ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2023
The prognostic value of 11
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTwo staging systems, the 8th staging system by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the 11th Japanese classification by Japan Esophageal Society (JES), are currently applied in the clinic for predicting the prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). The differences between the two staging systems have been widely researched. However, little studies focus on the differences in specific staging between the two systems. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of different staging in predicting overall survival (OS) of Chinese patients with ESCC.
methodsThis retrospective study included 268 patients who underwent radical esophagectomy and mediastinal lymph node dissection for ESCC between January 2008 and December 2013. Patients were staged by the 8th AJCC and 11th JES staging systems. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between N stages and between stage groupings using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently related to outcome. Further, we compared the concordance indexes (C-indexes) of the two staging systems.
resultsThe mean age was 61.25 ± 7.056 years, median follow-up was 44.82 months, and 5-year OS rate was 47%. The OS was well predicted by the 8th AJCC N staging (P < 0.001) and the 11th JES N staging (P < 0.001), with a c-index of 0.638 (95% CI: 0.592-0.683) for AJCC N staging and 0.627 (95% CI: 0.583-0.670) for JES N staging (P = 0.13). In addition, the OS was also well predicted by stage groupings of the 8th AJCC (P < 0.001) and the 11th JES systems (P < 0.001), with a c-index of 0.658 (95% CI: 0.616-0.699) for 8th AJCC stage grouping and 0.629 (95% CI: 0.589-0.668) for the11th JES stage grouping (P = 0.211).
conclusionsThe prognostic effect of 11th JES staging system is comparable with that of AJCC 8th staging system for patients with ESCC. Therefore, both systems are applicable to clinical practice.
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.