ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Comparison of three lymph node staging methods for predicting outcome in breast cancer patients with mastectomy.
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 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.
- Article
- Article
- Log odds of positive lymph nodes show better predictive performance on the prognosis of early-onset colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Potential prognostic value of the lymph node ratio and its correlation with circulating sex hormone concentration in pathological T1/2 breast cancer patients: a retrospective study.Annals of translational medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAxillary lymph node (ALN) staging is essential in predicting the clinical outcome of breast cancer (BC) patients. Traditionally, it follows the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging, but its accuracy needs further improvement.
methodsA total of 9,616 BC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and 675 patients from the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University underwent mastectomy together with ALN dissection were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were conducted to find the most meaningful factors relevant to prognosis.
resultsAfter univariate and multivariate analyses, age, race, primary site, radiation, chemotherapy, grade, T-stage, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), total number of positive lymph nodes (pN), positive lymph node ratio (LNR) and log odds of positive LNs (LODDS) were found to be significantly associated with overall survival (OS). Using these non-LN risk factors, we further compared the efficacy of three different ALN staging methods in prognosis via nomograms. Harrell's concordance index (C-index) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) were used to measure nomogram performance of the ALN staging methods: pN: C-index=0.687 (95% CI: 0.678-0.696), AIC =61,398.24; LNR: C-index =0.691 (95% CI: 0.683-0.701), AIC =61,313.56; and LODDS: C-index =0.691 (95% CI: 0.682-0.700), AIC =61,315.60. We found that the nomogram incorporating LODDS had better predictive ability compared with other two methods. Furthermore, an external validation revealed a C-index of 0.753 (95% CI: 0.690-0.816) for the Asian population, which indicates the nomogram based on LODDS may have universality for both Western and Asian populations.
conclusionsCompared with pN and LNR, LODDS showed higher homeostasis in LN evaluation, and showed marked efficacy in evaluating survival differences among patients with negative LN staging. We constructed a BC prognosis model by incorporating highly relevant clinical pathological factors and a new method of LN staging, which may greatly aid in guiding postoperative treatment.
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.