ArticleCancer medicine2021
A nomogram to predict the cancer-specific survival of stage II-IV Epithelial ovarian cancer after bulking surgery and chemotherapy.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ferroptosis-Linked Six-Gene Panel Enables Machine Learning-Assisted Diagnosis and Therapeutic Guidance in Lung Adenocarcinoma.Biology · 2025Article
- Prognostic Factors After the First Recurrence of Ovarian Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Stage IV ovarian cancer prognosis nomogram and analysis of racial differences: A study based on the SEER database.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Differences of survival benefits brought by various treatments in ovarian cancer patients with different tumor stages.Journal of ovarian research · 2023Article
- Prediction for 2-year mortality of metastatic ovarian cancer patients based on surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Conditional Survival of Advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Real-World Data Retrospective Cohort Study From the SEER Database.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn order to predict the survival rate of ovarian cancer patients, multiple independent risk factors are integrated to establish a prognostic nomogram.
methodsCox analysis was used to construct the nomogram. All of the mainly independent factors, which can be used to predict 3-year and 5-year survival rates for cancer in the training cohort, were incorporated to establish nomograms. The C-index, operating characteristic, ROC curves, and calibration plots can show evaluation results of performance.
resultsModel derivation was based on 3277 patients who belong to different races. The best threshold for age was 51, 59, and 67 year old and the older the people, the worse their survival. Meanwhile, many lymph node examinations indicated a favorable survival and the survival of the positive set was worse than of that. In addition, the optional threshold was 64 mm for tumor size and the set larger than 64 mm had a better survival than that less than 64 mm. Univariate Cox proportional hazards regression model showed that the similar worse outcomes were showed in black race, advanced grade, stage T3, stage M1, lymph nodes positive, and CA125 positive compared with the first group. We found that the number of lymph nodes examined and tumor size had an inverse relationship with its corresponding score of CSS in training cases with bulking surgery and chemotherapy.
conclusionsWe developed a model which relatively accurately predicted the prognosis of ovarian cancer by multiple univariate analysis, at the same time, the proposed nomograms exhibit superior prognostic discrimination and survival prediction.
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.