Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29349614›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2018

Treatment and outcomes of 28 patients with spinal metastasis from gynecological cancer.

Xin Gao, Chenglong Zhao, Shaohui He, Tianqi Fan, Wei Xu, Cheng Yang, Tielong Liu, Jianru Xiao

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A comparison of two different surgical procedures in the treatment of isolated spinal metastasis patients with metastatic spinal cord compression: a case-control study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xin GaoOrthopaedic Oncology Center, Department of Orthopaedics,Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415#, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China. 15026962975@163.com.
Chenglong ZhaoOrthopaedic Oncology Center, Department of Orthopaedics,Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415#, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China.
Shaohui HeOrthopaedic Oncology Center, Department of Orthopaedics,Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415#, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China.
Tianqi FanOrthopaedic Oncology Center, Department of Orthopaedics,Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415#, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China.
Wei XuOrthopaedic Oncology Center, Department of Orthopaedics,Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415#, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China.
Cheng YangOrthopaedic Oncology Center, Department of Orthopaedics,Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415#, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China.
Tielong LiuOrthopaedic Oncology Center, Department of Orthopaedics,Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415#, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China. liutielongvip@163.com.
Jianru XiaoOrthopaedic Oncology Center, Department of Orthopaedics,Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415#, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China. xiaojianruvip@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3779-9752
Second Military Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide some useful information concerning clinical characteristics, surgical treatment, potential contributing factor and prognostic factors for patients with gynecological cancer (GC) spinal metastasis. We reviewed 28 patients with GC spinal metastasis in our spine tumor center between July 2008 and July 2015. Surgeries were performed on 22 of them. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify potential prognostic factors affecting spinal metastasis-free survival (SMFS) and overall survival. The operative patients responded favorably according to decrease of VAS score and increase of Frankel grade after surgery. The 1- and 2-year survival rates in all patients were 60.7 and 41.0%, respectively. Univariate analysis suggested that age at diagnosis with GC was the potential contributing factor for spinal metastasis, while Frankel grade, ECOG-PS, visceral metastasis and chemotherapy were the potential prognostic factors affecting survival. Multivariate analysis indicated that the independent prognostic factors came from visceral metastasis and chemotherapy. Surgery played an important role in improving patients' quality of life. Patients over 50 years old had a shorter SMFS after diagnosed with GC. Visceral metastasis was an adverse prognostic factor for patients with GC spinal metastasis, while chemotherapy was a favorable one.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSpinal NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeGynecological cancerOverall survival (OS)Prognostic factorsSpinal metastasisSpinal metastasis-free survival (SMFS)Surgery

Identifiers

PMID29349614
OpenAlexW2791859720

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.