ArticleChest2021
Breast and Lung Effusion Survival Score Models: Improving Survival Prediction in Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusion and Metastasis.
Article in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- External validation of the LENT and PROMISE prognostic scores for malignant pleural effusion.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Prognostic significance of malignant pleural effusions in patients with advanced luminal B breast cancer.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Malignant pleural effusion: current understanding and therapeutic approach.Respiratory research · 2024Review
- Development and validation of the CAIL prognostic score in non-small cell lung cancer patients with malignant pleural effusion.The clinical respiratory journal · 2023Article
- Survival analysis and prognosis of patients with breast cancer with pleural metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- The efficacy of Endostar combined with platinum pleural infusion for malignant pleural effusion in tumor patients is significantly better than that of monotherapy, but the economy is lower: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Malignant pleural effusion: Updates in diagnosis, management and current challenges.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Evaluation of prognostic scores and factors affecting survival in patients with malignant pleural effusion.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based guidelines recommend management strategies for malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) based on life expectancy. Existent risk-prediction rules do not provide precise individualized survival estimates. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a newly developed continuous risk-prediction survival model for patients with MPE and known metastatic disease provide precise survival estimates? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsSingle-center retrospective cohort study of patients with proven malignancy, pleural effusion, and known metastatic disease undergoing thoracentesis from 2014 through 2017. The outcome was time from thoracentesis to death. Risk factors were identified using Cox proportional hazards models. Effect-measure modification (EMM) was tested using the Mantel-Cox test and was addressed by using disease-specific models (DSMs) or interaction terms. Three DSMs and a combined model using interactions were generated. Discrimination was evaluated using Harrell's C-statistic. Calibration was assessed by observed-minus-predicted probability graphs at specific time points. Models were validated using patients treated from 2010 through 2013. Using LENT (pleural fluid lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and tumor type) variables, we generated both discrete (LENT-D) and continuous (LENT-C) models, assessing discrete vs continuous predictors' performances.
resultsThe development and validation cohort included 562 and 727 patients, respectively. The Mantel-Cox test demonstrated interactions between cancer type and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (P < .0001), pleural fluid lactate dehydrogenase (P = .029), and bilateral effusion (P = .002). DSMs for lung, breast, and hematologic malignancies showed C-statistics of 0.72, 0.72, and 0.62, respectively; the combined model's C-statistics was 0.67. LENT-D (C-statistic, 0.60) and LENT-C (C-statistic, 0.65) models underperformed.
interpretationEMM is present between cancer type and other predictors; thus, DSMs outperformed the models that failed to account for this. Discrete risk-prediction models lacked enough precision to be useful for individual-level predictions.
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.