ArticleCancer medicine2023
Prognostic models for early and late tumor progression prediction in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: An analysis of 8292 endemic cases.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. 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.
- Article
- Article
- Early recurrence as a pivotal event in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: identifying predictors and key molecular signals for survivors.Head & face medicine · 2024Article
- Prognostic models for early and late tumor progression prediction in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: An analysis of 8292 endemic cases.Cancer medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe time for posttreatment tumor progression differs between nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. Herein, we established effective nomograms for predicting early tumor progression (ETP) and late tumor progression (LTP) in NPC patients.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 8292 NPC patients (training cohort: n = 6219; validation cohort: n = 2073). The ELP and LTP were defined as the time to tumor progression ≤24 and >24 months after treatment, respectively.
resultsThe ETP and LTP accounted for 52.6 and 47.4% of the total patient cohort, respectively. Patients who developed ETP had markedly worse overall survival (OS) versus patients who suffered from LTP (5-year OS: 26.2% vs. 59.7%, p < 0.001). Further, we identified 10/6 predictive factors significantly associated with ETP/LTP via logistic regression analyses. These indicators were used separately to construct two predictive nomograms for ETP and LTP. In the training group, the ETP nomogram [Harrell Concordance Index (C-index) value: 0.711 vs. 0.618; p < 0.001] and LTP nomogram (C-index value: 0.701 vs. 0.612; p < 0.001) were significantly superior for risk stratification than the TNM staging. These results were supported in the validation group with a C-index value of 0.753 and 0.738 for the ETP and LTP nomograms, respectively. High-risk patients defined by ETP/LTP nomograms had shorter progression-free survival than low-risk patients (all p < 0.001).
conclusionThe established nomograms can help in ELP or LTP risk stratification for NPC patients. Our current results might also provide insights into individualized treatment decisions and designing surveillance strategies for NPC 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.