ArticleCancer management and research2021
Prognostic Values of Different Clinicopathological Factors and Predictive Models for Penile Carcinoma.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a predictive model for penile cancer based on the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database and multi-center cases.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Development and Verification of Prognostic Nomogram for Penile Cancer Based on the SEER Database.BioMed research international · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the prognostic factors of penile cancer and the utility of prognostic models.
methodsWe analyzed postoperatively collected data of 311 patients diagnosed with penile cancer. Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier and cox regression methods) was performed on this cohort. The c-index was used to determine the predictive accuracies of potential prognostic factors. The accuracies of four prognostic models were also evaluated, which were AJCC prognostic stage group for three recent editions, and four nomograms constructed by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (SEER). Two novel nomograms using our data were created and AUC of 2-year survival were determined to compare existing and newly established models.
resultsTumor site, T and N stages, nuclear grade and lymph vascular invasion (LVI) significantly influenced prognosis. The 8th T and N stages had better c-indexes than former editions, while no improvement was seen in the 8thAJCC stage group. 6th AJCC+grade nomogram had a higher c-index than other three nomograms (SEER+grade, 6th TNM+grade, and 6th T
conclusionTumor site, stages, grade, and LVI play important roles in predicting survival of penile cancer. The 8th stages have better predictive accuracy than former editions. We proposed two models with better predictive accuracy than former models; specifically, nomogram 1 may be a more precise and convenient tool for predicting penile cancer outcomes.
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.