ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2019
Prognostic value of N1c in colorectal cancer: a large population-based study using propensity score matching.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic value of tumor deposits and positive lymph nodes in colorectal cancer surgery: improved staging for long-term prognosis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Prognostic significance of tumor deposit counts in stage III colorectal cancer based on T/N staging and chemotherapy status: A retrospective cohort study.Surgery open science · 2025Article
- Vessel invasion is a risk factor for gastric cancer: a retrospective analysis study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Tumor deposits in colorectal cancer: Refining their definition in the TNM system.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023Review
- Beyond N staging in colorectal cancer: Current approaches and future perspectives.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Prognostic value of tumor deposits in locally advanced rectal cancer: a retrospective study with propensity score matching.International journal of clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Tumor deposit serves as a prognostic marker in gastric cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis comparing survival outcomes.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- The Role of Tumor Deposits in Predicting the Efficacy of Chemotherapy in Stage III Colon Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- The Prognostic Significance of Tumor Deposit Count for Colorectal Cancer Patients after Radical Surgery.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe conducted this large population-based study to investigate the prognostic significance of N1c.
methodsPatients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, were included in the sample. The primary outcome of interest used in our study was cause-specific survival (CSS). Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate the prognostic value of N1c. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to reduce the possibility of selection bias using a logistic regression model.
resultsA total of 19,991 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer were identified from the SEER database. The median follow-up time of the whole cohort was 60 months (0-71 months). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that N1c was associated with significantly higher risk of colorectal cancer-specific mortality compared with N0 (HR = 1.962, 95%CI = 1.642 to 2.343, P < 0.001) and N1a (HR = 0.818, 95%CI = 0.678 to 0.987, P = 0.036); N1c was associated with significantly lower risk of colorectal cancer-specific mortality compared with N2a (HR = 1.296, 95%CI = 1.081 to 1.554, P = 0.005) and N2b (HR = 1.663, 95%CI = 1.391 to 1.989, P < 0.001). Yet the CSS difference between N1b and N1c did not achieve statistical difference (HR = 1.089, 95%CI = 0.909 to 1.304, P = 0.354).
conclusionsThe large population-based and propensity score-matched study with long follow-up time provides the first evidence that CSS difference between N1b and N1c does not achieve a statistical difference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31201493What 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.