ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Prognostic prediction and comparison of three staging programs for patients with advanced (T2-T4) esophageal squamous carcinoma after radical resection.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.
- The clinical relevance of LODDS for post-mastectomy radiotherapy in T1-2N1M0 breast cancer: a real-world propensity score-weighted analysis using the SEER database.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Spatial nodal pattern refines disease-free survival stratification beyond pathological N stage in resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Developing a novel model for predicting overall survival in late-onset colon adenocarcinoma patients based on LODDS: a study based on the SEER database and external validation.Discover oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Lymph node-based staging protocols are frequently employed to evaluate the prognosis of esophageal cancer, yet their accuracy remains contentious. The present study was conducted to assess the prognostic significance of three lymph node staging systems, namely N stage, lymph node rate (LNR), and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS), in patients diagnosed with advanced (T2-T4) esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: This cohort comprised 319 eligible patients, with an additional 409 individuals retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, forming the validation cohort. Differences in overall survival (OS) of patients between groups were assessed using the log-rank test. Prognostic independent risk variables were identified, and lymph nodes (LN) prognostic models were built using multivariate Cox regression analysis. Besides, the predictive accuracy of each model was evaluated utilizing the (-2) log-likelihood ratio (-2LLR), the likelihood ratio χ2 score (LRχ2), the Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Harrell's concordance index (C-index). To further evaluate the potential superiority of the model, a nomogram was constructed for comparison with the conventional Tumor Node Metastasis (TNM) staging approach. Results: Independent prognostic factors for advanced ESCC include the N stage, LNR, and LODDS. Herein, LODDS presented higher values for C-index and LRχ2, and lower values for AIC and -2LLR in OS compared to the others. Consequently, a nomogram was constructed based on LODDS. Calibration curves exhibited strong agreement, and assessment through C-index, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and clinical decision curve analysis (DCA) demonstrated promising clinical applicability. Conclusion: LODDS emerges as a promising future prognostic indicator. After surgery, the proposed model holds the potential to provide valuable treatment recommendations for patients with advanced ESCC.
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.