ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
Development and validation of a predictive model for penile cancer based on the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database and multi-center cases.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. 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.
- Suprapubic antegrade endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy with great saphenous vein preservation for penile cancer: a stepwise technique (with video).World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Risk factors for distant metastasis and prognosis of the penile cancer with distant metastasis.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePenile cancer (PC) is a great impact on the quality of life and psychological status of patients. This study aimed to construct nomograms using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to predict overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in patients with penile cancer (PC).
methodsPatients were divided into a training cohort (n = 634) and a validation cohort (n = 272) in a 7:3 ratio. Independent risk factors influencing the prognosis of PC were screened using univariate and multivariate Cox analyses, and models for predicting PC were developed. Data from 203 patients with PC in four tertiary hospitals in Gansu Province from 2012 to 2021 were externally validated.
resultsUnivariate analysis and multivariate analysis showed revealed that the OS-related factors were age, grade, T stage, N stage, M stage and tumor size (p < 0.05); the CSS-related factors were age, mode of surgery, T stage, N stage, M stage and tumor size (p < 0.05). The C-indices of the OS and CSS nomograms in the training cohort were 0.743 [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.714-0.772)] and 0.797 (0.762-0.832), respectively. The C-indices of the OS and CSS nomograms in the internal validation cohort were 0.735 (0.686-0.784) and 0.755 (0.688-0.822), respectively, and those in the external validation cohort were 0.801 (0.746-0.856) and 0.863 (0.812-0.914), respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and survival curves all demonstrated good predictive performance of the nomograms.
conclusionThe nomograms for PC were developed using the SEER database. The accuracy and clinical usefulness of the model were validated through a combination of internal and external validations.
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.