive ProteinDNA, ViralSerum Amyloid A ProteinC-reactive proteinEpstein-Barr virusNasopharyngeal carcinomaPrognosisSerum amyloid ASurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID28707462
PMCPMC6056968
OpenAlexW2734769986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.