ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2026
Development and external validation of two nomograms for predicting brain metastases and brain metastasis-free survival in primary small cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a retrospective multicenter analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reliably predicting brain metastasis (BM) and brain metastasis‑free survival (BMFS) in patients with primary small cell carcinoma of the esophagus (PSCCE) remains a clinical challenge. Objectives: To develop and externally validate predictive nomograms for assessing BM probability and BMFS in patients with PSCCE. Design: A retrospective model development and external validation study. Methods: Using a training cohort, we constructed two separate nomograms. The first was developed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression to predict the probability of BM. The second was built using a Fine‑Gray competing-risk model to estimate BMFS, treating death without BM as a competing event. The performance of both nomograms was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve/time-dependent ROC curve, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA). External validation was subsequently performed using an independent validation cohort. Results: The study sample included 492 patients in the training cohort (mean age at diagnosis 61.97 ± 8.86 years; 133 (27%) female) and 344 patients in the external validation cohort (mean age at diagnosis 62.97 ± 8.14 years; 108 (31%) female). Age, N stage, and M stage emerged as independent predictors and were included in a nomogram to estimate BM risk. Adding lesion length and initial treatments (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery) to these three factors allowed the model to predict BMFS. Both nomograms showed strong predictive performance in the training cohort, with area under the ROC curve values of 0.76 and 0.843, respectively, supported by calibration plots and DCA. These results were confirmed in the external validation cohort. The logistic regression‑based nomogram accurately predicted BM probability, while the Fine-Gray model provided reliable estimates of BMFS. Conclusion: We successfully developed and externally validated two complementary nomograms that reliably predict BM probability and BMFS in patients with PSCCE. These tools may aid in risk stratification and inform personalized surveillance 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.