ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2020
Development of a predictive nomogram for cause-specific mortality in surgically resected early-stage oesophageal cancer: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The implicated clinical factors for outcomes in 304 patients with salivary duct carcinoma: Multi-institutional retrospective analysis in Japan.Head & neck · 2022Article
- Association and prognostic significance of alpha-L-fucosidase-1 and matrix metalloproteinase 9 expression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Prognostic analysis of pT1-T2aN0M0 cervical adenocarcinoma based on random survival forest analysis and the generation of a predictive nomogram.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Nomogram model for predicting postoperative survival of patients with stage IB-IIA cervical cancer.American journal of cancer research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this population-based study was to perform competing risk analysis and estimate cancer- and other cause-specific mortality in patients who underwent oesophagectomy with pT1N0M0 oesophageal cancer (EC). A competing risks nomogram was also developed to predict the proportional of death from each specific cause.
methodsA total of 1,144 patients who received oesophagectomy for pT1N0M0 EC between 2010 and 2015 from SEER database were included. The cumulative incidence function was used to evaluate each cause of death, and the significant difference was assessed by the Grey's test. A nomogram was established using the proportional subdistribution hazard analysis to identify predictors for each cause-specific death.
resultsThe 5-year cumulative incidence of cancer-specific death for surgically resected pT1N0M0 EC was 15.7%, and the incidence was 11.2% for other cause-specific death. Age, tumour length, pT1 substage, grade, history and primary site were identified as predictive factors for EC-specific death, but only age, tumor length and pT1 substage were associated with death from other cause. Our nomograms showed a relative good discriminative ability, with c-index of 0.663 for the EC-specific mortality model and 0.699 for the other cause-specific mortality model. The calibration curves showed a good match between the nomogram-predicted probabilities and the actual probabilities.
conclusionsIn patients who underwent curative-intent resection for pT1N0M0 EC, death from other causes was an important competing event. During clinical decision making and patient-clinician communication, our quantifiable nomograms could provide a rapid and precise judgement of the risk of death from each cause.
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.