ArticleCancer medicine2021
Comparison of model fit and discriminatory ability of M category as defined by the 7th and 8th editions of the tumor-node-metastasis classification of colorectal cancer and the 9th edition of the Japanese classification.
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 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.
- TWEAK/Fn14 Drives Tumor Progression and Is Associated With Poor Survival of Colorectal Liver Metastases With Replacement Growth Patterns.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of CT and MRI in the preoperative staging of colon cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn transitioning from the 7th edition of the tumor-node-metastasis classification (TNM-7) to the 8th edition (TNM-8), colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastasis was newly categorized as M1c. In the 9th edition of the Japanese Classification of colorectal, appendiceal, and anal carcinoma (JPC-9), M1c is further subdivided into M1c1 (without other organ involvement) and M1c2 (with other organ involvement). This study aimed to compare the model fit and discriminatory ability of the M category of these three classification systems, as no study to date has made this comparison.
methodsThe study population consisted of stage IV colorectal cancer patients who were referred to the National Cancer Center Hospital from 2000 to 2017. The Akaike information criterion (AIC), Harrell's concordance index (C-index), and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the three classification systems. Subgroup analyses, stratified by initial treatment year, were also performed.
resultsAccording to TNM-8, 670 (55%) patients had M1a, 273 (22%) had M1b, and 279 (23%) had M1c (87 M1c1 and 192 M1c2 using JPC-9) tumors. Among the three classification systems, JPC-9 had the lowest AIC value (JPC-9: 10546.3; TNM-7: 10555.9; TNM-8: 10585.5), highest C-index (JPC-9: 0.608; TNM-7: 0.598; TNM-8: 0.599), and superior time-dependent ROC curves throughout the observation period. Subgroup analyses were consistent with these results.
conclusionsWhile the revised M category definition did not improve model fit and discriminatory ability from TNM-7 to TNM-8, further subdivision of M1c in JPC-9 improved these parameters. These results support further revisions to M1 subcategories in future editions of the TNM classification system.
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.