Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34554238›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Assessment of Survival Model Performance Following Inclusion of Epstein-Barr Virus DNA Status in Conventional TNM Staging Groups in Epstein-Barr Virus-Related Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Wang-Zhong Li, Hai-Jun Wu, Shu-Hui Lv, Xue-Feng Hu, Hu Liang, Guo-Ying Liu, Nian Lu, Wei-Xin Bei, Xing Lv, Xiang Guo and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Wang-Zhong LiState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Hai-Jun WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, First People's Hospital of Foshan, Foshan, China.
Shu-Hui LvMedical Affairs Office, Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai, China.
Xue-Feng HuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, First People's Hospital of Foshan, Foshan, China.
Hu LiangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Guo-Ying LiuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Nian LuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Wei-Xin BeiDepartment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Xing LvState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Xiang GuoState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Wei-Xiong XiaState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Yan-Qun XiangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNFirst People's Hospital of Foshan · CNFifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Nonanatomic prognostic factors complement the traditional anatomic staging system and could be incorporated into the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) framework. Several diseases have incorporated nonanatomic prognostic factors into the determination of TNM staging groups. Objective: To refine TNM staging groups for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-related nonmetastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) by incorporating EBV DNA status. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prognostic study included patients with NPC treated with radiotherapy at 2 hospitals in China from January 2008 to December 2016. Progression-free survival and overall survival according to EBV DNA status and the TNM staging system were compared. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) combined with supervised clustering was applied to derive prognostic groupings, and then a refined RPA staging schema was developed, validated, and compared with existing staging schemes. Statistical analyses were conducted from October 1, 2020, to June 15, 2021. Exposures: Curative intensity-modulated radiotherapy with or without platinum-based chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival. The performance of the staging system was assessed using the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curves and the TNM stage system's evaluation methodology. Results: A total of 2354 patients (1709 men [72.6%]; median [interquartile range] age, 45 [38-53] years) were split into training (1372 [58.3%]), internal validation (672 [28.5%]), and external validation (310 [13.2%]) cohorts. Pretreatment EBV DNA was detected in 1338 (56.8%) patients. EBV DNA status was an independent prognostic factor: lower survival probability by higher TNM stage was evident in EBV DNA-positive patients but not in those with EBV DNA-negative disease. After integrating EBV DNA status and TNM stage, nonmetastatic NPC cases were categorized into RPA-I (T1-3N0 or EBV DNA-negative T1-3N1 cancers), RPA-II (EBV DNA-positive T1-3N1-2 or EBV DNA-negative T1-3N2-3/T4N0-3 cancers), and RPA-III (EBV DNA-positive T4N0-3/T1-3N3 cancers) groups, each with distinctly different prognosis. This system of RPA staging outperformed the current TNM stage system and 2 reported RPA staging schemes. These results were internally and externally validated. Conclusions and Relevance: An RPA-based staging system for EBV-related NPC cases was associated with improved outcomes. This staging system may facilitate prognostic stratification and clinical trial designs.

Indexed as

AdultChinaDNA, ViralFemaleHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisProgression-Free SurvivalReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesDNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID34554238
PMCPMC8461502
OpenAlexW3201249639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.