ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Nomogram prediction of the lymph-vascular space invasion in cervical cancer: comparison of 2009 and 2018 staging systems.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) is a crucial prognostic factor in cervical cancer (CC), and its assessment is essential for developing personalized treatment strategies. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to focused on constructing LVSI predictive model based on clinical indicators and evaluating its predictive performance across different FIGO staging cohorts. Study design: We included 691 patients, with 348 patients having 2009 FIGO stage IB1-IIA2 CC assigned to Cohort 1, and 343 patients with 2018 FIGO stage IB1-IIIC1r CC assigned to Cohort 2. In Cohort 1, univariable and multivariable regression analyses, along with Mallows' Cp, R squared-R, and LASSO, were used to select variables forming Model 1. Model 2 included the FIGO stage. We compared the contribution of different FIGO stages to the LVSI prediction model in both cohorts. The final LVSI prediction model for the entire cohort was constructed using selected variables and risk stratification was established. The models were evaluated through internal validations using ROC curves, C-index, Clinical Impact Curve (CIC), and Decision Curve. Results: Five variables were incorporated into Model 1: age, Pathology, Depth of Stromal Invasion (DSI), SCC-Ag, and Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH). Model 2 was established by incorporating the FIGO staging system. Compared with the two models, there was no significant difference in ROC, ΔC-index and ΔNRI. Adding FIGO clinical staging did not significantly improve predictive value. Model 1's variable were included in the nomogram for the combined cohort. The AUC for the model-development cohort and validation cohort was 0.754 (95% CI: 0.711, 0.798) and 0.789 (95% CI: 0.727, 0.852), respectively. In both cohorts, risk stratification effectively distinguished the high-risk group, which had a significantly higher proportion of positive cases compared to the low and middle-risk groups (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Our nomogram predictive model demonstrates robust LVSI prediction performance across different staging systems.
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.