ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Development and validation of a prognostic model for overall survival in small cell carcinoma of the esophagus.
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.
- Esophageal Small Cell Carcinoma: From Bench Discoveries to Bedside Therapeutics.International journal of biological sciences · 2026Review
- TOP2A as a prognostic biomarker in small cell carcinoma of the esophagus: an integrated bioinformatics and immunohistochemical study.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
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: Small cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE) is an exceptionally rare subtype of esophageal carcinoma. Accurate survival prediction is challenging due to the lack of widely recognized prognostic models. This study aimed to construct and validate a prognostic model to predict overall survival (OS) in SCCE patients. Methods: A total of 491 SCCE patients were included from two sources: the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University (n = 333, 2010-2020) and the SEER database (n = 158, 2000-2020). Patients were subsequently divided into training (n = 234), internal validation (n = 99), and external validation cohorts (n = 158). A prognostic model for OS was constructed using multivariable Cox regression in the training cohort, from which a relative survival risk score and nomogram were derived. Model performance was evaluated using the C-index, AUROCs, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA), and compared to TNM and VASLG staging systems. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated survival, and differences were assessed using the log-rank test. Results: Of the 491 patients, 314 (86.7%) were male, with a mean age of 66 years. Independent prognostic factors for OS, including TNM stage, surgery, and chemotherapy, were incorporated into a Cox model, termed the TSC model. The C-index for the TSC score in the training cohort (0.738; 95% CI, 0.615-0.845) was significantly higher than TNM (0.706; 95% CI, 0.507-0.796) and VASLG (0.657; 95% CI, 0.606-0.708). Likewise, AUROCs for the TSC score at 1, 3, and 5 years (0.713, 0.732, 0.816) outperformed both TNM (0.686, 0.682, 0.725) and VASLG (0.592, 0.609, 0.648). Moreover, calibration curves illustrated strong alignment between predicted and observed survival probabilities. DCA showed the nomogram provided superior net clinical benefits. High-risk patients had a median OS of 9.7 months, significantly shorter than 28.5 months for low-risk patients. These findings were validated in internal and external cohorts. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, the TSC model is the first fully validated prognostic model for SCCE, offering more accurate OS predictions than TNM and VASLG staging systems, and providing a valuable tool for personalized 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.