Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33516267›Full record

ArticleBiology of sex differences2021

Age-dependent changes of gender disparities in nasopharyngeal carcinoma survival.

Wang-Zhong Li, Shu-Hui Lv, Guo-Ying Liu, Hu Liang, Wei-Xiong Xia, Yan-Qun Xiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sex differences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Nutritional status and its correlation to prognosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in different ages in China: a multicenter cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
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

6 authors.

Wang-Zhong Li *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2744-8775
Shu-Hui Lv *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Guo-Ying Liu *State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Hu LiangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
Wei-Xiong XiaDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. xiawx@sysucc.org.cn.
Yan-Qun XiangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China. xiangyq@sysucc.org.cn.

Funding

Guangdong Medical Research Foundation A2017492National Natural Science Foundation of China 81672680National Natural Science Foundation of China 81802712Young Teacher Foundation of Sun Yat-sen University 19ykpy188
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe mortality of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is usually lower in females than in males, but the underlying mechanism remains largely unknown. We sought to describe the age-dependent patterns of gender disparities in NPC survival and explore the extent to which the confounder or mediation effects could explain these differences.

methodsA total of 11,980 patients with NPC were reviewed. The effect of gender on cancer-specific survival (CSS) was assessed using Cox regression analyses. Two propensity score methods were conducted to control the confounding bias between genders. Restricted cubic spline regression was used to model the association of gender and age with mortality flexibly. Multiple mediation analysis was applied to estimate the direct or indirect effect of gender on CSS.

resultsOverall, 7026 males and 2320 females were analyzed. The crude CSS was significantly higher for females than males (10-year CSS 78.4% vs 70.3%; P < 0.001). Similar results were observed after adjusting for confounding bias. Gender disparities in NPC-specific mortality were age-dependent, where they would increase with age until peaking at age 55-60 years and decline rapidly afterward. Subgroup analyses revealed that females' survival advantage was observed in the 18-45 age group and was more prominent in the 46-55 age group, but vanished in the > 55 age group. Either confounder or mediation effects only accounted for approximately 20% of the gender differences.

conclusionsGender disparities in cancer-specific mortality for patients with NPC were age-dependent. The differences mostly cannot be explained by confounder or mediation effects.

Indexed as

Nasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSex CharacteristicsSex FactorsAge-dependent changesCancer survivalGender disparitiesNasopharyngeal carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID33516267
PMCPMC7847041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.