Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28802802›Full record

SynthesisThe Lancet. Oncology2017

Nodal stage migration and prognosis in anal cancer: a systematic review, meta-regression, and simulation study.

Hema Sekhar, Marcel Zwahlen, Sven Trelle, Lee Malcomson, Rohit Kochhar, Mark P Saunders, Matthew Sperrin, Marcel van Herk, David Sebag-Montefiore, Matthias Egger and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Lancet. Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Systematic review of outcome measures following chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of anal cancer (CORMAC).Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Anal Cancer: The Past, Present and Future.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Hema SekharDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Marcel ZwahlenInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Sven TrelleClinical Trials Unit Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Lee MalcomsonDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Rohit KochharDepartment of Radiology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Mark P SaundersDepartment of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Matthew SperrinFarr Institute, MRC Health eResearch Centre (HeRC), Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Marcel van HerkDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
David Sebag-MontefioreLeeds Institute of Cancer & Pathology, University of Leeds, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Andrew G RenehanDivision of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: andrew.renehan@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 19121Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA), lymph node positivity (LNP) indicates poor prognosis for survival and is central to radiotherapy planning. Over the past three decades, LNP proportion has increased, mainly reflecting enhanced detection with newer imaging modalities; a process known as nodal stage migration. If accompanied by constant T stage distributions, prognosis for both lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative groups may improve without any increase in overall survival for individual patients; a paradox termed the Will Rogers phenomenon. Here, we aim to systematically evaluate the impact of nodal stage migration on survival in SCCA and address a novel hypothesis that this phenomenon results in reduced prognostic discrimination.

methodsWe did a systematic review and meta-regression to quantify changes in LNP over time and the impact of this change on survival and prognostic discrimination. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised trials and observational studies in patients with SCCA published between Jan 1, 1970, and Oct 11, 2016. Studies were eligible if patients received chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy as the main treatment, reported LNP proportions (all studies), and reported overall survival (not necessarily present in all studies). We excluded studies with fewer than 50 patients. We extracted study-level data with a standardised, piloted form. The primary outcome measure was 5-year overall survival. To investigate scenarios in which reduced prognostic discrimination might occur, we simulated varying true LNP proportions and true overall survival, and compared these with expected observed outcomes for varying levels of misclassification of true nodal state.

findingsWe identified 62 studies reporting LNP proportions, which included 10 569 patients. From these, we included 45 studies (6302 patients) with whole cohort 5-year overall survival, 11 studies with 5-year survival stratified by nodal status, and 20 studies with hazard ratios in our analyses of temporal changes. In 62 studies, the LNP proportions increased from a mean estimate of 15·3% (95% CI 10·5-20·1) in 1980 to 37·1% (34·0-41·3) in 2012 (p<0·0001). In 11 studies with prognostic data, increasing LNP was associated with improved overall survival in both lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative categories, whereas the proportions with combined tumour stage T3 and T4 remained constant. In 20 studies, across a range of LNP proportions from 15% to 40%, the hazard ratios for overall survival of lymph node-positive versus lymph node-negative patients decreased significantly from 2·5 (95% CI 1·8-3·3) at 15% LNP to 1·3 (1·2-1·9; p=0·014) at 40% LNP. The simulated scenarios reproduced this effect if the true LNP proportions were 20% or 25%, but not if the true LNP proportions were 30% or greater.

interpretationWe describe a consequence of staging misclassification in anal cancer that we have termed reduced prognostic discrimination. We used this new observation to infer that the LNP proportions of more than 30% seen in modern clinical series (11 out of 15 studies with a median year since 2007) are higher than the true LNP proportion. The introduction of new staging technologies in oncology might misclassify true disease stage, spuriously informing disease management and ultimately increasing the risk of overtreatment.

fundingBowel Disease Research Foundation.

Indexed as

AgedAnus NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Squamous CellCause of DeathChemoradiotherapyClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingPrognosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.