ArticleCancer science2018
Proposal for reclassification of N staging system in penile cancer patients, based on number of positive lymph nodes.
Article in Cancer science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proposal of a Subclassification of pN3 in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Penis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Nomograms to predict overall and cancer-specific survival in patients with penile cancer.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- Competing-risks model for predicting the prognosis of penile cancer based on the SEER database.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Proposal for reclassification of N staging system in penile cancer patients, based on number of positive lymph nodes.Cancer science · 2018Article
- Long-term oncological and surgical outcomes after Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) in patients with penile cancer.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present study, we aim to compare the rationality of proposed N classification based on the number of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) with the current one. A total of 509 penile cancer patients at our institute were analyzed. Univariable and multivariable statistical analyses were used to assess cancer-specific survival (CSS) in 2 staging systems. Harrell's concordance index was applied to evaluate predictive accuracy of the current and proposed N classification in predicting CSS. We propose a new classification: pN1 (metastasis in 1-2 regional LNs), pN2 (metastasis in 3 regional LNs, or 3 or fewer regional lymph nodes with extranodal extension), and pN3 (metastasis in 4 or more regional LNs). According to the current and proposed N classification, the 5-year CSS of penile cancer patients with pN1, pN2 and pN3 was 85.8%, 39.0%, and 19.7%; and with pN1, pN2 and pN3 was 79.8%, 39.3% and 15.3%, which almost all showed significant difference (P < .001, P = .259) (P < .001, P < .001). Multivariable predictive accuracy of the proposed and current N staging was 76.48% and 70.92% (5.56% gain; P < .001). With a multivariable model of clinical features, both current (hazard ratio [HR], 7.761, 10.612; P < .001, P < .001) and proposed N stages (HR, 3.792, 3.971; P < .001, P < .001) exhibited independent effects on survival. The proposed N classification is superior to the current one, which is simpler and provides more accurate prognosis.
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.