Journal of International Oncology ›› 2022, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (3): 151-163.doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn371439-20211015-00026
• Original Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
Yuan Chenyang, Zhou Juying(), Du Xiao, Ji Huan, Zhao Tianyi
Received:
2021-10-15
Revised:
2021-11-21
Online:
2022-03-08
Published:
2022-03-22
Contact:
Zhou Juying
E-mail:zhoujuyingsy@163.com
Yuan Chenyang, Zhou Juying, Du Xiao, Ji Huan, Zhao Tianyi. Comparison of 2018 and 2009 FIGO staging system of cervical cancer and analysis of prognostic factors[J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2022, 49(3): 151-163.
"
2018 FIGO分期 | 2009 FIGO分期 | 合计 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ⅠA1 | ⅠA2 | ⅠB1 | ⅠB2 | ⅠB3 | ⅡA | ⅡB | ⅢA | ⅢB | ⅢC1 | ⅢC2 | ⅣA | ⅣB | ||
ⅠA1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
ⅠA2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
ⅠB1 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 |
ⅠB2 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 |
ⅠB3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 |
ⅡA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 102 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 102 |
ⅡB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 68 |
ⅢA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 |
ⅢB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 |
ⅢC1 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 8 | 0 | 47 | 24 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 119 |
ⅢC2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
ⅣA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
ⅣB | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 16 |
合计 | 3 | 5 | 135 | 53 | 0 | 155 | 94 | 18 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16 | 524 |
"
影响因素 | 单因素分析 | 多因素分析 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | |||
年龄(≥60岁/<60岁) | 1.74 | 1.06~2.86 | 0.029 | 1.88 | 1.08~3.28 | 0.026 | ||
病理类型 | ||||||||
腺癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 2.28 | 1.23~4.23 | 0.009 | 2.11 | 1.04~4.27 | 0.038 | ||
腺鳞状细胞癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 0.60 | 0.08~4.36 | 0.617 | 0.69 | 0.09~5.17 | 0.719 | ||
分化程度 | ||||||||
中分化/低分化 | 0.91 | 0.42~1.95 | 0.802 | - | - | - | ||
高分化/低分化 | 0.84 | 0.20~3.55 | 0.814 | - | - | - | ||
人乳头状瘤病毒(阳性/阴性) | 0.24 | 0.08~0.73 | 0.012 | 0.36 | 0.11~1.18 | 0.091 | ||
淋巴结转移(阳性/阴性) | 2.26 | 1.44~3.57 | <0.001 | 2.18 | 1.34~3.56 | 0.002 | ||
宫旁扩散(阳性/阴性) | 3.35 | 2.13~5.29 | <0.001 | 2.56 | 1.52~4.29 | <0.001 | ||
肿瘤最大径(>4 cm/≤4 cm) | 2.88 | 1.77~4.68 | <0.001 | 1.98 | 1.18~3.30 | 0.009 | ||
治疗后SCCA(阳性/阴性) | 4.62 | 2.28~9.38 | <0.001 | 4.49 | 2.09~9.68 | <0.001 | ||
治疗前CEA(阳性/阴性) | 2.81 | 1.41~5.59 | 0.003 | 1.38 | 0.64~2.98 | 0.414 | ||
治疗前HB(>110 g/L/≤110 g/L) | 0.41 | 0.26~0.66 | <0.001 | 0.58 | 0.35~0.96 | 0.035 |
"
影响因素 | OS | PFS | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | ||||||||
年龄(≥60岁/<60岁) | 0.33 | 0.02~4.71 | 0.414 | 1.07 | 0.23~5.05 | 0.936 | |||||||
病理类型 | |||||||||||||
腺癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 3.63 | 0.04~378.08 | 0.587 | 0.27 | 0.03~2.32 | 0.233 | |||||||
腺鳞状细胞癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 0.00 | - | 0.996 | 0.00 | - | 0.991 | |||||||
影响因素 | OS | PFS | |||||||||||
HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | ||||||||
分化程度 | |||||||||||||
中分化/低分化 | 0.01 | 0.00~4.06 | 0.128 | 0.09 | 0.01~0.81 | 0.032 | |||||||
高分化/低分化 | 0.00 | - | 0.996 | 0.00 | - | 0.989 | |||||||
治疗方式 | |||||||||||||
根治性放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 2.63 | 0.00~10 012.04 | 0.819 | 2.86 | 0.21~38.05 | 0.427 | |||||||
根治术+放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 0.04 | 0.00~23.24 | 0.323 | 0.17 | 0.04~0.71 | 0.015 | |||||||
单纯外照射/根治术±化疗 | 0.00 | - | 0.996 | 1.46 | 0.04~47.97 | 0.832 | |||||||
分期 | |||||||||||||
ⅠB2/ⅠB1 | 1 030.14 | 0~9.60×1034 | 0.853 | 0.37 | 0.08~1.70 | 0.200 | |||||||
ⅠB3/ⅠB1 | 12 395.02 | 0~1.19×1036 | 0.802 | 0.65 | 0.15~2.74 | 0.557 | |||||||
治疗后SCCA(阳性/阴性) | 1 172.50 | 10.37~132 554.51 | 0.003 | 190.68 | 14.27~2 547.67 | <0.001 |
"
影响因素 | OS | PFS | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | |||
年龄(≥60岁/<60岁) | 1.22 | 0.21~7.20 | 0.827 | 1.11 | 0.32~3.93 | 0.867 | ||
病理类型 | ||||||||
腺癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 2.78 | 0.18~42.16 | 0.461 | 0.36 | 0.04~3.00 | 0.347 | ||
腺鳞状细胞癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 0.00 | 0.00~6.50×1052 | 0.849 | 0.00 | - | 0.975 | ||
分化程度 | ||||||||
中分化/低分化 | 0.09 | 0.01~1.68 | 0.107 | 0.11 | 0.02~0.63 | 0.013 | ||
高分化/低分化 | 0.00 | - | 0.995 | 0.00 | - | 0.993 | ||
治疗方式 | ||||||||
根治性放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 3.13 | 0.11~85.88 | 0.499 | 0.85 | 0.12~6.26 | 0.872 | ||
根治术+放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 0.23 | 0.01~4.03 | 0.315 | 0.22 | 0.06~0.75 | 0.015 | ||
单纯外照射/根治术±化疗 | 0.00 | - | 0.995 | 0.49 | 0.03~7.67 | 0.610 | ||
分期(ⅠB2/ⅠB1) | 9.56 | 2.38~38.32 | 0.001 | 2.02 | 0.76~5.37 | 0.161 | ||
治疗后SCCA(阳性/阴性) | 126.32 | 12.36~1 290.60 | <0.001 | 43.83 | 7.94~241.84 | <0.001 | ||
淋巴结转移(阳性/阴性) | 20.07 | 3.63~111.11 | 0.001 | 2.22 | 0.84~5.83 | 0.107 |
"
影响因素 | OS | PFS | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | |||
年龄(≥60岁/<60岁) | 1.52 | 0.51~4.539 | 0.454 | 0.88 | 0.40~1.92 | 0.746 | ||
病理类型 | ||||||||
腺癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 20.28 | 2.93~140.32 | 0.002 | 2.19 | 0.48~9.94 | 0.308 | ||
腺鳞状细胞癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 9.05 | 0.52~157.91 | 0.131 | 2.19 | 0.20~23.81 | 0.521 | ||
分化程度 | ||||||||
中分化/低分化 | 0.00 | 0.00~1.77×1054 | 0.900 | 0.86 | 0.22~3.39 | 0.834 | ||
高分化/低分化 | 2.73 | 0.25~30.08 | 0.413 | 1.13 | 0.14~9.35 | 0.913 | ||
治疗方式 | ||||||||
根治性放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 19 045.54 | 0.00~5.18×1084 | 0.917 | 40 078.09 | 0.00~1.12×1088 | 0.914 | ||
根治术+放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 3 608.56 | 0.00~9.81×1083 | 0.931 | 23 016.21 | 0.00~6.43×1087 | 0.918 | ||
单纯外照射/根治术±化疗 | 7 636.34 | 0.00~2.10×1084 | 0.925 | 26 263.34 | 0.00~7.39×1087 | 0.917 | ||
分期(ⅡB/ⅡA) | 4.35 | 1.02~18.55 | 0.047 | 1.59 | 0.71~3.58 | 0.263 | ||
治疗后SCCA(阳性/阴性) | 1.44 | 0.17~12.33 | 0.741 | 0.64 | 0.09~4.80 | 0.663 |
"
影响因素 | OS | PFS | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | |||||||
年龄(≥60岁/<60岁) | 1.29 | 0.52~3.17 | 0.586 | 0.83 | 0.43~1.59 | 0.688 | ||||||
病理类型 | ||||||||||||
腺癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 5.82 | 1.62~20.94 | 0.007 | 3.09 | 1.22~7.85 | 0.017 | ||||||
腺鳞状细胞癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 3.92 | 0.38~40.77 | 0.253 | 1.18 | 0.14~9.93 | 0.881 | ||||||
分化程度 | ||||||||||||
中分化/低分化 | 1.54 | 0.42~5.69 | 0.520 | 1.82 | 0.82~4.01 | 0.139 | ||||||
高分化/低分化 | 3.57 | 0.65~19.77 | 0.145 | 1.40 | 0.38~5.17 | 0.616 | ||||||
治疗方式 | ||||||||||||
根治性放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 2.89 | 0.49~16.95 | 0.240 | 2.37 | 0.65~8.63 | 0.191 | ||||||
根治术+放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 0.89 | 0.20~3.96 | 0.875 | 1.92 | 0.62~5.96 | 0.258 | ||||||
单纯外照射/根治术±化疗 | 1.63 | 0.11~23.53 | 0.721 | 2.06 | 0.30~14.09 | 0.461 | ||||||
分期(ⅡB/ⅡA) | 1.59 | 0.65~3.89 | 0.308 | 1.39 | 0.76~2.52 | 0.282 | ||||||
治疗后SCCA(阳性/阴性) | 2.69 | 0.75~9.70 | 0.129 | 1.95 | 0.74~5.14 | 0.175 | ||||||
淋巴结(阳性/阴性) | 1.63 | 0.75~3.52 | 0.219 | 2.07 | 1.22~3.51 | 0.007 |
"
影响因素 | OS | PFS | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | HR值 | 95%CI | P值 | ||||
年龄(≥60岁/<60岁) | 0.61 | 0.21~1.73 | 0.349 | 0.73 | 0.34~1.57 | 0.425 | |||
病理类型 | |||||||||
腺癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 3.32 | 0.80~13.81 | 0.098 | 4.15 | 1.47~11.77 | 0.007 | |||
腺鳞状细胞癌/鳞状细胞癌 | 0.00 | - | 0.979 | 0.00 | 0.00~4.46×10278 | 0.970 | |||
肿瘤最大径(>4 cm/≤4 cm) | 3.31 | 1.45~7.56 | 0.005 | 1.86 | 0.99~3.47 | 0.052 | |||
治疗方式 | |||||||||
根治性放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 0.51 | 0.12~2.13 | 0.353 | 1.07 | 0.31~3.65 | 0.915 | |||
根治术+放疗±化疗/根治术±化疗 | 0.73 | 0.19~2.74 | 0.639 | 1.54 | 0.49~4.87 | 0.462 | |||
单纯外照射/根治术±化疗 | 0.00 | - | 0.993 | 0.00 | - | 0.989 | |||
分期 | |||||||||
ⅢB/ⅢA | 1.40 | 0.38~5.15 | 0.613 | 1.74 | 0.58~5.22 | 0.323 | |||
ⅢC1/ⅢA | 0.53 | 0.13~2.13 | 0.372 | 0.79 | 0.26~2.35 | 0.666 | |||
ⅢC2/ⅢA | 1.74 | 0.30~10.15 | 0.537 | 2.27 | 0.60~8.60 | 0.226 | |||
治疗后SCCA(阳性/阴性) | 4.67 | 1.22~17.86 | 0.024 | 3.96 | 1.45~10.86 | 0.007 |
[1] |
Pecorelli S. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2009, 105(2):103-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012 pmid: 19367689 |
[2] |
Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2019, 145(1):129-135. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12749.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12749 |
[3] |
Anon. Corrigendum to "Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri"[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2019, 147(2):279-280. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12969.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12969 |
[4] |
McComas KN, Torgeson AM, Ager BJ, et al. The variable impact of positive lymph nodes in cervical cancer: implications of the new FIGO staging system[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2020, 156(1):85-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.10.025.
doi: S0090-8258(19)31609-9 pmid: 31744640 |
[5] |
Kato T, Takashima A, Kasamatsu T, et al. Clinical tumor diameter and prognosis of patients with FIGO stage ⅠB1 cervical cancer (JCOG0806-A)[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 137(1):34-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.548.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.548 |
[6] |
Diaz JP, Sonoda Y, Leitao MM, et al. Oncologic outcome of fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for stage ⅠB1 cervical carcinoma[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2008, 111(2):255-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.014.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.014 |
[7] |
Landoni F, Colombo A, Milani R, et al. Randomized study between radical surgery and radiotherapy for the treatment of stage ⅠB-ⅡA cervical cancer: 20-year update[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2017, 28(3):e34. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e34.
doi: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e34 |
[8] |
Naga Ch P, Gurram L, Chopra S, et al. The management of locally advanced cervical cancer[J]. Curr Opin Oncol, 2018, 30(5):323-329. DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000471.
doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000471 |
[9] |
Matsuo K, Machida H, Mandelbaum RS, et al. Validation of the 2018FIGO cervical cancer staging system[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2019, 152(1):87-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.10.026.
doi: S0090-8258(18)31309-X pmid: 30389105 |
[10] |
Ayhan A, Aslan K, Bulut AN, et al. Is the revised 2018 FIGO staging system for cervical cancer more prognostic than the 2009 FIGO staging system for women previously staged as ⅠB disease?[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2019, 240:209-214. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.002.
doi: S0301-2115(19)30329-X pmid: 31325847 |
[11] |
Dai YF, Xu M, Zhong LY, et al. Prognostic significance of solitary lymph node metastasis in patients with stages ⅠA2 to ⅡA cervical carcinoma[J]. J Int Med Res, 2018, 46(10):4082-4091. DOI: 10.1177/0300060518785827.
doi: 10.1177/0300060518785827 |
[12] |
Nicolás I, Gilabert-Estellés J, Gilabert-Aguilar J, et al. Number of paraaortic lymph node dissections as a prognostic factor in locally advanced cervical cancer[J]. Med Clin (Barc), 2020, 155(5):197-201. DOI: 10.1016/j.medcle.2019.11.011.
doi: 10.1016/j.medcle.2019.11.011 |
[13] |
Widschwendter P, Janni W, Scholz C, et al. Prognostic factors for and pattern of lymph-node involvement in patients with operable cervical cancer[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2019, 300(6):1709-1718. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05341-3.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05341-3 pmid: 31696367 |
[14] |
Lee YJ, Kim DY, Lee SW, et al. A postoperative scoring system for distant recurrence in node-positive cervical cancer patients after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection with para-aortic lymph node sampling or dissection[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2017, 144(3):536-540. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.01.001.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.01.001 |
[15] |
Yan DD, Tang Q, Tu YQ, et al. A comprehensive analysis of the factors of positive pelvic lymph nodes on survival of cervical cancer patients with 2018 FIGO stage ⅢC1p[J]. Cancer Manag Res, 2019, 11:4223-4230. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S204154.
doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S204154 |
[16] |
Kilic C, Kimyon Comert G, Cakir C, et al. Recurrence pattern and prognostic factors for survival in cervical cancer with lymph node metastasis[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2021, 47(6):2175-2184. DOI: 10.1111/jog.14762.
doi: 10.1111/jog.14762 |
[17] |
Monk BJ, Tian C, Rose PG, et al. Which clinical/pathologic factors matter in the era of chemoradiation as treatment for locally advanced cervical carcinoma? Analysis of two Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trials[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2007, 105(2):427-433. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.12.027.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.12.027 |
[18] |
Martinez A, Angeles MA, Querleu D, et al. How should we stage and tailor treatment strategy in locally advanced cervical cancer? Imaging versus para-aortic surgical staging[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2020, 30(9):1434-1443. DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001351.
doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001351 |
[19] |
Wagner AE, Pappas L, Ghia AJ, et al. Impact of tumor size on survival in cancer of the cervix and validation of stage ⅡA1 and ⅡA2 subdivisions[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 129(3):517-521. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.03.008.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.03.008 pmid: 23528928 |
[20] |
Chang C, Chen J, Chang WY, et al. Tumor size has a time-varying effect on recurrence in cervical cancer[J]. J Low Genit Tract Dis, 2016, 20(4):317-320. DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000238.
doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000238 |
[1] | Qian Xiaotao, Shi Ziyi, Hu Ge, Wu Xiaowei. Efficacy of consolidation chemotherapy after radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy for stage Ⅲ-ⅣA esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a real-world clinical study [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(6): 326-331. |
[2] | Yang Mi, Bie Jun, Zhang Jiayong, Deng Jiaxiu, Tang Zuge, Lu Jun. Analysis of the efficacy and prognosis of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(6): 332-337. |
[3] | Fan Zhipeng, Yu Jing, Hu Jing, Liao Zhengkai, Xu Yu, Ouyang Wen, Xie Conghua. Predictive value of changes in inflammatory markers for prognosis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with the first-line immunotherapy plus chemotherapy [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(5): 257-266. |
[4] | Yang Lin, Lu Ning, Wen Hua, Zhang Mingxin, Zhu Lin. Study on the clinical relationship between inflammatory burden index and gastric cancer [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(5): 274-279. |
[5] | Zhang Ningning, Yang Zhe, Tan Limei, Li Zhenning, Wang Di, Wei Yongzhi. Diagnostic value of cervical cell DNA ploidy analysis combined with B7-H4 and PKCδ for cervical cancer [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(5): 286-291. |
[6] | Liu Pingping, He Xuefang, Zhang Yi, Yang Xu, Zhang Shanshan, Ji Yifei. Risk factors of postoperative recurrence in patients with primary brain glioma and prediction model construction [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(4): 193-197. |
[7] | Wan Fang, Yang Gang, Li Rui, Wan Qijing. Expression levels and clinical significance of serum miR-497 and miR-383 in patients with esophageal cancer [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(4): 204-209. |
[8] | Yao Yixin, Shen Yulin. Predictive value of serum SOCS3 and TXNIP levels for the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with TACE [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(4): 217-222. |
[9] | Sun Weiwei, Yao Xuemin, Wang Pengjian, Wang Jing, Jia Jinghao. Exploration of prognostic factors and nomogram construction for advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapy based on hematologic indexes [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(3): 143-150. |
[10] | Liu Yulan, Jing Haiyan, Sun Jing, Song Wei, Sha Dan. Advances in predicting efficacy and prognostic markers of immunotherapy for gastric cancer [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(3): 175-180. |
[11] | Peng Qin, Cai Yuting, Wang Wei. Advances on KPNA2 in liver cancer [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(3): 181-185. |
[12] | Chen Boguang, Wang Sugui, Zhang Yongjie. Role of serum cholinesterase and inflammatory markers in the prognosis of stage ⅠA -ⅢA breast cancer [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(2): 73-82. |
[13] | Jin Xudong, Chen Zhongjian, Mao Weimin. Research progress on the role of MTAP in malignant mesothelioma [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(2): 99-104. |
[14] | Huang Zhen, Chen Yongshun. Research progress of circulating tumor DNA in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2024, 51(1): 59-64. |
[15] | Wang Xiao, Li Ying, Luo Yujie, Jin Shu. Study on the prognostic value of serological indicators for nasopharyngeal carcinoma based on nomogram model [J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2023, 50(8): 463-469. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||