ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2023
Competing risk models versus traditional Cox models for prognostic factors' prediction and care recommendation in patients with advanced laryngeal squamous carcinoma: a population-based study.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of Predictive Models for Progression from Diabetic Kidney Disease to End-Stage Renal Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2025Article
- Oncological and functional outcome after laryngectomy for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer: a population-based analysis in Germany from 2001 to 2020.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the prognostic factors and the optimal treatment modalities for patients with stage IVA laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC), so as to improve the survival rate of patients.
methodsPatients with stage IVA LSCC between 2004 and 2019 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We used competing risk models to build nomograms for predicting cancer-specific survival (CSS). The effectiveness of the model was assessed using the calibration curves and the concordance index (C-index). The above results were compared with the nomogram established by Cox regression analysis. The patients were grouped into low-risk and high-risk groups by competing risk nomogram formula. And the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method and log-rank test were used to make sure that these groups had a survival difference.
resultsOverall, 3612 patients were included. Older age, black race, a higher N stage, a higher pathological grade, and a larger tumor size were independent risk factors for CSS; married marital status, total/radical laryngectomy, and radiotherapy were protective factors. The C-index was 0.663, 0.633, and 0.628 in the train set and 0.674, 0.639, and 0.629 in the test set of the competing risk model, and 0.672, 0.640, and 0.634 in the traditional Cox nomogram for 1, 3, and 5 years. In overall survival and CSS, the prognosis of the high-risk group was poorer than that of the low-risk group.
conclusionFor patients with stage IVA LSCC, a competing risk nomogram was created to help screen risk population and guide clinical decision-making.
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.