| Literature DB >> 31725640 |
Jian-Dong Diao1, Chun-Jiao Wu2, Hong-Xia Cui2, Ming-Wei Bu3, Dan Yue3, Xue Wang3, Yan-Ling Liu2, Yong-Jing Yang3.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of clinical and pathologic factors in rectal squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) and to construct a nomogram for their outcome prediction.The study cohort was selected from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program between January 2004 and December 2013. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression model to evaluate the prognostic value of involved variables. All prognostic factors were combined to construct a nomogram to predict the overall survival (OS), followed by discrimination as well as calibration plots and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for assessing the predictive accuracy of the nomogram.We identified 806 patients with a median follow-up time of 35 months. Multivariate analyses revealed that marital status (P < .001), age (P < .001), T stage (P = .008), M stage (P < .001), surgery (P = .004), chemotherapy (P = .003) and radiotherapy (P = .016) were independent prognostic factors of OS. Finally, the 7 variables were combined to construct a 3-year and 5-year OS nomogram. The concordance indexes (C-indexes) of OS were 0.756 (95% CI, 0.726-0.786) for the internal validation and 0.729 (95% CI, 0.678-0.780) for the external validation. Additionally, there was superior discrimination power of the nomogram over the SEER stage or the 8th edition AJCC TNM staging classification (P < .001). Calibration plots further showed good consistency between the nomogram prediction and actual observation. The area under the curve (AUC) of ROC curves for 3-year OS was 0.811 (95% CI: 0.769-0.853) in the training cohort and 0.748 (95% CI: 0.681-0.815) in the validation cohort. The AUC for 5-year OS was 0.770 (95% CI: 0.721-0.819) in the training cohort and 0.797 (95% CI: 0.731-0.863) in the validation cohort. Finally, Kaplan-Meier analysis further validates the predictive potential of the nomogram.Marital status, age, T stage, M stage, surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy were significantly associated with OS of patients with rectal SCC. This predictive model has the potential to provide an individualized risk estimate of survival in patients with rectal SCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31725640 PMCID: PMC6867783 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017916
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Figure 1Flow chart for screening eligible patients.
The demographics and pathological characteristics of including patients.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of overall survival in the training set.
Figure 2A nomogram for predicting 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) of patients with rectal squamous cell carcinomas. The nomogram is used by summing the points identified on the top scale for each independent variable and drawing a vertical line from the total points scale to the 3- and 5-year OS to obtain the probability of survival. The total points projected to the bottom scale indicate the % probability of the 3- and 5-year survival.
C-indexes for the nomograms and other stage systems in patients with rectal squamous cell carcinomas.
Figure 3Calibration plots of the nomogram for 3-and 5-year overall survival (OS) (A, B) prediction in the training set, and 3-and 5-year OS (C, D) prediction in the validation set. The X-axis represents the nomogram-predicted probability of survival; the Y-axis represents the actual OS probability. Plots along the 45-degree line indicate a perfect calibration model in which the predicted probabilities are identical to the actual outcomes. Vertical bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4Discriminatory accuracy for predicting OS assessed by receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis calculating area under the curve (AUC). 3-year OS in the training and validation cohort (A). 5-year OS in the training and validation cohort (B).
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier survival curves of patients with different risk group in training set (A) and validation cohort (B).