ReviewCureus2021
Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Ratio in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Review
- Central Lymph Node Ratio Predicts Recurrence in Patients with N1b Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma.Cancers · 2022Article
- A prediction model for the 5-year, 10-year and 20-year mortality of medullary thyroid carcinoma patients based on lymph node ratio and other predictors.Frontiers in surgery · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prognosis of cutaneous melanoma (CM) is based on the histological characteristics of the primary tumor, such as Breslow depth, ulceration, and mitotic rate. The lymph node ratio (LNR) is the ratio of the involved lymph nodes (LNs) divided by the total number of LNs removed during regional LN dissection. LNR is a prognostic factor for many solid tumors; however, controversies exist regarding CM. This study sought to analyze the role of LNR as a prognostic factor in CM. An extensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from January 1966 to July 2015. The keywords included in the search were CM and inclusion of the ratio of positive to the total number of LNs as a prognostic factor. The outcomes analyzed included the number of patients with positive LNs, type of survival analysis, and results from the multivariate analysis. A total of 11 studies involving 12,011 patients with positive LNs were evaluated. No previous randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews were identified in the Cochrane database on the prognostic value of LNR in CM. The primary electronic database search resulted in 333 full-text articles. The LN location examined was the cervical, axillary, and inguinal regions in all studies except for one that examined only the inguinal region. All studies except three studied the prognostic value of the LNR as a categorical variable rather than a continuous variable. LNR was categorized as A (≤0.1), B (0.11-0.25), and C (>0.25). All studies identified LNR as an independent predictor of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), or disease-specific survival (DSS). The hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) associated with either DFS or OS were available only in a few studies. Moreover, pooled HR for OS was 2.08 (95% CI: 1.48 2.92), for DFS was 1.364 (95% CI: 0.92-2.02), and for DSS was 1.643 (95% CI: 0.89-3.0). The LNR provides superior prognostic stratification among patients with CM. Additional adequately powered prospective studies are needed to further define the role of LNR and be included in the staging system of CM and direct adjuvant therapy.
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.