OBJECTIVES: Traditionally we have relied mainly on final FIGO stage to estimate overall oncologic outcome in endometrial cancer patients. However, it is well known that other patient factors may play equally important roles in outcome. Our objective was to develop a clinically useful nomogram in the hope of providing a more individualized and accurate estimation of overall survival (OS) following primary therapy. METHODS: Using a prospectively maintained endometrial cancer database, 1735 patients treated between 1993 and 2008 were analyzed. Characteristics known to predict OS were collected. For each patient, points were assigned to each of these 5 variables. A total score was calculated. The association between each predictor and the outcome was assessed by multivariable modeling. The corresponding 3-year OS probabilities were then determined from the nomogram. RESULTS: The median age was 62 years (range, 25-96). Final grade included: G1 (471), G2 (622), G3 (634), and missing (8). Stage included: IA (501), IB (590), IC (141), IIA (36), IIB (75), IIIA (116), IIIB (6), IIIC (135), IVA (7), and IVB (128). Histology included: adenocarcinoma (1376), carcinosarcoma (100), clear cell (62), and serous (197). Median follow-up for survivors was 29.2 months (0-162.2 months). Concordance probability estimator for the nomogram is 0.746+/-0.011. CONCLUSION: We developed a nomogram based on 5 easily available clinical characteristics to predict OS with a high concordance probability. This nomogram incorporates other individualized patient variables beyond FIGO stage to more accurately predict outcome. This new tool may be useful to clinicians in assessing patient risk when deciding on follow-up strategies.
OBJECTIVES: Traditionally we have relied mainly on final FIGO stage to estimate overall oncologic outcome in endometrial cancerpatients. However, it is well known that other patient factors may play equally important roles in outcome. Our objective was to develop a clinically useful nomogram in the hope of providing a more individualized and accurate estimation of overall survival (OS) following primary therapy. METHODS: Using a prospectively maintained endometrial cancer database, 1735 patients treated between 1993 and 2008 were analyzed. Characteristics known to predict OS were collected. For each patient, points were assigned to each of these 5 variables. A total score was calculated. The association between each predictor and the outcome was assessed by multivariable modeling. The corresponding 3-year OS probabilities were then determined from the nomogram. RESULTS: The median age was 62 years (range, 25-96). Final grade included: G1 (471), G2 (622), G3 (634), and missing (8). Stage included: IA (501), IB (590), IC (141), IIA (36), IIB (75), IIIA (116), IIIB (6), IIIC (135), IVA (7), and IVB (128). Histology included: adenocarcinoma (1376), carcinosarcoma (100), clear cell (62), and serous (197). Median follow-up for survivors was 29.2 months (0-162.2 months). Concordance probability estimator for the nomogram is 0.746+/-0.011. CONCLUSION: We developed a nomogram based on 5 easily available clinical characteristics to predict OS with a high concordance probability. This nomogram incorporates other individualized patient variables beyond FIGO stage to more accurately predict outcome. This new tool may be useful to clinicians in assessing patient risk when deciding on follow-up strategies.
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Andrea Gallina; Nazareno Suardi; Felix K-H Chun; Jochen Walz; Roman Heuer; Andrea Salonia; Alexander Haese; Paul Perrotte; Luc Valiquette; Markus Graefen; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-11-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jason D Wright; Jessica Fiorelli; Peter B Schiff; William M Burke; Amanda L Kansler; Carmel J Cohen; Thomas J Herzog Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Alexia Iasonos; Qin Zhou; Eniola Oke; Robert A Soslow; Kaled M Alektiar; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Christopher M Lee; Aniko Szabo; Dennis C Shrieve; O Kenneth Macdonald; Jonathan D Tward; Thomas B Skidmore; David K Gaffney Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stephan Polterauer; Qin Zhou; Christoph Grimm; Veronika Seebacher; Alexander Reinthaller; Gerda Hofstetter; Nicole Concin; Mario M Leitao; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Alexia Iasonos Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Samuel J Wang; Amanda R Wissel; Join Y Luh; C David Fuller; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Charles R Thomas Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: David N Teguh; Peter C Levendag; Wendimagegn Ghidey; Kees van Montfort; Stefan L S Kwa Journal: Dysphagia Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 3.438
Authors: Matthew M Harkenrider; Alec M Block; Kaled M Alektiar; David K Gaffney; Ellen Jones; Ann Klopp; Akila N Viswanathan; William Small Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Christophe Lemetre; Begoña Vieites; Charlotte K Y Ng; Salvatore Piscuoglio; Anne M Schultheis; Caterina Marchiò; Rajmohan Murali; Maria A Lopez-García; Jose C Palacios; Achim A Jungbluth; Luigi M Terracciano; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Britta Weigelt Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 9.162