ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for patients with malignant peritoneal mesothelioma.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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.
- Epidemiological and Prognostic Differences in Malignant Mesothelioma Between Eastern China and SEER Database.Cancer science · 2026Article
- Hormonal Status May Contribute to Sex-Based Survival Differences in Epithelioid Peritoneal Mesothelioma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma(MPM) is a highly aggressive malignant tumor that originates from peritoneal mesothelial cells. Due to the rarity of MPM, there are few survival prediction models specifically for visualization of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Objective: This study aimed to develop a nomogram for the overall survival of MPM based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and the data of Cangzhou People's Hospital were used for external verification. Methods: Patients screened from the SEER database were divided into a training group and an internal verification group in a 7:3 ratio, with data from Cangzhou People's Hospital used as the external verification group. Cox proportional hazard regression was utilized to identify significant factors, and nomograms for 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month overall survival were developed. The performance of the nomogram was assessed using consistency index, calibration curve, and K-M curve. Results: Age, sex, histology, surgery, tumor size, chemotherapy, differentiated and the number of organ metastases were significant risk factors (p<0.05) and were included in the nomogram.The area under the subject worker curve at 6,12,18 months overall survival (AUC) was 0.782,0.784,0.766 for the training group, 0.804,0.791,0.796 for the internal verification group, 0.767,0.749,0.783 for the external verification group. The predicted correction curve was in good agreement with the observed results. The Kaplan-Meier curves of different risk groups showed significant differences. Conclusion: This study represents the first visual prognostic model of MPM and the initial incorporation of organ metastasis into MPM prognostic factors. The nomograph serves as a reliable tool for clinicians to personalize overall survival prediction and maximize patient benefits by identifying the most effective treatment.
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.