| Title |
Effect of tumor size on prognosis of node-negative lung cancer with sufficient lymph node examination and no disease extension
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s98509 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yang Zhang, Yihua Sun, Haiquan Chen |
| Abstract |
The effect of tumor size on the prognosis of node-negative non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might be biased by missed lymph node metastasis and local disease extension. We investigated 2,260 patients with N0M0 NSCLC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database diagnosed from 1998 to 2012. Eligible patients had $18 lymph nodes examined and no disease extension. Tumor size was classified as T1a (0-10 mm), T1b (11-20 mm), T1c (21-30 mm), T2a (31-40 mm), T2b (41-50 mm), T3 (51-70 mm), and T4 (>70 mm). The 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates for T1a, T1b, T1c, T2a, T2b, T3, and T4 patients were 85.6%, 84.4%, 79.9%, 77.9%, 70.0%, 63.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for T1a, T1b, T1c, T2a, T2b, T3, and T4 patients were 77.8%, 74.1%, 68.2%, 64.5%, 58.7%, 53.2%, and 57.3%, respectively. Using T1a as the reference, the hazard ratio generally increased with tumor size in the multivariate analysis of CSS and OS, with the exception of T4 patients. After adjusting for lymph node examination and disease extension, tumor size still had a significant effect on CSS in NSCLC, although the effect seemed to be smaller than that in a more generalized population. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 10% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,816,184
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,608
of 3,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,773
of 407,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#61
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,021 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.