| Literature DB >> 33116885 |
Qiao Chen1, Jiayi Li1,2, Bao Jin1, Xiangan Wu1, Yue Shi1, Haifeng Xu1, Yongchang Zheng1, Yingyi Wang3, Shunda Du1, Xin Lu1, Xinting Sang1, Yilei Mao1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a nomogram for predicting the prognosis of patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) and to compare its performance with that of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To develop a nomogram, we collected the clinical data of 147 patients diagnosed with DCC who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. Predictive accuracy and discriminative ability were determined using a concordance index and a calibration curve. Predictive performance was compared with that of a current staging systems for DCC.Entities:
Keywords: distal cholangiocarcinoma; nomograms; pancreatoduodenectomy; prognostic factors; survival analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 33116885 PMCID: PMC7585820 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S276393
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Demographic and Patient Characteristic in the Entire Cohort (n†=147)
| Variables | Patient Characteristics | |
|---|---|---|
| Age/y, mean±SD‡ | 61.3 ± 9.1 | |
| Sex n (%) | Female | 52 (35.4%) |
| Male | 95 (64.6%) | |
| Jaundice n (%) | Yes | 117 (79.6%) |
| No | 30 (20.4%) | |
| Fever n (%) | No | 132 (89.8%) |
| Yes | 15 (10.2%) | |
| Drink n (%) | No | 114 (77.6%) |
| Yes | 33 (22.4%) | |
| Diabetes mellitus n (%) | No | 124 (84.4%) |
| Yes | 23 (15.6%) | |
| Alb§, mean±SD | 30.8 ± 4.0 | |
| Fbg¶, mean±SD | 4.6 ± 1.3 | |
| CA19-9†† n (%) | Normal | 18 (13.1%) |
| Elevated | 119 (86.9%) | |
| Differentiation n (%) | Poor | 49 (34.8%) |
| Well | 92 (65.2%) | |
| Positive margin n (%) | Negative | 106 (73.6%) |
| Positive | 38 (26.4%) | |
| Lymph node n (%) | Negative | 95 (66.9%) |
| Positive | 47 (33.1%) | |
| Nerve invasion n (%) | Negative | 89 (60.5%) |
| Positive | 58 (39.5%) | |
| Angioma embolus n (%) | Negative | 123 (84.8%) |
| Positive | 22 (15.2%) | |
| TNM‡‡ staging n (%) | 1 | 56 (43.8%) |
| 2 | 25 (19.5%) | |
| 3 | 47 (36.7%) |
Notes: †n, numbers; ‡SD, standard deviation; §Alb, albumin; ¶Fbg, fibrinogen; ††CA199, carbohydrate antigen 19–9; ‡‡TNM, tumor node metastasis.
Univariate Cox Regression Analysis of Clinicopathological Factors Associated with Overall Survival
| Variables | Univariable Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR† | 95% CI‡ | P value§ | ||
| Age | 1.00 | 0.97–1.03 | 0.839 | |
| Sex | Female | |||
| Male | 1.49 | 0.83–2.69 | 0.182 | |
| Jaundice | No | |||
| Yes | 1.59 | 0.82–3.07 | 0.170 | |
| Fever | No | |||
| Yes | 0.65 | 0.29–1.44 | 0.288 | |
| Drink | No | |||
| Yes | 1.57 | 0.89–2.76 | 0.118 | |
| Diabetes mellitus | No | |||
| Yes | 1.46 | 0.77–2.75 | 0.246 | |
| Alb¶ | 0.98 | 0.94–1.02 | 0.346 | |
| Fbg†† | 1.28 | 1–1.64 | 0.048 | |
| CA199‡‡ | Normal | |||
| Elevated | 0.76 | 0.36–1.63 | 0.481 | |
| Differentiation | Well | |||
| Poor | 2.73 | 1.62–4.61 | <0.001 | |
| T stage | T1 | Reference | 0.244 | |
| T2 | 1.37 | 0.67–2.8 | 0.390 | |
| T3 | 1.91 | 0.9–4.07 | 0.093 | |
| Nodes | Negative | |||
| Positive | 1.89 | 1.11–3.2 | 0.018 | |
| Margin | Negative | |||
| Positive | 2.11 | 1.24–3.58 | 0.006 | |
| Nerve invasion | No | |||
| Yes | 0.98 | 0.58–1.66 | 0.936 | |
| Angioma embolus | No | |||
| Yes | 1.01 | 0.48–2.14 | 0.972 | |
Notes: †HR, hazard ratio; ‡95% CI, 95% confidence interval; §P value<0.05, significant; ¶Alb, albumin; ††Fbg, fibrinogen; ‡‡CA199, carbohydrate antigen 19–9.
Multivariate Cox Regression Analysis of Clinicopathological Factors Associated with Overall Survival
| Variables | Multivariable Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR† | 95% CI‡ | P value§ | ||
| Jaundice | No | |||
| Yes | 1.84 | 0.9–3.75 | 0.094 | |
| Drink | No | |||
| Yes | 1.63 | 0.88–3.02 | 0.120 | |
| Fbg¶ | 1.35 | 1.01–1.8 | 0.043 | |
| Differentiation | Well | |||
| Poor | 2.58 | 1.41–4.72 | 0.002 | |
| Positive nodes | Negative | |||
| Positive | 1.84 | 1.03–3.28 | 0.039 | |
| Positive margin | Negative | |||
| Positive | 1.57 | 0.86–2.87 | 0.139 | |
Notes: †HR, hazard ratio; ‡95% CI, 95% confidence interval; §P value<0.05, significant; ¶Fbg, fibrinogen.
Figure 1A Nomogram for predicting postsurgical overall survival of patients with resectable distal cholangiocarcinoma. To calculate predicted overall survival, a patient’s value is located on each axis, and a straight line is drawn upward to the “Points” row to determine the points associated with each factor. After summing the points, one locates the appropriate total point number and draws a straight line from this value to the rows labeled “Overall survival at Month 12” (%), “Overall survival at Month 34” (%), and “Overall survival at Month 36” (%) to determine the patient’s predicted overall probability of survival. For each variable: jaundice: 0 = no, 1 = yes; Fbg: from a lower to a higher level, alcohol consumption: 0 = no, 1 = yes; poorly differentiated tumor cells (low differentiation): 0 = median-to high differentiation (highly differentiated tumor cells), 1 = poorly differentiated tumor cells (low differentiation); positive margin: 0 = negative margin, 1 = positive margin; N stage: 0 = negative lymph nodes metastasis, 1 = positive lymph nodes metastasis.
Figure 2Calibration plot comparing predicted and observed overall survival probabilities after 3 years of follow-up. The nomogram-predicted and observed probabilities of overall survival are plotted on the x- and y-axes, respectively. Thin gray line represents the reference.
The AUROC of Nomogram (Model 1) Compared with AJCC TNM Classification (Model 2)
| Time | Nomogram (Model 1) | AJCC TNM Classification (Model 2) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Month12 | 0.724 | 0.562 | <0.001 |
| Month24 | 0.758 | 0.638 | <0.001 |
| Month36 | 0.782 | 0.599 | <0.001 |
Figure 3The AUROC of the nomogram compared with the AJCC TNM classification. The two models were compared at the time nodes (A) 1 year, (B) 2 years, and (C) 3 years. Nomogram (black line) was consistently more accurate than the AJCC TNM classification (red line).