ArticleScientific reports2025
Effect of examined lymph node count on precise cancer-specific survival and effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in resected colorectal cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nonlinear association between number of lymph nodes resected and survival in T1N0M0 colorectal cancer: a SEER-based analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- More is not always better: higher lymph node yield is not associated with improved survival in stage I-III colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Substantial uncertainties remain regarding the establishment of an optimal examined lymph node (ELN) count for the comprehensive management of resectable colorectal cancer (CRC). The correlation of the ELN count with cancer-specific survival (CSS) and benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in CRC was investigated using a large database, and the minimal threshold for ELN count in LN-negative patients was determined. The data on stage I to III CRC available in the SEER database (2010-2015) were analyzed to determine the correlation of ELN count with CSS and the benefit of AC using multivariable models. The series of odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were fitted using the join-point regression analysis. External validation was performed using the data of patients with stage I to III CRC (2004 to 2009) available in the SEER database. Among LN-negative patients, both cohorts indicated that an increase in the ELN count (≤ 18) led to incremental enhancements in CSS, while no additional improvement in CSS was noted beyond an ELN count of 18. Notably, the efficacy of AC diminished gradually as the ELN count increased. Moreover, post-AC CSS was impaired when the ELN count exceeded 18 (serial HRs > 1), a trend that was accentuated with a higher ELN count. Among the LN-positive patients, two cohorts exhibited proportional increases in ELNs, from one positive LN (PLN) to 20 PLN disease, and incremental benefit from AC, as the ELN count increased (serial HRs < 1). The present study recommends an ELN threshold of 18 when evaluating the quality of prognostic stratification and guiding AC for LN-negative cases. A higher ELN count would be associated with further accurate PLN detection and incremental benefit from AC in LN-positive diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.