Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29439652›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Advantages of a multi-state approach in surgical research: how intermediate events and risk factor profile affect the prognosis of a patient with locally advanced rectal cancer.

G Manzini, T J Ettrich, M Kremer, M Kornmann, D Henne-Bruns, D A Eikema, P Schlattmann, L C de Wreede

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. A multistate survival model in rectal cancer surgery research for locally advanced patients.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Long-term survival in patients with post-LVAD right ventricular failure: multi-state modelling with competing outcomes of heart transplant.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2021
    Article
  8. 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.

G ManziniDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89073, Ulm, Germany. giulia.manzini@uniklinik-ulm.de.ORCID 0000-0002-8032-8043
T J EttrichDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
M KremerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89073, Ulm, Germany.
M KornmannDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89073, Ulm, Germany.
D Henne-BrunsDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, 89073, Ulm, Germany.
D A EikemaDepartment of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.
P SchlattmannDepartment of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Documentation, University of Jena, Jena, Germany.
L C de WreedeDepartment of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandard survival analysis fails to give insight into what happens to a patient after a first outcome event (like first relapse of a disease). Multi-state models are a useful tool for analyzing survival data when different treatments and results (intermediate events) can occur. Aim of this study was to implement a multi-state model on data of patients with rectal cancer to illustrate the advantages of multi-state analysis in comparison to standard survival analysis.

methodsWe re-analyzed data from the RCT FOGT-2 study by using a multi-state model. Based on the results we defined a high and low risk reference patient. Using dynamic prediction, we estimated how the survival probability changes as more information about the clinical history of the patient becomes available.

resultsA patient with stage UICC IIIc (vs UICC II) has a higher risk to develop distant metastasis (DM) or both DM and local recurrence (LR) if he/she discontinues chemotherapy within 6 months or between 6 and 12 months, as well as after the completion of 12 months CTx with HR 3.55 (p = 0.026), 5.33 (p = 0.001) and 3.37 (p < 0.001), respectively. He/she also has a higher risk to die after the development of DM (HR 1.72, p = 0.023). Anterior resection vs. abdominoperineal amputation means 63% risk reduction to develop DM or both DM and LR (HR 0.37, p = 0.003) after discontinuation of chemotherapy between 6 and 12 months. After development of LR, a woman has a 4.62 times higher risk to die (p = 0.006). A high risk reference patient has an estimated 43% 5-year survival probability at start of CTx, whereas for a low risk patient this is 79%. After the development of DM 1 year later, the high risk patient has an estimated 5-year survival probability of 11% and the low risk patient one of 21%.

conclusionsMulti-state models help to gain additional insight into the complex events after start of treatment. Dynamic prediction shows how survival probabilities change by progression of the clinical history.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrognosisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRectal NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsDistant metastasis (DM)Dynamic predictionLocal recurrence (LR)Multi-state model (msm)Rectal cancer (RC)

Identifiers

PMID29439652
PMCPMC5811976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.