Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40927526›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

Utilizing tumor deposit count as a stratification criterion in revising TNM staging system for patients with colorectal cancer: a nomogram review study.

Lifei Zhang, Yunna Ma, Jiantao Dong, Jianhui Cai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lifei ZhangDepartment of Surgery, Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Yunna MaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Jiantao DongDepartment of Surgery, Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Jianhui CaiDepartment of Surgery, Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Tumor deposit (TD) is an independent risk factor associated with recurrence or metastasis for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The scenario in which both TD and lymph node metastasis (LNM) are positive is not clearly illustrated by the current TNM staging system. Simply treating one TD as one or two LNMs by a weighting factor is inappropriate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of TD counts and revise TNM staging by utilizing TD count as a stratification criterion in patients with CRC. Methods: All the cases diagnosed with CRC between 2010 and 2019 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients who met all inclusion criteria were grouped as TD=0, TD=1, TD=2, or TD≥3 based on their TD counts. To compare overall survival (OS) between groups, survival curves were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methods with log-rank tests. Utilizing TD count as a stratification criterion, the NM classification was regrouped. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify significant factors in the revised TNM staging system. A nomogram was then created. The C-index, calibration plots, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used to verify the model's accuracy. Results: A total of 60,145 patients who satisfied all inclusion requirements were ultimately included in the datasets for analysis. Among them, 6,092 (10.1%) had TDs, with only 1,384 (22.7%) staged as N1c. The 3-year OS rates were 74.6%, 50.4%, 39.8%, and 29.1% in the TD=0, TD=1, TD=2, and TD≥3 groups, respectively (p < 0.001), indicating that a greater TD count was linked to a worse prognosis. We introduced a novel stage, N2c, for patients with 10 or more LNMs. We found a striking overlap between the survival curves of this new subgroup and those of the M1a group, with p = 0.39. We observed that the survival trajectories of CRC patients with more than three TDs were similar to those of patients in the N2c group and the M1a group, with p = 0.15 and p = 0.42, respectively, which means that CRC patients with more than 10 LNMs or three TDs are equivalent to the presence of distant metastases. Utilizing TD count as a stratification criterion, we regrouped the NM classification. We finally assigned CRC patients with three or more TDs to the M1a. Finally, the revised TNM staging's prognostic significance was demonstrated by the nomogram and dynamic nomogram. The C-indices for OS prediction in the training cohort and validation cohort were 0.751 (95% CI: 0.748-0.754) and 0.752 (95% CI: 0.747-0.756), respectively. The ROC curve study revealed that both the training cohort and the validation group had areas under the curve (AUCs) of approximately 0.8 at 1, 3, and 5 years. The calibration curves demonstrated good agreement between actual observation and the nomogram-predicted Cancer-Specific Death (CSD) probability. The clinical application study demonstrated that the model outperformed the TNM staging approach in terms of net benefit increases and fewer needless procedures. Conclusions: TDs have significant predictive significance in CRC. The revised TNM staging using TD counts as a stratification criterion predicts survival more accurately than the current staging. CRC patients with more than 10 LNMs or three TDs have a level of malignancy comparable to the existence of distant metastases. The dynamic nomogram could assist medical practitioners in diagnosing, providing prognoses, and optimizing treatment strategies more quickly and effectively.

Indexed as

colorectal cancernomogramSEERTNMtumor deposit

Identifiers

PMID40927526
PMCPMC12414775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.