ArticleTranslational cancer research2025
Risk factors analysis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with oral cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in Translational cancer research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The indications for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in oral cancer patients remain unclear. This study aimed to analyze the relevant clinical characteristics of oral cancer surgical patients undergoing PEG. Methods: Clinical data of oral cancer patients who underwent PEG from July 2020 to June 2021 at Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine were collected. Patients with PEG usage exceeding 1 month were assigned to the case group, while those with PEG usage equal to or less than 1 month were assigned to the control group. Univariate analysis and logistic regression analysis were employed to identify independent factors influencing the differential usage of PEG and the predictive value of relevant factors was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: A total of 104 cases of oral cancer surgical patients undergoing PEG were included. Univariate analysis revealed significant effects of tongue/pharyngeal resection during surgery (P=0.03), postoperative combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy (P=0.002), as well as advanced tumor stage (T stage) (P<0.001) and node stage (N stage) (P<0.001) of oral cancer on PEG usage. Logistic regression analysis identified postoperative combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy, T stage, and N stage as independent factors influencing PEG usage. The combined predictive model yielded an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.832 (P<0.001), with sensitivity and specificity of 0.767 and 0.778, respectively. Conclusions: The results suggest that oral cancer patients with tongue/pharyngeal resection during surgery, postoperative combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and advanced T and N stages of oral cancer may have a stronger indication for PEG.
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.