Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40115935›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2025

Determining the optimal number of examined lymph nodes for prognosis in colon cancer: a population-based study stratified by tumor location and T stage.

Jiahao Zhou, Tinghan Yang, Xiangbing Deng, Ziqiang Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jiahao ZhouColorectal Cancer Center, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Tinghan YangColorectal Cancer Center, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xiangbing DengColorectal Cancer Center, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ziqiang WangColorectal Cancer Center, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend ≥12 examined lymph nodes (ELNs) for colon cancer staging, but more may be necessary for accuracy. This study utilized nodal staging scores (NSS) to identity the optimal number of ELNs based on tumor location and T stage, and to assess its prognostic impact. Methods: Data from 80,792 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2014) and 2,300 patients from the West China Hospital (WCH) cohort (2008-2014) with stage I-III resected colon cancer were analyzed. Optimal ELNs was estimated using a β-binomial distribution model, stratified by tumor location (left-sided, LS; right-sided, RS) and T stage. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The association between sufficient nodal staging and OS in node-negative patients was validated by multivariate Cox models. Results: The mean number of ELN was 18.75 in the SEER and 14.58 in the WCH database. There were 57.8% and 48.8% patients who had RS colon cancer in the SEER and WCH database. Fewer T3-4 tumors were observed in the SEER cohort compared to the WCH cohort (68.4% Conclusions: Optimal ELNs for adequate colon cancer staging is related to both T stage and tumor location. We recommend that ≥24 lymph nodes be examined for T3 tumors, ≥34 for LS T4 tumors and ≥40 for RS T4 tumors for sufficient staging.

Indexed as

colon cancerLymph node evaluationnodal staging score (NSS)tumor sidedness

Identifiers

PMID40115935
PMCPMC11921217

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.