1
40
1
-
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
URL Address
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1834-4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">http://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1834-4</a>
Pages
815–815
Volume
15
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The importance of extranodal extension in penile cancer: a meta-analysis.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
BMC cancer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2015
2015-10
Subject
The topic of the resource
Comparative Studies; Cox Proportional Hazards Model; Evaluation Research; Human; Humans; Lymph Nodes – Pathology; Lymph Nodes/pathology; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Meta Analysis; Multicenter Studies; Neoplasm Metastasis; Odds Ratio; Penile Neoplasms – Diagnosis; Penile Neoplasms – Mortality; Penile Neoplasms – Pathology; Penile Neoplasms/diagnosis/*mortality/*pathology; Prognosis; Proportional Hazards Models; Publication Bias; Validation Studies
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Zhang Zhi-Ling; Yu Chun-Ping; Liu Zhuo-Wei; Velet Liliya; Li Yong-Hong; Jiang Li-Juan; Zhou Fang-Jian
Description
An account of the resource
BACKGROUND: The role of extranodal extension (ENE) in penile cancer is controversial and has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to investigate the importance of ENE in predicting prognosis and presence of pelvic lymph node metastasis (PLNM) in penile cancer patients. METHODS: We searched related studies in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus database. Hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR) were directly extracted or indirectly estimated from the included studies. RESULTS: A total of ten studies with 1,142 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Patients with ENE showed a worse cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR = 1.90, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 1.35-2.67, P = 0.0002) and overall survival (HR = 4.04, 95 % CI = 1.02-16.1, P = 0.05) than those without ENE. Further subgroup analysis revealed that the predictive value of ENE for CSS in penile cancer patients was significant regardless of the study's country of origin, but not in the subgroup with shorter follow-up time (\textless36 months, P = 0.38). Patients with ENE also showed a higher incidence of presenting with PLNM (OR = 4.95, 95 % CI = 2.58-9.49, P \textless 0.001). A stratified analysis demonstrated that the predictive role of ENE for PLNM was only detected in studies with a larger sample size (\textgreater 100 cases). No significant publication bias was observed, as suggested by Begg's and Egger's tests. CONCLUSIONS: ENE is associated with worse prognosis and high risk of PLNM in penile cancer patients. Due to the limited number of studies included in this meta-analysis, a large-scale, well-designed study will be required to verify our results.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1834-4" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1186/s12885-015-1834-4</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Article information provided for research and reference use only. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
2015
BMC cancer
Comparative Studies
Cox Proportional Hazards Model
Evaluation Research
Human
Humans
Jiang Li-Juan
Li Yong-Hong
Liu Zhuo-Wei
Lymph Nodes – Pathology
Lymph Nodes/pathology
Lymphatic Metastasis
Male
Meta Analysis
Multicenter Studies
Neoplasm Metastasis
Odds Ratio
Penile Neoplasms – Diagnosis
Penile Neoplasms – Mortality
Penile Neoplasms – Pathology
Penile Neoplasms/diagnosis/*mortality/*pathology
Prognosis
Proportional Hazards Models
Publication Bias
Validation Studies
Velet Liliya
Yu Chun-Ping
Zhang Zhi-Ling
Zhou Fang-Jian