Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic factors for survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: univariate and multivariate analyses including recursive partitioning and amalgamation algorithms in 1,052 patients. The European Lung Cancer Working Party.

Paesmans, M, Sculier, J P, Libert, P, Bureau, G, Dabouis, G, Thiriaux, J, Michel, J, Van Cutsem, O, Sergysels, R, Mommen, P·1995·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study attempted to determine the prognostic value for survival of various pretreatment characteristics in patients with nonresectable non-small-cell lung cancer in the context of more than 10 years of experience of a European Cooperative Group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included in the analysis all eligible patients (N = 1,052) with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer registered onto one of seven trials conducted by the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) during one decade. The patients were treated by chemotherapy regimens based on platinum derivatives. We prospectively collected 23 variables and analyzed them by univariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: The global estimated median survival time was 29 weeks, with a 95% confidence interval of 27 to 30 weeks. After univariate analysis, we applied two multivariate statistical techniques. In a Cox regression model, the selected explanatory variables were disease extent, Karnofsky performance status, WBC and neutrophil counts, metastatic involvement of skin, serum calcium level, age, and sex. These results were confirmed by application of recursive partitioning and amalgamation algorithms (RECPAM), which led to classification of the patients into four homogeneous subgroups. CONCLUSION: We confirmed by our analysis the role of well-known independent prognostic factors for survival, but also identified the effect of the neutrophil count, rarely studied, with the use of two methods: a classical Cox regression model and a RECPAM analysis. The classification of patients into the four subgroups we obtained needs to be validated in other series.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.1995.13.5.1221

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Paesmans, M., Sculier, J. P., Libert, P., Bureau, G., Dabouis, G., Thiriaux, J., Michel, J., Van Cutsem, O., Sergysels, R., & Mommen, P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
1995-05
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
1221-1230
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1882728012
Cited by
386
References
1
FWCI
11.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.