ArticleScientific reports2024
Prognostic scoring system based on indicators reflecting the tumor glandular differentiation and microenvironment for patients with colorectal cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Article
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prognostic stratification is an urgent concern for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The desmoplastic reaction (DR) is speculated to mirror the tumor microenvironment. DR types are considered independent prognostic indicators in CRC, but have not been incorporated in previous prognostic nomograms. We aimed to assess the prognostic significance of a novel approach incorporating histopathological indicators reflecting tumor glandular differentiation and microenvironment. We evaluated 329 consecutive patients with CRC who underwent surgical resection at Kansai Medical University. Histological glandular differentiation was scored as 2 (0 point), 3 (1 point), or 4 (2 points). Tumor buddings (TBs) were classified as TB1 (0 point), TB2 (1 point), or TB3 (2 points). pT1 or 2 was considered as 0 point, pT3 or 4 + DR non-immature type as 1 point, and pT3 or 4 + DR immature type as 2 points. Lymph node metastasis was classified as pN0 (0 point), pN1 (1 point), or pN2 (2 points). The preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen levels were categorized as < 5.0 ng/mL (0 point) and ≧5.0 (1 point). Considering these factors, the following D&M (tumor differentiation and microenvironment) scoring system was applied: I (0-2 points), II (3-4 points), III (5-6 points), and IV (7-9 points). Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences in disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival among the assigned scores, highlighting their enhanced utility compared with the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition staging system. The D&M scoring system was valuable as the initial prognostic nomogram, including DR.
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.