ArticleTranslational cancer research2020
A prognostic model guides surgical resection in cervical squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identified Gefitinib Metabolism-Related lncRNAs can be Applied to Predict Prognosis, Tumor Microenvironment, and Drug Sensitivity in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- RefineNet-based automatic delineation of the clinical target volume and organs at risk for three-dimensional brachytherapy for cervical cancer.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical and Prognostic Pan-Cancer Analysis of N6-Methyladenosine Regulators in Two Types of Hematological Malignancies: A Retrospective Study Based on TCGA and GTEx Databases.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- The Nomogram Model Predicting Overall Survival and Guiding Clinical Decision in Patients With Glioblastoma Based on the SEER Database.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo explore the independent risk factors of cervical squamous cell carcinoma and establish a Nomogram model to predict the prognosis of patients.
methodsWe randomly divided the total data of patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma from 2010 to 2015 obtained from the SEER database and cleaned them into training and verification cohorts. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform univariate and multivariate analyses on the three cohorts of data including the total data. After the intersection, the independent factors and their nomograms with statistical significance were obtained, and the degree of differentiation and calibration between predicted results and real values were obtained by using C-index and calibration map respectively. In addition, the ROC curve was used for correction and evaluation, and the 1-, 3- and 5-year overall and specific survival rates of patients were finally predicted.
resultsWe found age, surgical condition of the primary site and tumor size were all independent factors of cervical cancer. The high-risk survival rates of patients at 1, 3 and 5 years were 77.7%, 48.6% and 36.4%, respectively. We determined that minimally invasive hysterectomy and uterine-preserving surgery (UPS) have a better survival rate for early (stage I) tumors or tumor diameter less than 20 mm. For the late (stage III-IV) or tumor diameter greater than 20 mm, auxiliary open hysterectomy after radiotherapy, and requires careful evaluation of the postoperative residual tumor is the best policy.
conclusionsThe constructed nomograms could predict overall survival with good performance, and guide surgical resection in cervical squamous cell carcinoma.
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.