| Literature DB >> 33239911 |
Shao-Jun Xu1,2,3, Guo-Sheng Lin1,2,3, Hong-Jian Ling1,2,3, Ren-Jie Guo1,2,3, Jie Chen1,2,3, Yi-Ming Liao1,2,3, Tao Lin1,2,3, Yong-Jian Zhou1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative imaging examination is the primary method for diagnosing metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), but it is associated with a high rate of missed diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to establish an accurate model for predicting occult peritoneal metastasis (PM) of GIST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: GIST patients seen between April 2002 and December 2018 were selected from an institutional database. Using multivariate logistic regression analyses, we created a nomogram to predict occult PM of GIST and validated it with an independent cohort from the same center. The concordance index (C-index), decision curve analysis (DCA) and a clinical impact curve (CIC) were used to evaluate its predictive ability.Entities:
Keywords: gastrointestinal stromal tumor; imaging index; inflammatory marker; occult peritoneal metastasis; predictors
Year: 2020 PMID: 33239911 PMCID: PMC7681585 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S275422
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1Cohort exclusion criteria.
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients in Training and Validation Cohorts
| Characteristics | Training Cohort (n=350) | Validation Cohort (n=172) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occult PM | No Occult PM | Occult PM | No Occult PM | |||
| (n=29) | (n=321) | (n=19) | (n=153) | |||
| Age,years, mean (SD) | 58.3(11.8) | 56.9(8.3) | 0.524 | 56.3(14.5) | 55.1(13.4) | 0.720 |
| Sex | 0.325 | 0.430 | ||||
| Male(n,%) | 19(65.5) | 180(56.1) | 12(63.2) | 82(53.6) | ||
| Female(n,%) | 10(34.5) | 141(43.9) | 7(36.8) | 71(46.4) | ||
| Tumor size,cm,mean (SD) | 11.4(5.9) | 5.2(2.7) | <0.001 | 12.4(4.0) | 5.7(3.8) | <0.001 |
| Primary location(n,%) | <0.001 | 0.037 | ||||
| Stomach | 6(20.7) | 250(77.9) | 5(26.3) | 79(51.6) | ||
| Non-stomach | 23(79.3) | 71(22.1) | 14(73.7) | 74(48.4) | ||
| Tumor capsule(n,%) | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| No | 10(34.5) | 276(86.0) | 4(21.1) | 121(79.1) | ||
| Yes | 19(65.5) | 45(14.0) | 15(78.9) | 32(20.9) | ||
| PNI(n,%) | <0.001 | 0.039 | ||||
| <48.4 | 20(69.0) | 90(28.0) | 18(94.7) | 112(73.2) | ||
| ≥48.4 | 9(31.0) | 231(72.0 | 1(5.3) | 41(26.8) | ||
| NLR(n,%) | <0.001 | 0.645 | ||||
| <3.6 | 16(55.2) | 278(86.6) | 10(52.5) | 89(58.2) | ||
| ≥3.6 | 13(44.8) | 43(51.4) | 9(47.4) | 64(41.8) | ||
| PLR(n,%) | 0.017 | 0.982 | ||||
| <149.4 | 11(37.9) | 195(60.7) | 8(42.1) | 64(41.8) | ||
| ≥149.4 | 18(62.1) | 126(39.3) | 11(57.9) | 89(58.2) | ||
| LMR(n,%) | 0.033 | 0.020 | ||||
| <3.9 | 16(55.2) | 113(35.2) | 18(94.7) | 106(69.3) | ||
| ≥3.9 | 13(44.8) | 208(64.8) | 1(5.3) | 47(30.7) | ||
| Alb,g/l, mean (SD) | 38.3(3.8) | 42.5(3.4) | <0.001 | 31.6(4.0) | 36.5(5.1) | <0.001 |
| FIB,g/L, mean (SD) | 4.7(1.4) | 3.4(0.8) | <0.001 | 5.2(1.1) | 3.4(1.1) | <0.001 |
Risk Factors for Occult PM Identified by Multivariate Analysis
| Characteristics β | β | Multivariate Analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |||
| Tumor size | 0.177 | 1.194 (1.034–1.378) | 0.016 |
| Primary location | 1.997 | 7.365 (2.192–24.746) | 0.001 |
| Tumor capsule | 1.454 | 4.282 (1.209–15.166) | 0.024 |
| Alb (g/L) | −0.207 | 0.813 (0.693–0.954) | 0.011 |
| FIB (g/L) | −0.256 | 2.322 (1.410–3.823) | 0.001 |
Figure 2Nomogram to estimate the risk of preoperative occult PM of GIST. To use the nomogram, find the position of each variable on the corresponding axis, draw a line to the points axis for the number of points, add the points from all of the variables, and draw a line from the total points axis to determine the preoperative occult PM of GIST probabilities at the lower line of the nomogram. Validation of the predictive performance of the nomogram in estimating the risk of preoperative occult PM of GIST (n = 350).
Figure 3The accuracy of the model for identifying patients with occult PM was determined using AUC analysis for the training (A) and validation (B) cohorts. The distribution of the predicted probabilities of preoperative occult PM of GIST in the training (C) and validation (D) cohorts.
Figure 4The DCA of the nomogram for predicting preoperative occult PM of GIST was plotted. (A) The blue solid line assumes that all patients will have occult PM. The black solid line assumes that no patients will have occult PM. In this analysis, the decision curve provided a larger net benefit across the range of 4 to 100%. The CIC of the nomogram for predicting preoperative occult PM is shown. (B) The y-axis represents the net benefit.