| Literature DB >> 29675098 |
Hong Sha1, Dan Hu2, Sinan Wu1, Feng Peng3, Guodong Xu1, Guohui Fan1, Xiandong Lin2, Gang Chen2, Binying Liang4, Ying Chen5, Chao Li2, Hejun Zhang2, Yan Xia2, Jinxiu Lin3, Xiongwei Zheng2, Wenquan Niu1.
Abstract
Backgrounds: Compelling evidence has emerged to support a close relationship between metabolic syndrome and esophageal cancer (EC). Aims: Using five baseline metabolism-related markers, we constructed a metabolic risk score (MRS), aiming to test whether MRS can improve the prediction of postsurgical EC-specific mortality over traditional demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal cancer; Metabolic risk score; Prognosis.; The FIESTA study
Year: 2018 PMID: 29675098 PMCID: PMC5907665 DOI: 10.7150/jca.23631
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Comparison of baseline characteristics between patients in derivation and validation groups
| Characteristic | Derivation group | Validation group | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 1512 | 1014 | |
| Age (years) | 56.65 (9.41) | 56.76 (9.07) | 0.765 |
| Sex (M) | 76.59% | 75.35% | 0.470 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.26 (2.96) | 22.38 (3.09) | 0.336 |
| Ever smoking | 41.93% | 41.81% | 0.961 |
| Ever drinking | 19.78% | 20.51% | 0.674 |
| Family history (+) | 12.90% | 15.29% | 0.104 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 123.80 (17.69) | 124.58 (19.16) | 0.292 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 77.47 (10.42) | 77.51 (19.16) | 0.921 |
| FBG (mmol/L) | 6.12 (2.53) | 6.10 (2.56) | 0.828 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.19 (0.87) | 1.20 (0.94) | 0.755 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.84 (1.04) | 4.83 (1.04) | 0.852 |
| HDLC (mmol/L) | 1.12 (0.41) | 1.13 (0.44) | 0.409 |
| LDLC (mmol/L) | 3.19 (0.94) | 3.19 (0.93) | 0.999 |
| Esophagus location | 0.059 | ||
| Upper | 8.99% | 11.24% | |
| Middle | 81.94% | 77.91% | |
| Lower | 9.07% | 10.85% | |
| Histological differentiation | 0.324 | ||
| Well | 15.08% | 14.00% | |
| Moderate | 63.76% | 66.67% | |
| Poor | 21.16% | 19.33% | |
| Depth of invasion | 0.301 | ||
| T1-T2 | 28.70% | 28.50% | |
| T3-T4 | 71.30% | 71.50% | |
| Regional LNM | 0.414 | ||
| N0 | 43.85% | 43.29% | |
| N1 | 26.52% | 25.25% | |
| N2 | 18.98% | 21.60% | |
| N3 | 10.65% | 9.86% | |
| TNM stage | 0.302 | ||
| I | 8.66% | 10.45% | |
| II | 32.87% | 32.15% | |
| III | 58.47% | 57.40% | |
| Tumor embolus (+) | 16.14% | 17.26% | 0.472 |
| Tumor size (cm) | 4.53 (2.08) | 4.41 (1.97) | 0.163 |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; FBG, fasting blood glucose; TG, triglycerides; TC, total cholesterol; HDLC, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDLC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LNM, lymph node metastasis; TNM, tumour node metastasis. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or percentage. P was calculated by the t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test or the Chisq test, where appropriate.
Figure 1Distributions of derived metabolic risk score in derivation (the upper panel) and validation (the lower panel) groups. The number on the bar represents the count of individual metabolic risk score.
Risk prediction of individual metabolic risk scores for esophageal cancer-specific mortality in all study patients
| MRS | Num. of patients | cHR | 95% CI | P | aHR | 95% CI | P* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤ -6 | 104 | 0.82 | 0.55-1.22 | 0.321 | 0.95 | 0.63-1.45 | 0.820 | |
| -5 | 86 | 0.68 | 0.44-1.05 | 0.083 | 0.58 | 0.37-0.91 | 0.019 | |
| -4 | 103 | 0.91 | 0.62-1.33 | 0.616 | 0.88 | 0.58-1.34 | 0.555 | |
| -3 | 138 | 0.84 | 0.59-1.21 | 0.355 | 0.93 | 0.64-1.35 | 0.704 | |
| -2 | 180 | 0.94 | 0.68-1.30 | 0.703 | 0.91 | 0.65-1.29 | 0.615 | |
| -1 | 177 | 0.90 | 0.65-1.24 | 0.514 | 0.88 | 0.62-1.25 | 0.484 | |
| 0 | 213 | 1.00 | Reference group | 1.00 | Reference group | |||
| 1 | 191 | 0.99 | 0.73-1.36 | 0.968 | 1.00 | 0.71-1.40 | 0.988 | |
| 2 | 200 | 0.93 | 0.67-1.28 | 0.648 | 0.86 | 0.61-1.22 | 0.401 | |
| 3 | 188 | 0.98 | 0.71-1.35 | 0.884 | 0.95 | 0.68-1.34 | 0.777 | |
| 4 | 170 | 1.18 | 0.86-1.62 | 0.309 | 1.15 | 0.82-1.62 | 0.415 | |
| 5 | 129 | 1.19 | 0.85-1.66 | 0.320 | 1.01 | 0.701.45 | 0.953 | |
| 6 | 89 | 1.15 | 0.77-1.70 | 0.499 | 1.10 | 0.73-1.67 | 0.648 | |
| 7 | 71 | 1.58 | 1.08-2.33 | 0.020 | 1.38 | 0.92-2.07 | 0.123 | |
| 8 | 70 | 1.60 | 1.08-2.36 | 0.018 | 1.31 | 0.87-1.98 | 0.191 | |
| 9 | 52 | 1.91 | 1.26-2.90 | 0.002 | 1.60 | 1.04-2.46 | 0.034 | |
| 10 | 37 | 2.41 | 1.56-3.72 | <0.001 | 1.83 | 1.15-2.93 | 0.011 | |
| 11 | 41 | 1.91 | 1.24-2.95 | 0.004 | 1.46 | 0.91-2.33 | 0.113 | |
| 12 | 78 | 2.14 | 1.48-3.11 | <0.001 | 1.62 | 1.10-2.39 | 0.015 | |
| 13 | 61 | 1.68 | 1.14-2.50 | 0.009 | 1.36 | 0.9-2.06 | 0.143 | |
| 14 | 59 | 2.15 | 1.45-3.19 | <0.001 | 1.74 | 1.15-2.63 | 0.009 | |
| ≥ 15 | 100 | 2.08 | 1.47-2.93 | <0.001 | 2.03 | 1.40-2.95 | <0.001 | |
Abbreviations: MRS, metabolic risk score; cHR, crude hazard ratio; aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval. MRS ranges from -9 to 17. *P was calculated after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, histological differentiation, esophagus location, tumor embolus, tumor size, regional lymph node metastasis, subtype of esophageal cancer and tumour node metastasis stage.
Risk prediction for esophageal cancer-specific mortality upon the tertile comparisons of metabolic risk score
| Group | Comparison* | HR | 95% CI | P** |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derivation | T2 vs. T1 | 1.43 | 1.17-1.75 | <0.001 |
| T3 vs. T1 | 2.28 | 1.90-2.73 | <0.001 | |
| Validation | T2 vs. T1 | 1.35 | 1.05-1.74 | 0.020 |
| T3 vs. T1 | 2.11 | 1.66-2.67 | <0.001 | |
| Combined | T2 vs. T1 | 1.22 | 1.04-1.43 | 0.016 |
| T3 vs. T1 | 2.37 | 1.95-2.88 | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval. *T1: metabolic risk score ≤ 2 (low); T2: metabolic risk score > 2 & ≤ 6 (middle); T3: metabolic risk score > 6 (high). **P was calculated after adjusting for age, sex, smoking, histological differentiation, esophagus location, tumor embolus, tumor size, regional lymph node metastasis, subtype of esophageal cancer and tumour node metastasis stage.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier curves by the tertiles of derived metabolic risk score for esophageal cancer-specific mortality in derivation (the upper panel) and validation (the lower panel) groups. Abbreviations: MRS, metabolic risk score; MST, median survival time.
Comparison of risk prediction models including TNM stage with and without metabolic risk score in both derivation and validation groups
| Derivation group | Validation group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TNM stage | TNM stage + MRS | TNM stage | TNM stage + MRS | ||
| C-statistic | 0.721 | 0.743 | 0.732 | 0.753 | |
| AUC (95% CI) | 0.722 (0.696, 0.748) | 0.736 (0.710, 0.762) | 0.737 (0.705, 0.769) | 0.751 (0.719, 0.782) | |
| ROC curve comparison | 0.0125 | 0.0210 | |||
| Likelihood ratio test | Chisq: 45.52 (P<0.0001) | Chisq: 26.24 (P<0.0001) | |||
| AIC | 3169.57 | 3126.05 | 1975.27 | 1951.04 | |
| BIC | 3227.11 | 3188.82 | 2028.15 | 2008.72 | |
Abbreviations: TNM, tumour node metastasis; MRS, metabolic risk score; AUC, area under the curve; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; Chisq, Chi-squared; AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion.