ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
The Effect of Adding Biological Factors to the Decision-Making Process for Spinal Metastasis of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpretations of the Role of Plasma Albumin in Prognostic Indices: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- When Should Spinal Surgery Be Considered for Spinal Metastasis from Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer?-Propensity Score Matched Study between Surgery with Radiotherapy and Radiotherapy Alone.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The Outcome of Molecularly Targeted Therapy after Surgical Treatment of Spinal Metastasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- An Updated Review on the Treatment Strategy for Spinal Metastasis from the Spine Surgeon's Perspective.Asian spine journal · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molecular target therapies have markedly improved the survival of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, especially those with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. A positive EGFR mutation is even more critical when the chronicity of spinal metastasis is considered. However, most prognostic models that estimate the life expectancy of spinal metastasis patients do not include these biological factors. We retrospectively reviewed 85 consecutive NSCLC patients who underwent palliative surgical treatment for spinal metastases to evaluate the following: (1) the prognostic value of positive EGFR mutation and the chronicity of spinal metastasis, and (2) the clinical significance of adding these two factors to an existing prognostic model, namely the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS). Among 85 patients, 38 (44.7%) were EGFR mutation-positive. Spinal metastasis presented as the initial manifestation of malignancy in 58 (68.2%) patients. The multivariate Cox proportional hazard model showed that the chronicity of spinal metastasis (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.88,
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.