OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a nomogram based on pathological hysterectomy characteristics to provide a more individualized and accurate estimation of lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for 18,294 patients who underwent hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy were analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression analysis of selected prognostic features was performed, and a nomogram to predict lymph node metastasis was constructed. A cohort of 434 patients was used for the external validation. RESULTS: The nomogram showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.81) in the training set and 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.80) in the validation set. The nomogram was well calibrated. CONCLUSION: We developed a nomogram based on 5 clinical and pathological characteristics to predict lymph node metastasis with a high concordance probability.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a nomogram based on pathological hysterectomy characteristics to provide a more individualized and accurate estimation of lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for 18,294 patients who underwent hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy were analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression analysis of selected prognostic features was performed, and a nomogram to predict lymph node metastasis was constructed. A cohort of 434 patients was used for the external validation. RESULTS: The nomogram showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.81) in the training set and 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.80) in the validation set. The nomogram was well calibrated. CONCLUSION: We developed a nomogram based on 5 clinical and pathological characteristics to predict lymph node metastasis with a high concordance probability.
Authors: Anthony B Costales; Kathleen M Schmeler; Russell Broaddus; Pamela T Soliman; Shannon N Westin; Pedro T Ramirez; Michael Frumovitz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-10-12 Impact factor: 5.482
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: Ashley S Felix; D Scott McMeekin; David Mutch; Joan L Walker; William T Creasman; David E Cohn; Shamshad Ali; Richard G Moore; Levi S Downs; Olga B Ioffe; Kay J Park; Mark E Sherman; Louise A Brinton Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: S Bendifallah; G Canlorbe; P Collinet; E Arsène; F Huguet; C Coutant; D Hudry; O Graesslin; E Raimond; C Touboul; E Daraï; M Ballester Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: S Bendifallah; G Canlorbe; E Raimond; L Bazire; F Huguet; O Graesslin; R Rouzier; E Darai; M Ballester Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: M Koskas; E Chereau; M Ballester; G Dubernard; F Lécuru; D Heitz; P Mathevet; H Marret; D Querleu; F Golfier; E Leblanc; D Luton; R Rouzier; E Daraï Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-03-12 Impact factor: 7.640