ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
The staging performance of a modified tumor-node-metastasis staging system incorporated with lymphovascular invasion in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oncologic outcomes and prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in renal cell carcinoma according to nodal stage.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Lymphovascular and perineural invasion guides adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Integrating lymphovascular invasion and ypTNM staging system for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery: a multi-institutional analysis.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is recognized as an unfavorable prognostic factor for many solid tumors. However, its staging value has not been adequately illustrated in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: The clinicopathologic relevance and prognostic impact of LVI were retrospectively analyzed in 822 patients with surgically treated ESCC. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the independent prognostic factors. Subgroup analyses stratified by pathological stages, nodal status and invasive depth were conducted using Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Multiple staging models based on overall survival (OS) were constructed using Cox regression and evaluated by Harrell's concordance index (C-index), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and net reclassification index (NRI). Results: LVI was detected in 24.6% of ESCC patients, and its prevalence increased with a higher pathological stage (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, LVI was found to be an independent prognostic factor for OS [Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.545, 95% CI, 1.201-1.986), and was associated with unfavorable outcomes in stage I to III ESCC, regardless of nodal status and invasive depth. The staging model that incorporated LVI as an independent factor achieved the greatest improvement in accuracy (ΔC-index: 2.9%), and the greatest added value (IDI 2.8%, p < 0.01; NRI 13.7%, p < 0.05) for prediction of OS in ESCC patients. Conclusions: LVI can facilitate further survival stratification in ESCC patients. The adoption of LVI as an independent staging factor in the current cancer staging system should be considered and further validated.
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.