Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30089581›Full record

ArticleLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2018

Comparison of 7th and 8th editions of the UICC/AJCC TNM staging for non-small cell lung cancer in a non-metastatic North American cohort undergoing primary radiation treatment.

Rashmi Koul, Shrinivas Rathod, Arbind Dubey, Bashir Bashir, Amitava Chowdhury

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The 8Annals of translational medicine · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rashmi KoulDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Shrinivas RathodDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Electronic address: srathod@cancercare.mb.ca.
Arbind DubeyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Bashir BashirDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Amitava ChowdhuryDepartment of Radiation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
University of Manitoba · CACancerCare Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe compared the performance of 7th and 8th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) / American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in non-metastatic (stage I-III) North American cohort undergoing primary radiation treatment.

methodsNewly diagnosed NSCLC between (Jan 2011 - Dec 2014) were screened through a Canadian Provincial Cancer Registry. Clinico-radiologically and pathologically confirmed non-metastatic NSCLC undergoing primary radiation treatment were included. Kaplan-Meier methods, Cox proportional hazard regression and Akaike information criterion (AIC) were applied to evaluate discriminatory ability and prognostic performance of 7th and 8th edition of staging systems.

resultsIn this cohort of 295 patients, 8th edition stages IA3, IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC showed progressive increase in the hazard ratio compared to best stage IA2 (8th edition IA3 vs IA2: HR 1.72; IB vs IA2: HR 2.04; IIA vs IA2: HR 2.66; IIB vs IA2: HR 2.91; IIIA vs IA2: HR 3.38; IIIB vs IA2: HR 3.62 and IIIC vs IA2: HR 8.22). In a multivariate model, 8th edition stage grouping had smaller AIC of 2342.08 compared to 7th edition 2349.55, confirming better performance. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) map based nodal categorization N1, N2 and N3, showed good survival and hazard discrimination over stage N0 (1.39, 1.48 and 2.16 respectively).

conclusionIn an independent cohort of non-metastatic NSCLC undergoing primary radiation treatment, improved performance of 8

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLung NeoplasmsMaleMultimodal ImagingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPractice Guidelines as TopicProportional Hazards ModelsRegistriesReproducibility of ResultsTreatment OutcomeNonsmall cell lung cancerRadiation treatmentStaging

Identifiers

PMID30089581
OpenAlexW2810920486

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.