ArticlePloS one2017
Prognosis impact of clinical characteristics in patients with inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were not homogeneous and their outcomes were widely divergent. There was a lack of identified clinical factors related to prognosis; and there were no previous studies constructing prognosis score to predict survival and guide treatment.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, twelve clinical characteristics of one hundred and twenty inoperable ESCC patients were collected at diagnosis and analyzed by Cox regression model. Various methods including univariate analysis, confounding adjusted multivariate analysis and model selection were applied to determine factors associated with poor prognosis; and prognosis score was built on established factors.
resultsFour characters were identified as poor prognosis factors, including mid- and low-thoracic tumor (aHR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.03, 4.72), abdominal and retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis (aHR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.00, 2.64), albumin no more than 39g/L (aHR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.24, 6.41) and hematogenous metastasis (aHR = 1.61, 95% CI = 0.97, 2.69). Patients were stratified into three groups by prognosis score, that was, good survival with none of four identified factors (score zero), poor survival with three to four factors (score three to four) and median with one to two factors (score one to two), survival of three groups were statistically different (ptrend = 0.020).
conclusionPrognosis score based on selected clinical characteristics could predict survival among inoperable ESCC patients, which was critical for individualized treatment and central of precise medicine.
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.