ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparison of efficacy and prognosis between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy in penile cancer patients with regional lymph node metastasis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The comparative efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in patients with lymph node metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma (PSCC) remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the differences in efficacy and survival outcomes between NAC and AC in PSCC patients with lymph node metastasis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of penile cancer patients treated at Peking University Cancer Hospital between May 2015 and December 2023. All patients had lymph node metastasis and underwent lymph node dissection. 11 patients received NAC, while 14 received AC. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariate Cox regression models were used to analyze baseline characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and associated risk factors. Results: There was no statistical difference in the baseline characteristics of patients between the two groups. In the NAC group, 4 patients achieved partial response (PR), 1 achieved complete response (CR), 4 achieved progression disease (PD), and 2 had stable disease (SD). After a median follow-up of 65.1 months, the NAC group had a shorter PFS compared to the AC group ( Conclusion: Penile cancer with lymph node metastasis typically carries a dismal prognosis. NAC substantially diminishes tumor size and facilitates surgical excision, whereas AC is more effective in controlling postoperative tumor progression. However, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment strategies.
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.