ArticlePloS one2024
Comparing the prognosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma with bone and liver metastases: A competing risk analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbout half of the patients with esophageal cancer are presenting with metastasis at initial diagnosis. However, few studies have concerned on the prognostic factors of metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (mEAC). This research aimed to investigate the effects of single bone metastasis (BM) and single liver metastasis (LM) on prognosis of mEAC patients.
methodsData were obtained from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database. We compared the effects of LM and BM on overall survival (OS), EAC-specific survival (CSS), and EAC-specific death (EASD) by multivariate Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and competing risk regression models.
resultsA total of 1,278 EAC patients were recruited in this study. Of which 78.95% (1009/1278) were EASD, and 12.68% (162/1278) were non-EAC-specific death (non-EASD). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, surgery, chemotherapy, and AJCC.T2 (vs. T1) were identified as protective factors for OS&CSS, while divorced/separated, single/unmarried (vs. married), grade III-IV (vs. grade I-II) and BM (vs. LM) were identified as risk factors. Competing risk regression analysis further confirmed that surgery and chemotherapy were beneficial to the patients with mEAC, and BM (vs. LM) was a risk factor for mEAC patients when considering the existence of the competitive risk events.
conclusionOur study indicated that mEAC patients with BM face a worse prognosis compared to those with LM. Additionally, surgery and chemotherapy emerge as protective factors for mEAC patients. These findings offer evidence-based insights for clinical management and contribute to the field.
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.