ArticleHeliyon2023
An online clinical model and risk stratification system to predict progression-free survival for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitor.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Our study aimed to build a risk stratification system predicting the progression-free survival (PFS) to classify patients into diverse prognostic subgroups for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with PD-(L)1 inhibitor. Methods: 404 patients from our center were enrolled in this study and 70% patients (n = 282) were randomly assigned into the training cohort and other 30% patients (n = 122) into the validation cohort. A testing cohort contained 81 patients from other centers were used to assess the generalizability of model. Cox regression analyses were used to identify the most significant clinical parameters. The model's performance was assessed by using concordance index (C-index), calibration curves, Decision Curve Analyses (DCAs), net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) analyses, and survival curve. Results: Five clinical parameters were identified as the most significant predictors by using cox regression. We then integrated them into a Nomogram to Evaluate the relative PFS of ICIs Treatment (NEPIT). The C-index of NEPIT in the training cohort, the validation cohort and testing cohort was 0.789 (95%CI: 0.750-0.828), 0.745 (95%CI: 0.706-0.784), and 0.766 (95%CI: 0.744-0.788), respectively. The calibration curves presented a good congruence between the predictions and actual observations. The Decision Curve Analyses (DCAs) reflected positive net benefits can be obtained for NEPIT. The results from NRI and IDI analyses showed that the NEPIT could improve predictive power of TPS. In addition, the further constructed risk stratification system could effectively categorize patients into different risk subgroups. Conclusion: The tools developed in this study would have value in guiding the optimal patient selection for precision care.
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.