ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2018
Prognostic value of circumferential resection margin in T3N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognostic value of positive circumferential resection margins (CRM) in resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is unclear. The Royal College of Pathologists criteria and the College of American Pathologists criteria are the two commonly used definitions of CRM involvement. The aim of this report was to compare the prognostic performance of the two criteria and to propose a modified stratification in patients who underwent radical esophagectomy for ESCC.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 112 patients with pathologically confirmed T3N0M0 ESCC and without neoadjuvant therapy from June 2009 and July 2011. The optimal cutoff point was obtained by the X-tile. The prognostic performance of different classifications of CRM was assessed in terms of homogeneity, discriminatory ability, and monotonicity.
resultsAccording to the Royal College of Pathologists criteria, a positive CRM was detected in 87 patients (77.7%); and 24 patients (21.4%) were found with positive CRM according to the College of American Pathologists criteria. Non-significant associations between overall survival and CRM were observed according to either of the two criteria. The analysis of reclassifying the CRM criteria demonstrated that the optimal cutoff CRM value for best prognostic power was 600 µm. Patients with CRM more than 600 µm showed better overall survival (P<0.05) than the cases with CRM less than 600 µm. Furthermore, the improved homogeneity, discriminatory ability, and monotonicity gradients were also found in this modified criteria, as compared with the two existing criteria.
conclusionsOur study highlighted that CRM was an independent prognostic factor for survival in esophageal cancer patients, and the modified CRM criteria had better prognostic power than the traditional criteria in patients with ESCC.
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.