Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35241010›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2022

Prognostic significance of the skeletal muscle index and systemic inflammatory index in patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer after radical mastectomy.

Ru Tang, Jia-Peng Deng, Lei Zhang, Wen-Wen Zhang, Jia-Yuan Sun, Feng Chi, Jun Zhang, San-Gang Wu, Zhen-Yu He

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Are Cross-Sectional Imaging Modalities Enough for Sarcopenia Assessment?The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ru Tang *Department of Radiotherapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Jia-Peng Deng *Department of Radiotherapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Lei Zhang *Department of Radiotherapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Wen-Wen ZhangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) and Peking Union Medical College (PUMC), Beijing, China.
Jia-Yuan SunDepartment of Radiotherapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Feng ChiDepartment of Radiotherapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Jun ZhangDepartment of Radiotherapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
San-Gang WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Xiamen, 361003, China. unowu12345@hotmail.com.
Zhen-Yu HeDepartment of Radiotherapy, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. hezhy@sysucc.org.cn.
State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South ChinaSun Yat-sen University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81803050National Natural Science Foundation of China 81872459Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2018A030313666
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of skeletal muscle index (SMI) and systemic inflammation index (SII) for patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer remain controversial. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the individual and synergistic value of SMI and SII in outcomes prediction in this population.

methodsLymph node-positive breast cancer patients who received mastectomy between January 2011 and February 2013 were included in this retrospective study. We used abdominal computed tomography (CT) to measure skeletal muscle mass at the third lumbar (L3) level. The optimal cut-off values of SMI and SII were determined through maximizing the Youden index on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Kaplan-Meier method was used to assess the correlation between SMI, SII, and overall survival (OS). The prognostic value of SMI and SII were analyzed with the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.

resultsOf 97 patients included in our study (mean age: 46 [range: 27-73] years; median follow-up: 62.5 months), 71 had low SMI (sarcopenia), 59 had low SII, and 56 had low SMI + SII. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that both high SMI (P = 0.021, 5-year OS: 84.0% vs. 94.1%) and high SII (P = 0.043, 5-year OS: 81.0% vs. 97.3%) were associated with worse OS. Additionally, patients with either low SMI or low SII had significantly better OS (P = 0.0059, 5-year OS: 100.0% vs. 84.6%) than those with high SMI + SII. Multivariable analysis confirmed the predictive values of high SMI (P = 0.024, hazard ratio [HR]: 9.87) and high SII (P = 0.048, HR: 6.87) for poor OS. Moreover, high SMI + SII was significantly associated with poor survival (P = 0.016, HR: 16.36).

conclusionsIn this retrospective analysis, both SMI and SII independently predicted the prognosis of patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer. SMI + SII might be a stronger prognostic factor than either alone based on our findings, but should be further verified in a larger study.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsAdultAgedBiomarkersBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInflammationInflammation MediatorsKaplan-Meier EstimateLumbar VertebraeLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMastectomy, RadicalMiddle AgedBiomarkersInflammation MediatorsBreast cancerOverall survivalSkeletal muscle index (SMI)Systemic inflammation index (SII)

Identifiers

PMID35241010
PMCPMC8895760
OpenAlexW4214911776

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.