Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32395529›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020

Validation of the prognostic value of various lymph node staging systems for cervical squamous cell carcinoma following radical surgery: a single-center analysis of 3,732 patients.

Qinhao Guo, Jun Zhu, Yong Wu, Hao Wen, Lingfang Xia, Xingzhu Ju, Guihao Ke, Xiaohua Wu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The impact of boost radiation therapy after hysterectomy on cervical cancer patients with close or positive resection margins.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Reviewing FIGO 2018 cervical cancer staging.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qinhao GuoDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Jun ZhuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Yong WuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Hao WenDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Lingfang XiaDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Xingzhu JuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Guihao KeDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Xiaohua WuDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNShanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate the prognostic value of six lymph nodes (LNs) staging systems: TNM pN stage, 2018 Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, number of positive LNs (PLN), number of negative LNs (NLN), metastatic LN ratio (LNR), and log odds of positive LNs (LODDS) in cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) patients following radical surgery.

methodsThe records of 3,732 CSCC patients who underwent radical surgery between 2006 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. We divided variables into different groups by applying tree-based recursive partitioning. Survival curves were compared by the log-rank test, and prognostic factors were identified through Cox regression analysis. The six staging systems underwent assessment for their relative discriminative abilities by way of Harrell's concordance index (C-index) and the Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC).

resultsAll of the six staging systems had a significant influence on patients' progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with univariate analysis showing all of the staging systems to have the significant prognostic ability in relation to PFS and OS (P<0.001 for each). Multivariate analysis demonstrated five of the staging methods to be independent prognostic factors, but that NLN classification was not. PLN was noted to have somewhat the best prognostic performance for both PFS (C-index: 0.634; AIC: 33,343.83) and OS (C-index: 0.675; AIC: 34,223.11).

conclusionsThe pN, 2018 FIGO stage, PLN, LNR, and LODDS appeared to predict better survival than the NLN in CSCC patients. Moreover, PLN appeared to be the most valuable and predictive LN staging system.

Indexed as

Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC)cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC)C-indexLN staging systemslymph node (LN)prognostic value

Identifiers

PMID32395529
PMCPMC7210123
OpenAlexW3013940071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.