ArticleCancers2022
External Validation of a Prognostic Score for Survival in Lung Carcinoids.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A prognostic score including T-dimension, age, histology and lymph node ratio was previously proposed in absence of an external validation dataset. The aim of the current study was to validate the proposed prognostic score using an independent dataset. Methods: Data of patients with lung carcinoids, who underwent surgical resection and lymphadenectomy in five institutions from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2019, were retrospectively analyzed. Two risk groups were created based on the following data: age, histology, node ratio and pT for disease-free survival (DFS); age, sex, node ratio and pT for overall survival (OS). The previously proposed score was validated, identifying two groups of patients: a high risk (HRG) and low risk (LRG) group. Results: The final analysis was conducted on 283 patients. Regarding DFS, 230 (81.3%) patients were assigned to the LRG and 53 (18.7%) to the HRG. Considering OS, 268 (94.7%) were allocated in the LRG and 15 (5.3%) in the HRG. The 5-year DFS was 92.7% in the LRG vs. 67% in the HRG (p < 0.001) while the 5-year OS was 93.6% in the LRG vs. 86.2% in the HRG (p = 0.29) with clear curve separation. Conclusion: Our analysis confirmed the validity of the composite score for DFS in lung carcinoids. Regarding OS, statistical significance was not reached because of a low number of deaths and patients in the HRG.
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.