ArticleCancer medicine2024
Establishment of a Novel Risk Stratification System Integrating Clinical and Pathological Parameters for Prognostication and Clinical Decision-Making in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHighly heterogeneity and inconsistency in terms of prognosis are widely identified for early-stage cervical cancer (esCC). Herein, we aim to investigate for an intuitional risk stratification model for better prognostication and decision-making in combination with clinical and pathological variables.
methodsWe enrolled 2071 CC patients with preoperative biopsy-confirmed and clinically diagnosed with FIGO stage IA-IIA who received radical hysterectomy from 2013 to 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to the training set (n = 1450) and internal validation set (n = 621), in a ratio of 7:3. We used recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) to develop a risk stratification model and assessed the ability of discrimination and calibration of the RPA-derived model. The performances of the model were compared with the conventional FIGO 2018 and 9th edition T or N stage classifications.
resultsRPA divided patients into four risk groups with distinct survival: 5-year OS for RPA I to IV were 98%, 95%, 85.5%, and 64.2%, respectively, in training cohort; and 99.5%, 93.2%, 85%, and 68.3% in internal validation cohort (log-rank p < 0.001). Calibration curves confirmed that the RPA-predicted survivals were in good agreement with the actual survivals. The RPA model outperformed the existing staging systems, with highest AUC for OS (training: 0.778 vs. 0.6-0.717; internal validation: 0.772 vs. 0.595-0.704; all p < 0.05), and C-index for OS (training: 0.768 vs. 0.598-0.707; internal validation: 0.741 vs. 0.583-0.676; all p < 0.05). Importantly, there were associations between RPA groups and the efficacy of treatment regimens. No obvious discrepancy was observed among different treatment modalities in RPA I (p = 0.922), whereas significant survival improvements were identified in patients who received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in RPA II-IV (p value were 0.028, 0.036, and 0.024, respectively).
conclusionWe presented a validated novel clinicopathological risk stratification signature for robust prognostication of esCC, which may be used for streamlining treatment strategies.
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.