ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
Is a simplified TNM staging system more clinically relevant than the American Joint Committee on Cancer system for the follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer?
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect ofGland surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the recent release of the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual, risk stratification for the follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer (FVPTC), which is the second common variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) after classical PTC, remains controversial. This study aimed to develop a more accurate and relevant staging system specifically for FVPTC.
methodsPatients with FVPTC who were included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) open database between 2010 and 2015 were divided into 47 groups according to their TNM classifications and age. Subsequently, these 47 groups were categorized into appropriate stages based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves, mortality analyses, a Cox proportional hazards model, and clinical considerations.
resultsOur retrospective analysis of 17,628 cases yielded the following new staging classification: stage I, defined as age <55 years and any T/N/M or age ≥55 years and T1-3/any N/M0 (n=17,427, 98.85%); stage II, age ≥55 and T4/any N/M0 or age ≥55 and any T/N0/M1 (n=173, 0.99%); and stage III, age ≥55 and any T/N1/M1 (n=28, 0.16%). The overall mortality rates per 1,000-person-years were 4.135 [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.653-4.681], 71.193 (95% CI: 51.354-98.697), and 199.744 (95% CI: 115.983-343.997) for our new stages I, II, and III, respectively. The hazard ratios for the new stages II and III (reference: stage I) were 5.081 (95% CI: 3.110-8.301) and 21.690 (95% CI: 11.402-41.258), respectively.
conclusionsCompared to the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system, our newly proposed system provided more accurate risk stratification for patients with FVPTC, as demonstrated by actual survival and mortality outcomes. This new model may thus help guide more personalized treatment for these patients.
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.