Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34379305›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2021

Prognostic Score System Using Preoperative Inflammatory, Nutritional and Tumor Markers to Predict Prognosis for Gastric Cancer: A Two-Center Cohort Study.

Huayang Pang, Weihan Zhang, Xianwen Liang, Ziqi Zhang, Xiaolong Chen, Linyong Zhao, Kai Liu, Danil Galiullin, Kun Yang, Xinzu Chen and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Huayang Pang *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Weihan Zhang *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Xianwen Liang *Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Ziqi ZhangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Xiaolong ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Linyong ZhaoDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Kai LiuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Danil GaliullinDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Kun YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Xinzu ChenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Jiankun HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, Collaborative Innovation Center for Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 GuoXue Xiang Street, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. hujkwch@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGastric cancer (GC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Our study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of preoperative inflammatory, nutritional and tumor markers and develop an effective prognostic score system to predict the prognosis of GC patients.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 1587 consecutive GC patients who received curative gastrectomy from two medical centers. A novel prognostic score system was proposed based on independently preoperative markers associated with overall survival (OS) of GC patients. A nomogram based on prognostic score system was further established and validated internally and externally.

resultsBased on multivariate analysis in the training set, a novel BLC (body mass index-lymphocyte-carbohydrate antigen 19-9) score system was proposed, which showed an effective predictability of OS in GC patients (log-rank P < 0.001). Moreover, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that BLC had better performance in predicting OS than the traditional prognostic markers. The C-index of the BLC based-nomogram was 0.710 (95% CI 0.686-0.734), and the areas under ROC curves for predicting 3- and 5-year OS were 0.781 (95% CI 0.750-0.813) and 0.755 (95% CI 0.723-0.786), respectively, which were higher than those of tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging system alone. The calibration curve for probability of 3- and 5-year OS rate showed a good fitting effect between prediction by nomogram and actual observation. Verification in the internal and external validation sets showed results consistent with those in the training set.

conclusionsThe BLC combining inflammatory, nutritional and tumor markers was an independent prognostic predictor for GC patients, and the nomogram based on BLC could accurately predict the personalized survival of patients with GC.

Indexed as

Stomach NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCohort StudiesHumansPrognosisRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorGastric cancerNomogramOverall survivalPrognostic score system

Identifiers

PMID34379305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.