Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29267900›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the National Cancer Institute2018

Personalizing Survival Predictions in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: The ARCAD Nomogram Project.

Katrin M Sjoquist, Lindsay A Renfro, R John Simes, Niall C Tebbutt, Stephen Clarke, Matthew T Seymour, Richard Adams, Timothy S Maughan, Leonard Saltz, Richard M Goldberg and 24 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

34 authors.

Katrin M SjoquistNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Lindsay A RenfroMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
R John SimesNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Niall C TebbuttAustin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Stephen ClarkeRoyal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, Australia.
Matthew T SeymourCancer Research UK Clinical Centre, Leeds, UK.
Richard AdamsCardiff University and Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK.
Timothy S MaughanSt James's Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Leonard SaltzMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Richard M GoldbergWest Virginia University Cancer Institute, Morgantown, WV.
Hans-Joachim SchmollMartin-Luther-University, Halle, Germany.
Eric Van CutsemUniversity Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jean-Yves DouillardEuropean Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest (ICO) René Gauducheau, Saint-Herblain, France.
Paulo M HoffInstituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo, Universidade de Sao Paolo, Sao Paolo, Brazil.
Joel Randolph HechtDavid Geffen School of Medicine at University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Christophe TournigandUniversity of Paris Est Creteil, Paris, France.
Cornelis J A PuntDepartment of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Miriam KoopmanUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Herbert HurwitzDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Volker HeinemannUniversity of Munich, Department of Medical Oncology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Munich, Germany.
Alfredo FalconeDepartment of Oncology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Rainer PorschenKlinikum Bremen-Ost Klinik fur Innere Medizin, Bremen, Germany.
Charles FuchsDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
Eduardo Diaz-RubioDepartment of Oncology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, CIBERONC Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Enrique ArandaDepartment of Medical Oncology IMIBIC, Reina Sofía Hospital, University of Córdoba, CIBERONC Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Córdoba, Spain.
Carsten BokemeyerUniversity Hospital, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.
Ioannis SouglakosUniversity of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.
Fairooz F KabbinavarDavid Geffen School of Medicine at University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Benoist ChibaudelFranco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France.
Jeffrey P MeyersMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Daniel J SargentMayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Aimery de GramontFranco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France.
John R ZalcbergSchool of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Fondation Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive Group (ARCAD)

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesKL2TR000136 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$6.6M
Cancer Research UK 25350NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000136NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Estimating prognosis on the basis of clinicopathologic factors can inform clinical practice and improve risk stratification for clinical trials. We constructed prognostic nomograms for one-year overall survival and six-month progression-free survival in metastatic colorectal carcinoma by using the ARCAD database. Methods: Data from 22 674 patients in 26 randomized phase III clinical trials since 1997 were used to construct and validate Cox models, stratified by treatment arm within each study. Candidate variables included baseline age, sex, body mass index, performance status, colon vs rectal cancer, prior chemotherapy, number and location of metastatic sites, tumor mutation status (BRAF, KRAS), bilirubin, albumin, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, and derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. Missing data (<11%) were imputed, continuous variables modeled with splines, and clinically relevant pairwise interactions tested if P values were less than .001. Final models were internally validated via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected calibration and discrimination C-indices, and externally validated on a 10% holdout sample from each trial (n = 2257). Results: In final models, all included variables were associated with overall survival except for lung metastases, and all but total white cell count associated with progression-free survival. No clinically relevant pairwise interactions were identified. Final nomogram calibration was good (C = 0.68 for overall and C = 0.62 for progression-free survival), as was external validity (concordance between predicted >50% vs < 50% probability) and actual (yes/no) survival (72.8% and 68.2% concordance, respectively, for one-year overall and six-month progression-free survival, between predicted [>50% vs < 50% probability] and actual [yes/no] overall and progression-free survival). Median survival predictions fell within the actual 95% Kaplan-Meier confidence intervals. Conclusions: The nomograms are well calibrated and internally and externally valid. They have the potential to aid prognostication and patient-physician communication and balance risk in colorectal cancer trials.

Indexed as

NomogramsAgedColorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm MetastasisPrecision MedicinePrognosisProgression-Free SurvivalSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID29267900
PMCPMC6005015

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.