FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2010281844> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2010281844 abstract "You have accessJournal of UrologyPenis/Testis/Urethra: Benign & Malignant Disease1 Apr 2011837 COMPARATIVE PROGNOSTIC ABILITY OF TNM NODAL STAGING SYSTEMS AND LYMPH NODE DENSITY FOR PENILE SQUAMOUS CARCINOMA Robert Svatek, Stephen Culp, Mark Munsell, and Curtis Pettaway Robert SvatekRobert Svatek San Antonio, TX More articles by this author , Stephen CulpStephen Culp Houston, TX More articles by this author , Mark MunsellMark Munsell Houston, TX More articles by this author , and Curtis PettawayCurtis Pettaway Houston, TX More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.657AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The 6th ed, of the AJCC TNM pathologic nodal staging system for penile cancer has been criticized due to perceived deficiencies. The 7th ed. was recently introduced as an alternative. In addition lymph node density (LND) was recently shown to be a powerful predictor of survival among patients with node positive cancer. The objective of this analysis was to compare the prognostic capability of both TNM nodal staging systems to LND. METHODS Data were collected from 232 consecutive patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis treated at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center between 1979 and 2010. Patients were categorized based on the 6th and 7th ed. AJCC TNM nodal staging classification, and by LND. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model disease-specific survival (DSS) as a function of LND and stage. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS). The Schwarz Bayes information criterion (SBIC) and the concordance probability (estimated using the method described by Gönen and Heller) were used to identify the prognostic factor that best fits the data. The lower the SBIC and the higher the predictive accuracy, the better the model fits the data. RESULTS A total of 138 of 232 (59.4%) patients underwent a nodal dissection and 70 of 138 (50.7%) were found to have node positive disease. Sixty-three patients had sufficient data available for analyses. The median follow-up was 26 months for all node positive patients. At the time of data collection, 33 of 63 patients (52.4%) died, including 27 (42.9%) of penile cancer. The univariate association between the nodal staging systems and cancer-specific mortality is shown in the Table. The SBIC suggests the model with LND as the prognostic factor best fits the data (table). LND also demonstrated the highest concordance probability (0.713). The model with N stage (AJCC 6th Ed.) had concordance probability 0.676, while the model with N stage (AJCC 7th Ed.) had concordance probability 0.692. A multivariate model was fit with LND and with each N stage system, but neither of these models found N stage to be statistically significantly associated with DSS once LND was considered. Table. Cox Proportional Hazards Regression for Disease-Specific Survival No. patients (deaths) p-value HR 95%CI 5-year DSS 95%CI SBIC; C-index LND 181.3; 0.731 0.00–0.33 26(4) — 1.00 — 0.875 0.661–0.958 0.34–0.66 16(7) 0.051 3.41 1.00–11.67 0.495 0.197–0.737 0.67–1.00 21(16) 9.65 3.13–29.77 0.115 0.010–0.362 N stage (AJCC 6th ed.) 189.1; 0.676 1 28(7) — 1.00 — 0.799 0.576–0.912 2 16(8) 0.035 3.03 1.08–8.44 0.369 0.112–0.635 3 19(12) 5.61 2.06–15.31 0.176 0.031–0.419 N stage (AJCC 7th ed.) 186.4; 0.692 1 20(4) — 1.00 — 0.895 0.641–0.973 2 10(4) 0.128 2.96 0.73–11.97 0.5 0.137–0.785 3 33(19) 7.62 2.29–25.33 0.217 0.066–0.423 CONCLUSIONS The prognostic value of the 7th ed. TNM nodal staging system was validated in this independent data set. However LND provided enhanced prognostic capability for predicting cancer-related mortality in our population. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e336-e337 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Robert Svatek San Antonio, TX More articles by this author Stephen Culp Houston, TX More articles by this author Mark Munsell Houston, TX More articles by this author Curtis Pettaway Houston, TX More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2010281844 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2010281844 creator A5003974295 @default.
• W2010281844 creator A5016811631 @default.
• W2010281844 creator A5049589636 @default.
• W2010281844 creator A5068197546 @default.
• W2010281844 date "2011-04-01" @default.
• W2010281844 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2010281844 title "837 COMPARATIVE PROGNOSTIC ABILITY OF TNM NODAL STAGING SYSTEMS AND LYMPH NODE DENSITY FOR PENILE SQUAMOUS CARCINOMA" @default.
• W2010281844 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.657" @default.
• W2010281844 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2010281844 type Work @default.
• W2010281844 sameAs 2010281844 @default.
• W2010281844 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2010281844 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2010281844 hasAuthorship W2010281844A5003974295 @default.
• W2010281844 hasAuthorship W2010281844A5016811631 @default.
• W2010281844 hasAuthorship W2010281844A5049589636 @default.
• W2010281844 hasAuthorship W2010281844A5068197546 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C146357865 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C2777180808 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C2780849966 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C50382708 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C83330619 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C121608353 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C126322002 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C143998085 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C146357865 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C151730666 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C2777180808 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C2780849966 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C50382708 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C71924100 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C83330619 @default.
• W2010281844 hasConceptScore W2010281844C86803240 @default.
• W2010281844 hasIssue "4S" @default.
• W2010281844 hasLocation W20102818441 @default.
• W2010281844 hasOpenAccess W2010281844 @default.
• W2010281844 hasPrimaryLocation W20102818441 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W1842976280 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W1964675706 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W2005287550 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W2025438229 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W2031392367 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W2364092196 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W2889156515 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W2913062941 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W3177659668 @default.
• W2010281844 hasRelatedWork W4248488664 @default.
• W2010281844 hasVolume "185" @default.
• W2010281844 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2010281844 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2010281844 magId "2010281844" @default.
• W2010281844 workType "article" @default.