ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Optimal Cut-Off Values of the Positive Lymph Node Ratio and the Number of Removed Nodes for Patients Receiving Resection of Bronchopulmonary Carcinoids: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis of the SEER Database.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lymphadenectomy and optimal excise lymph nodes count for early-stage primary fallopian tube cancer: a SEER-based study.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Surgical Principles in the Management of Lung Neuroendocrine Tumors: Open Questions and Controversial Technical Issues.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022Review
- Adjuvant chemotherapy is not a decisive factor in improving the overall survival of pulmonary sarcoma: A population-based study.Frontiers in oncology · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough lymph node dissection (LND) has been commonly used for patients with bronchopulmonary carcinoids (PCs), the prognostic values of the positive lymph node ratio (PLNR) and the number of removed nodes (NRN) remain unclear.
methodsPatients with resected PCs were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015). The optimal cut-off values of the PLNR and NRN were determined by X-tile. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to reduce the selection bias. IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients in different PLNR and NRN groups.
resultsThe study included 1622 patients. The optimal cut-off values of the PLNR and NRN for survival were 13% and 13, respectively. In both Kaplan-Meier analysis and univariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis before IPTW, a PLNR ≥13% was significantly associated with worse OS (HR = 3.364, P<0.001) and worse CSS (HR = 7.874, P<0.001). These findings were corroborated by the IPTW-adjusted Cox analysis OS (HR = 2.358, P = 0.0275) and CSS (HR = 8.190, P<0.001) results. An NRN ≥13 was not significantly associated with worse OS in either the Kaplan-Meier or Cox analysis before or after IPTW adjustment. In the Cox proportional hazards analysis before and after IPTW adjustment, an NRN ≥13 was significantly associated with worse CSS (non-IPTW: HR = 2.216, P=0.013; IPTW-adjusted: HR = 2.162, P=0.024).
conclusionA PLNR ≥13% could predict worse OS and CSS in patients with PCs and might be an important complement to the present PC staging system. Extensive LND with an NRN ≥13 might have no therapeutic value for OS and may even have an adverse influence on CSS. Its application should be considered on an individual basis.
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.