| Literature DB >> 32565807 |
Xiaoling Shang1,2, Haining Yu3, Jiamao Lin4, Zhenxiang Li5, Chenglong Zhao6, Jian Sun7, Haiyong Wang4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to establish a novel nomogram model which was better than the current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage to predict survival for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who underwent surgery. Patients and Methods. 19617 patients with initially diagnosed NSCLC were screened from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015. These patients were randomly divided into two groups including the training cohort and the validation cohort. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to analyze the influence of different variables on overall survival (OS). Then, using R software version 3.4.3, we constructed a nomogram and a risk classification system combined with some clinical parameters. We visualized the regression equation by nomogram after obtaining the regression coefficient in multivariate analysis. The concordance index (C-index) and calibration curve were used to perform the validation of nomogram. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the clinical utility of the nomogram.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32565807 PMCID: PMC7256774 DOI: 10.1155/2020/7863984
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Baseline clinicopathological characteristics of all patients and those in the training and validation cohorts.
| Variables | All cohort ( | Training cohort ( | Validation cohort ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.026 | |||
| <60 | 4203(21.4) | 4958 (36.1) | 1302 (22.1) | |
| 60–69 | 7054(36.0) | 2096 (35.6) | ||
| 70–79 | 6588(33.6) | 4619 (33.6) | 1969 (33.5) | |
| >80 | 1772(9.0) | 1254 (9.1) | 518 (8.8) | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.019 | |||
| White | 16312(83.2) | 11445 (83.3) | 4867 (82.7) | |
| Black | 1814(9.2) | 1262 (9.2) | 552 (9.4) | |
| Others | 1491(7.6) | 1025 (7.5) | 466 (7.9) | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.013 | |||
| Male | 9807(50.0) | 6839 (49.8) | 2968 (50.4) | |
| Female | 9810(50.0) | 6893 (50.2) | 2917 (49.6) | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.017 | |||
| I | 11543(58.8) | 8047 (58.6) | 3496 (59.4) | |
| II | 4572(23.3) | 3226 (23.5) | 1346 (22.9) | |
| III | 3502(17.9) | 2459 (17.9) | 1043 (17.7) | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.009 | |||
| Adenocarcinoma | 12278(62.6) | 8579 (62.5) | 3702 (62.9) | |
| Squamous | 7336(37.4) | 5153 (37.5) | 2183 (37.1) | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.014 | |||
| Complete resection | 1092(5.6) | 778 (5.7) | 314 (5.3) | |
| Partial resection | 18525(94.4) | 12954 (94.3) | 5571 (94.7) | |
|
| 0.005 | |||
| Yes | 4812(24.5) | 3360 (24.5) | 1452 (24.7) | |
| No | 14805(75.5) | 10372 (75.5) | 4433 (75.3) | |
Univariate and multivariate analyses of each factor's ability in predicting OS.
| Univariate analyses | Multivariate analyses | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | HR | 95% CI |
| C-index | HR | 95% CI |
|
|
| 0.563 | ||||||
| <60 | Reference | Reference | |||||
| 60–69 | 1.110 | 1.010–1.220 | 0.038 | 1.174 | 1.065–1.294 | 0.001 | |
| 70–79 | 1.430 | 1.300–1.570 | <0.001 | 1.604 | 1.455–1.768 | <0.001 | |
| >80 | 2.00 | 1.780–2.260 | <0.001 | 2.367 | 2.095–2.674 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.516 | ||||||
| White | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Black | 0.913 | 0.813–1.025 | 0.120 | 1.022 | 0.909–1.148 | 0.717 | |
| Others | 0.748 | 0.649–0.863 | <0.001 | 0.777 | 0.673–0.897 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.562 | ||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Female | 0.649 | 0.607–0.694 | 0.030 | <0.001 | 0.714 | 0.667–0.764 | <0.001 |
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.615 | ||||||
| I | Reference | Reference | |||||
| II | 2.100 | 1.940–2.270 | <0.001 | 1.832 | 1.672–2.006 | <0.001 | |
| III | 2.610 | 2.410–2.830 | <0.001 | 2.287 | 2.047–2.554 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.566 | ||||||
| Adenocarcinoma | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Squamous | 1.570 | 1.470–1.6770 | <0.001 | 1.325 | 1.237–1.420 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.528 | ||||||
| Complete resection | Reference | Reference | |||||
| Partial resection | 1.990 | 1.780–2.230 | <0.001 | 1.297 | 1.150–1.462 | <0.001 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| <0.001 | 0.574 | |||||
| Yes | Reference | Reference | |||||
| No | 2.030 | 1.900–2.170 | 1.183 | 1.077–1.299 | <0.001 | ||
Figure 1A nomogram for prediction of 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates of stages I–III NSCLC patients after surgery.
Figure 2Calibration curves of the nomogram predicting 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS rates of stages I–III NSCLC patients after surgery. On the calibration plot, the x-axis is nomogram-predicted probability of over survival. The y-axis is the actual over survival.
Figure 3Decision curves of the nomogram predicting OS. The x-axis represents the threshold probabilities, and the y-axis measures the net benefit calculated by adding the true positives and subtracting the false positives.
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier curves of OS for patients in the low- and high-risk groups. (a) Kaplan–Meier curves of OS for patients in the low- and high-risk groups in the training cohort. (b) Kaplan–Meier curves of OS for patients in the low- and high-risk groups in the validation cohort.