ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019
Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alterations inContemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2025Article
- Potent molecular-targeted therapies for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023Review
- Expression and clinical significance of FGFR1 and FGFR2 in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Clinical significance of signet ring cells in surgical esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Oncogenic Landscape of Somatic Mutations Perturbing Pan-Cancer lncRNA-ceRNA Regulation.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies about the prognostic and clinicopathological significance of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) amplification in resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) are controversial. Therefore, the aim of the current meta-analysis was to determine the association of FGFR1 amplification with prognosis and clinicopathological characteristics of resected ESCC patients.
methodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and SinoMed databases were searched systematically from the establishment date of databases to April 1, 2019 to identify related studies. The correlations of FGFR1 amplification of prognosis and clinicopathological characteristics in ESCC were assessed by the combined hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and combined odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI, respectively. All statistical analyses were performed by the Stata 12.0 software.
resultsA total of nine retrospective studies involving 2,326 patients who received the surgery were included into the current meta-analysis. The results indicated that FGFR1 amplification was significantly correlated with worse overall survival (OS) (HR =1.50, 95% CI: 1.25-1.81, P<0.001), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR =1.58, 95% CI: 1.27-1.96, P<0.001), lymph node metastasis (OR =1.45, 95% CI: 1.13-1.86, P=0.004), higher TNM stage (OR =1.33, 95% CI: 1.03-1.72, P=0.027) and poorer differentiation (OR =1.10, 95% CI: 1.07-1.13, P<0.001).
conclusionsThe current meta-analysis strongly demonstrates that FGFR1 amplification is an independent prognostic risk factor for resected ESCC patients and more prevalent among patients with advanced tumor stage and poorer differentiation.
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.