ArticleCureus2025
Prognostic Landscape of Lymphoepithelial Carcinoma: Analysis of a National Database.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLymphoepithelial carcinoma (LEC) is a rare and malignant epithelial tumor characterized by poorly differentiated carcinoma with lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate. This study utilizes the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to analyze demographic, clinical, and treatment factors affecting overall survival and evaluate the impact of treatment modalities and socioeconomic factors on outcomes.
methodsPatients with LEC were identified in the NCDB between 2004 and 2020. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the impact of variables such as age, tumor stage, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score, adjuvant therapies, and socioeconomic factors.
resultsThis study of 408 LEC patients identified several significant predictors of mortality. Advanced cancer stage (hazard ratio (HR): 8.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.25-16.79; p < 0.001) and increasing age (per five years; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.12-1.28; p < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality risk. Patients with lung LEC had worse survival than those with LEC in the female reproductive organs (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.20-0.64; p < 0.001), while those with head and neck LEC had better survival rates than those with lung LEC (HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.04-2.67; p = 0.036). Chemotherapy was associated with improved survival (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.30-0.96; p = 0.037). Socioeconomic status also played a role, with residence in the lowest educational attainment quartile associated with poorer survival (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.26-0.98; p = 0.044) and private insurance coverage associated with better survival (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.02-3.80; p = 0.042).
conclusionOlder age, advanced stage, and low educational attainment are key predictors of poorer survival in LEC. Lymphoepithelial carcinoma has the worst prognosis when found in the lungs compared to any other primary site. Primary chemotherapy significantly improves survival, emphasizing its role in treatment. Further research is needed to explore cancer-specific mortality and the impact of site-specific differences.
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.