ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Exploration of the optimal number of regional lymph nodes removed for resected N0 NSCLC patients: 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive Performance of Radiomics-Based Machine Learning for Colorectal Cancer Recurrence Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Pooled it
- Analysis of predictive factors of unforeseen nodal metastases in resected clinical stage I NSCLC.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of our study was to explore the optimal number of regional lymph nodes removed (LNRs) in resected N0 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and identify potential risk factors. Methods: Included in this study were 55,024 N0 NSCLC patients between 2004 and 2015 based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER). All the patients were divided into No LNR group (57.8%), 1-3 LNRs group (8.1%) and ≥4 LNRs group (31.4%). Relevant clinical and patient parameters including overall survival (OS), lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS), gender, race, year of diagnosis, primary site, T stage, AJCC stage, laterality, histological type, lymphadenectomy, radiation, chemotherapy, age at diagnosis, insurance status, marital status, family income. Results: Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated LNRs had significantly better OS and LCSS than No LNRs in all the N0 NSCLC patients with different T stages (Logrank p<.001). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that both OS and LCSS in ≥ 4 LNRs group were better than those in <1-3 LNRs group (OS: ≥4 LNRs group: HR, 0.583; 95%CI, 0.556-0.610; P<.001 vs.1-3 LNRs group: HR, 0.726; 95%CI, 0.687-0.769; P<.001; LCSS: ≥4 LNRs group: HR, 0.514; 95%CI, 0.480-0.550; P<.001 vs.1-3 LNRs group: HR, 0.647; 95%CI, 0.597-0.702; P<.001). In addition, whites, males, not upper lobe, large cell carcinoma and others, advance T stage or AJCC stage, no surgery, no LNR, no radiation, no chemotherapy, elder age at diagnosis, singled marital status and low family income had negative impact on prognosis of N0 NSCLC patients. Conclusions: Our study suggests that ≥ 4 LNRs can yield better survival outcomes compared with 1-3 LNRs in N0 NSCLC patients.
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.