ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2020
Development and Validation of a Simplified Prognostic Score in SCLC.
Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Randomized Phase II-III Study of Bevacizumab 7,5 mg/kg in Combination With Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in Extensive-Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Response to Chemotherapy : PCDE (cisPlatin - Cyclophosphamide - epiDoxorubicin - Etoposide) or PE (cisPlatin - Etoposide)
A Randomized Non-comparative Phase II Study of Anti-PDL1 ATEZOLIZUMAB (MPDL3280A) or Chemotherapy as Second-line Therapy in Patients With Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A simplified scoring system for predicting treatment response in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (EAST score).Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- EPAC-lung: European pooled analysis of the prognostic value of circulating tumour cells in small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Article
- From Simple Scores to Intelligent Systems: Encouraging the Development, Validation and Adoption of Robust Prognostic Tools in Small Cell Lung Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
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
introductionThis study aimed at generating a new simplified prognostic score (SPS) using common clinical and biological variables to discriminate a limited number of subgroups of patients with SCLC differing by their overall survival (OS).
methodsThe SPS was developed exploring the Montpellier University Hospital retrospective database of 401 patients over a 16-year period. All patients had received etoposide - platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment. The SPS development took into account significant determinants of OS in the Cox model, weighted by their regression β coefficients. Validation of the consequent SPS has been done separately in a combined population of 213 patients accrued from two different published trials (NCT03059667 and NCT00930891).
resultsThe significant independent determinants of OS included the following: (1) American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM stage IV (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.91-3.33); (2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status greater than 1 (HR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.79-2.87); (3) the presence of liver metastases (HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.29-2.15); and (4) neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio greater than 4 (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.11-1.92). The SPS generated with these four variables, segregated three groups (good, intermediate, and poor prognosis) with respective median OS of 26.9 months (95% CI: 20.1-38.9), 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.8-13.0), and 6.8 months (95% CI: 5.8-8.3; log-rank
conclusionsThe SPS is easy to calculate in real-life practice and efficiently discriminates three populations with different prognoses. This study deserves further validation of this score in patients with SCLC receiving immunochemotherapy.
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.