ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
Prognostic accuracy of different lymph node staging system in predicting overall survival in stage IV colon cancer.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing a novel model for predicting overall survival in late-onset colon adenocarcinoma patients based on LODDS: a study based on the SEER database and external validation.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Lymph node ratio prognosticates overall survival in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Observational
- Article
- Comparison of model fit and discriminatory ability of the 8th edition of the tumor-node-metastasis classification and the 9th edition of the Japanese classification to identify stage III colorectal cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Log odds of positive lymph nodes is a better prognostic factor for oesophageal signet ring cell carcinoma than N stage.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWith emphasis of surgical management, the lymph node (LN) status has been advocated to predict prognosis in colon cancer with distant metastatic. Therefore, we tend to compare the prognostic performance of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) N-staging relative to lymph node ratio (LNR), log odds of metastatic lymph nodes (LODDS), and N-score in stage IV colon cancer.
methodsAbout 20,961 patients who underwent primary surgical resection for stage IV colon cancer were extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database. Harrell's C statistic (C-index) and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) were used to distinguish the prognostic performance of the different LN-staging schemes.
resultsOf the 20,961 patients, 17,043 (81.3%) had been with lymph node metastasis, and the median number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) was 15. When assessed as continuous values, the LODDS shown as the best system with greatest discriminatory power (C-index, 0.6241; AIC, 29114.29) generally and each subgroups divided by ELNs. When modeled as categorical cutoff variables for further clinical usage, the 8th AJCC N-stage outperformed the other three schemes with either ELNs less than 12 (C-index, 0.5770; AIC, 8992.638), between 12 and 25 (C-index, 0.6084; AIC, 13905.72), or more than 25(C-index, 0.6192; AIC, 3138.018) with increasing C-index and less AIC value.
conclusionsWhen assessed as categorical variables, N-stage performed superiorly regardless of ELNs. When assessed as a continuous variable, LODDS exhibited good discriminative ability and goodness of fit in predicting survival for colon cancer patients regardless of ELNs.
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.