Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30655898›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2019

Comparison of the 8th union for international cancer control lymph node staging system for gastric cancer with two other lymph node staging systems.

Huihua Cao, Zhaoqing Tang, Zhan Yu, Qing Wang, Zhong Li, Qicheng Lu, Yugang Wu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Huihua CaoDepartment of General Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (The First People's Hospital of Changzhou), Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000, P.R. China.
Zhaoqing TangDepartment of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, P.R. China.
Zhan YuDepartment of General Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (The First People's Hospital of Changzhou), Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000, P.R. China.
Qing WangDepartment of General Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (The First People's Hospital of Changzhou), Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000, P.R. China.
Zhong LiDepartment of General Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (The First People's Hospital of Changzhou), Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000, P.R. China.
Qicheng LuDepartment of General Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (The First People's Hospital of Changzhou), Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000, P.R. China.
Yugang WuDepartment of General Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (The First People's Hospital of Changzhou), Changzhou, Jiangsu 213000, P.R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) and the metastatic lymph node ratio (MLR) staging systems have previously been demonstrated to exhibit advantages compared with the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system in predicting the prognosis of gastric cancer. The current study compared the prognostic significance of the newest Union for International Cancer Control Node classification with the LODDS and MLR staging systems. From September 2010 to December 2012, all medical records for patients with gastric cancer at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University were retrospectively analyzed and the clinicopathologic characteristics were reviewed. Cut-off points were selected to divide the patients with gastric cancer into different groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the prognostic risk factors for gastric cancer. The Harrell's concordance index (C-index) was adopted to compare the prognostic value of the three staging systems. A total of 877 patients with gastric cancer who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed in the current study. The patients were classified according to the three MLR subgroups as follows: MLR0 (MLR=0), MLR1 (0<MLR≤0.28) and MLR2 (0.28<MLR<1). The patients were classified according to the LODDS subgroups as follows: LODDS1 (LODDS≤-0.5), LODDS2 (-0.5<LODDS≤0), LODDS3 (0<LODDS≤0.5) and LODDS4 (LODDS>0.5). Based on multivariate analysis, LODDS, MLR and pathological node (pN) stage could significantly predict survival rates of patients with gastric cancer. According to the C-index, the LODDS staging system more accurately predicted the 5-year overall survival for patients with gastric cancer compared with the other two staging systems. In summary, the current study has identified that LODDS may be superior to the MLR and pN staging systems in predicting the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer. However MLR may exhibit advantages compared with LODDS for patients who have undergone adequate lymphadenectomies.

Indexed as

gastric cancerlog odds of positive lymph nodesmetastatic lymph node ratioprognosisstaging system

Identifiers

PMID30655898
PMCPMC6312982

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.