ArticleDigital health
Conditional survival analysis May enhance prognosis estimate in buccal mucosa carcinoma.
Article in Digital health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Buccal mucosa cancer (BMC) is an aggressive subtype of oral cancer. Conventional survival analysis cannot reflect the time-dependent nature of prognosis. This study aimed to assess dynamic survival probabilities in BMC using conditional survival (CS) analysis and to develop a CS-based nomogram for individualized prognostic evaluation. Methods: Data of BMC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2021 were obtained from the SEER database. CS analysis was applied to estimate dynamic survival, while annual hazard rate (AHR) analysis identified high-risk periods after diagnosis. A CS-nomogram was constructed using stepwise selection integrating best subsets regression, LASSO, and Cox analyses. Model performance was evaluated using calibration plots, area under the curve (AUC), decision curve analysis (DCA), and Kaplan-Meier stratification. Results: A total of 2,310 patients were included. The 3-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 63%, 56%, and 41%, respectively. CS analysis showed a marked increase in 10-year survival probability, from 52% for 1-year survivors to 95% for 9-year survivors. AHR analysis revealed the highest mortality risk within the first year, which stabilized after three years. The CS-nomogram, incorporating key prognostic factors, achieved AUCs exceeding 0.80 in both training and validation cohorts. Conclusions: This study establishes a dynamic prognostic framework for BMC. The CS-nomogram provides accurate, interval-updated survival predictions that can help clinicians tailor follow-up and counseling for long-term survivors. However, additional external validation in geographically diverse cohorts is needed.
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.