ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Impact of examined lymph node number on lymph node status and prognosis in FIGO stage IB-IIA cervical squamous cell carcinoma: A population-based study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of lymph node yield on survival of patients with metastatic esophageal cancer: a population-based retrospective study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Examined lymph node counts affected the staging and survival in cervical cancer: a retrospective study using the SEER and Chinese cohort.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Low responsiveness of machine learning models to critical or deteriorating health conditions.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to investigate the association of examined lymph node (ELN) number with lymph node status and long-term survival in FIGO stage IB-IIA cervical squamous cell carcinoma(CSCC) and to determine the minimum number of ELN associated with survival improvement. Method: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database of FIGO stage IB-IIA CSCC patients undergoing hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in 2004-2016 were analyzed to explore the relationship between ELN number and lymph node status and overall survival (OS) by using the multivariable approach. The estimated probability of falsely identifying a patient as node-negative and the hazard ratios (HRs) for each ELN was fitted with a LOWESS smoother, and the structural breakpoints were determined. X-tile software was used to determine the optimal cutoff value for ELNs. Results: A total of 2627 patients were analyzed. The optimal cutoff value of the ELN number was identified as 7 based on the results of X-tile software. The structural breakpoints according to the associations between the number of ELNs and the estimated risk of false-negative lymph node dissection and HRs for overall survival were 9 and 8, respectively. The multivariate analysis indicated that ELN number was an independent prognostic factor for OS, both as a continuous or categorical variable. To further explore the effect of more ELNs on survival, another cutoff value of 17 was chosen to compare the survival curves of patients. The multivariate-adjusted COX model showed that patients with ELN<8 had a significantly higher risk of death than those with ELN8-17 (HR=1.447, 95% CI =1.075-1.947, Conclusion: A sufficient number of ELNs was associated with better long-term survival in FIGO stage IB-IIA CSCC. At least 8 ELNs need to be examined for prognostic stratification. Excessive lymph node dissection (ELN>17) may not confer additional survival benefits.
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.