ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Accurate nomograms with excellent clinical value for locally advanced rectal cancer.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. 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.
- Construction and validation of a nomogram for predicting overall survival of patients with stage III/IV early-onset colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Risk prediction of second primary malignancies in patients after rectal cancer: analysis based on SEER Program.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- A narrative review of prognostic indices in the evaluation of gastrointestinal cancers.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Risk factors, prognostic predictors, and nomograms for pancreatic cancer patients with initially diagnosed synchronous liver metastasis.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- Development and validation of nomograms for predicting overall survival and cancer specific survival in locally advanced breast cancer patients: A SEER population-based study.Frontiers in public health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRectal cancer accounts for approximately 30-50% of colorectal cancer. Despite its widespread use and convenience, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for predicting survival is prone to inaccuracy, even including a survival paradox for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). An accurate risk stratification of LARC is essential for proper treatment selection and prognostic evaluation. Therefore, we aimed to create prognostic nomograms for LARC capable of assessing overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) precisely and intuitively.
methodsThe Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was accessed. All of the significant variables in the multivariate analysis were integrated to build the nomograms.
resultsData for a total of 23,055 patients with LARC were collected from the SEER database in this study. Based on the multivariate Cox regression analysis, both OS and CSS were significantly associated with 13 variables: age, marital status, race, pathological grade, histological type, T stage, N stage, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, regional nodes examined (RNE), tumor size, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). These were included in the construction of nomograms for OS and CSS. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis (DCA), concordance index, and calibration curves demonstrated the discriminative superiority of the nomograms.
conclusionsThe nomograms, which effectively solve the issue of the survival paradox in the AJCC staging system regarding LARC, may act as excellent tools for integrating clinical characteristics and to guiding therapeutic choices for LARC 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.