| Literature DB >> 30352397 |
Yang Lv1, Ning Pu2, Weilin Mao3, Wenqi Chen4, Huanyu Wang5, Xu Han6, Yuan Ji7, Lei Zhang8, Dayong Jin9, Wenhui Lou10, Xuefeng Xu11.
Abstract
AIM: We aim to investigate the clinical characteristics of the rectal NECs and the prognosis-related factors and construct a nomogram for prognosis prediction.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30352397 PMCID: PMC6215795 DOI: 10.1530/EC-18-0353
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endocr Connect ISSN: 2049-3614 Impact factor: 3.335
Figure 1Flowchart of included population in this study. Rectal NECs, rectal neuroendocrine carcinomas; SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results.
Common clinical characteristics of rectal NECs patients in our center and in SEER database.
| Characteristics | Chinese patients ( | SEER database | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White ( | Black ( | American Indians and Asian Islanders ( | |||
| Age (years) | 0.001 | ||||
| Mean | 62 | 52 | 56 | 49 | |
| Range | 38–78 | 15–85 | 26–87 | 20–84 | |
| Sex | 0.004 | ||||
| Male | 28 | 331 (54%) | 103 (43%) | 71 (54%) | |
| Female | 13 | 318 (46%) | 143 (57%) | 61 (46%) | |
| Main complaints | |||||
| Hemafecia | 22 | ||||
| Physical examination | 6 | ||||
| Others | 13 | ||||
| Surgery | 0.001 | ||||
| Performed | 35 | 409 (63%) | 167 (68%) | 103 (78%) | |
| Not performed or unknown | 6 | 241 (37%) | 79 (32%) | 29 (22%) | |
| Surgical procedure | |||||
| APR | 18 | ||||
| Dixon | 12 | ||||
| Hartmann | 5 | ||||
Characteristics of patients in SEER cohort: univariate and multivariate analysis.
| Characteristics | Patients | Overall Survival | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Multivariate HR | 95% Confidence interval (CI) | ||
| Total | 1028 | ||||
| Gender | 0.55 | NA | 0.89 | 0.664–1.203 | |
| Males | 609 | ||||
| Females | 419 | ||||
| Age (years) | 0.001 | 0.46 | |||
| 15–39 | 68 | ||||
| 40–59 | 546 | ||||
| 60–79 | 336 | ||||
| 80+ | 78 | ||||
| Differentiation | 0.001 | 0.000 | 1.28 | 1.16–1.42 | |
| Well-differentiated | 563 | ||||
| Moderately-differentiated | 125 | ||||
| Poorly differentiated/undifferentiated | 340 | ||||
| T classification | 0.001 | 0.053 | 1.19 | 1.06–1.33 | |
| T1 | 527 | ||||
| T2 | 44 | ||||
| T3 | 110 | ||||
| T4 | 60 | ||||
| N classification | 0.001 | 0.018 | 0.68 | 0.38–1.22 | |
| N0 | 216 | ||||
| N1 | 648 | ||||
| N2 | 164 | ||||
| M classification | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.38 | 0.22–0.67 | |
| M0 | 832 | ||||
| M1 | 196 | ||||
| TNM stage | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.54 | 1.30–1.82 | |
| I | 516 | ||||
| II | 88 | ||||
| III | 143 | ||||
| IV | 281 | ||||
| Surgery of primary site | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.43 | 0.30–0.62 | |
| Yes | 804 | ||||
| No | 412 | ||||
Univariate and multivariate survival analysis of rectal neuroendocrine carcinomas survival based on different factors in our center. 2000–2014 (n = 41).
| Characteristics | No. of 5-year survival rate | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log-rank | HR | 95% CI | ||||
| Overall survival | ||||||
| AJCC T classification | 18.08 | 0.00 | 1.81 | 0.66–4.95 | 0.25 | |
| T1/T2 | 12/16 | |||||
| T3/T4 | 5/25 | |||||
| AJCC N classification | 27.92 | 0.00 | 4.83 | 1.54–15.12 | 0.007 | |
| N0/N1 | 14/31 | |||||
| N2 | 3/10 | |||||
| AJCC M classification | 17.07 | 0.00 | 18.61 | 2.32–149.23 | 0.006 | |
| M0 | 14/16 | |||||
| M1 | 3/25 | |||||
| Tumor type | 0.62 | 0.43 | – | – | – | |
| Non-functioning | 9/27 | |||||
| Functioning | 8/14 | |||||
| Differentiation | 20.50 | 0.00 | 1.82 | 0.71–4.69 | 0.013 | |
| Well differentiated | 8/10 | |||||
| Moderately differentiated | 7/21 | |||||
| Poorly differentiated | 2/10 | |||||
Figure 2The correlation between survival and Ki-67 index levels in rectal NECs patients; (A) the Ki-index value correlated with OS and there was a linear regression between them. (B) The Ki-index correlated with PFS with no statistical significance.
Figure 3(A) Nomogram predict OS of patients with rectal NECs. For validating the nomogram, the sum of each predictor point was charted on the total points axis, and the estimated OS rate were performed through plotting a vertical line from the charted total point’s axis straight down to the same OS rate axis. Besides, the prognostic nomogram constructed respectively using the data from the SEER database (A). The calibration curve for predicting overall survival of patients at 1 year (B), 2 year (C) and 3 year (D) predicting OS in the SEER cohort, and predicting OS of patients at 2 year (E), 3 year (F) in the validation cohort.