ArticlePloS one2019
Development and validation of nomograms for predicting survival probability of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma in different EGFR mutation status.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic impact of pleural effusion in patients with malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and translational science · 2022Pooled it
- Generation and validation of a predictive model for estimating survival among patients with EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMolecular markers are important variables in the selection of treatment for cancer patients and highly associated with their survival. Therefore, a nomogram that can predict survival probability by incorporating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status and treatments for patients with advanced adenocarcinoma would be highly valuable. The aim of the study is to develop and validate a novel nomogram, incorporating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status and treatments, for predicting 1-year and 2-year survival probability of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. MATERIAL AND
methodsData on 13,043 patients between June 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014 were collected. Seventy percent of them were randomly assigned to the training cohort for nomogram development, and the remaining 30% assigned to the validation cohort. The most important factors for constructing the nomogram were identified using multivariable Cox regression analysis. The discriminative ability and calibration of the nomograms were tested using C-statistics, calibration plots, and Kaplan-Meier curves.
resultsIn the training cohort, 1-year and 2-year OS were 52.8% and 28.5% in EGFR(-) patients, and 73.9% and 44.1% in EGFR(+) patients, respectively. In EGFR(+) group, factors selected were age, gender, congestive heart failure, renal disease, number of lymph node examined, tumor stage, surgical intervention, radiotherapy, first-line chemotherapy, ECOG performance status, malignant pleural effusion, and smoking. In EGFR(-) group, factors selected were age, gender, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, number of lymph node examined, tumor stage, surgical intervention, radiotherapy, ECOG performance status, malignant pleural effusion, and a history of smoking. Two nomograms show good accuracy in predicting OS, with a concordance index of 0.83 in EGFR(+) and of 0.88 in EGFR(-).
conclusionsThe survival prediction models can be used to make individualized predictions with different EGFR mutation status and a useful tool for selecting regimens for treating advanced adenocarcinoma.
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.