Tongbo Wang1, Yan Wu2, Hong Zhou1, Chaorui Wu1, Xiaojie Zhang1, Yingtai Chen3, Dongbing Zhao4. 1. Department of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 PanjiayuanNanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Pathology, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, 100142, China. 3. Department of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 PanjiayuanNanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China. yingtaichen@126.com. 4. Department of Pancreatic and Gastric Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 17 PanjiayuanNanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, China. dbzhao@cicams.ac.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinoma in Esophagogastric Junction (AEG) is a severe gastrointestinal malignancy with a unique clinicopathological feature. Hence, we aimed to develop a competing risk nomogram for predicting survival for AEG patients and compared it with new 8th traditional tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system. METHODS: Based on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database of AEG patients between 2004 and 2010, we used univariate and multivariate analysis to filter clinical factors and then built a competing risk nomogram to predict AEG cause-specific survival. We then measured the clinical accuracy by comparing them to the 8th TNM stage with a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, Brier score, and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA). External validation was performed in 273 patients from China National Cancer Center. RESULTS: A total of 1755 patients were included in this study. The nomogram was based on five variables: Number of examined lymph nodes, grade, invasion, metastatic LNs, and age. The results of the nomogram was greater than traditional TNM staging with ROC curve (1-year AUC: 0.747 vs. 0.641, 3-year AUC: 0.761 vs. 0.679, 5-year AUC: 0.759 vs. 0.682, 7-year AUC: 0.749 vs. 0.673, P < 0.001), Brier score (3-year: 0.198 vs. 0.217, P = 0.012; 5-year: 0.198 vs. 0.216, P = 0.008; 7-year: 0.199 vs. 0.215, P = 0.014) and DCA. In external validation, the nomogram also showed better diagnostic value than traditional TNM staging and great prediction accuracy. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a novel nomogram and risk stratification system integrating clinicopathological characteristics for AEG patients. The model showed superior prediction ability for AEG patients than traditional TNM classification.
BACKGROUND:Adenocarcinoma in Esophagogastric Junction (AEG) is a severe gastrointestinal malignancy with a unique clinicopathological feature. Hence, we aimed to develop a competing risk nomogram for predicting survival for AEGpatients and compared it with new 8th traditional tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system. METHODS: Based on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database of AEGpatients between 2004 and 2010, we used univariate and multivariate analysis to filter clinical factors and then built a competing risk nomogram to predict AEG cause-specific survival. We then measured the clinical accuracy by comparing them to the 8th TNM stage with a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, Brier score, and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA). External validation was performed in 273 patients from China National Cancer Center. RESULTS: A total of 1755 patients were included in this study. The nomogram was based on five variables: Number of examined lymph nodes, grade, invasion, metastatic LNs, and age. The results of the nomogram was greater than traditional TNM staging with ROC curve (1-year AUC: 0.747 vs. 0.641, 3-year AUC: 0.761 vs. 0.679, 5-year AUC: 0.759 vs. 0.682, 7-year AUC: 0.749 vs. 0.673, P < 0.001), Brier score (3-year: 0.198 vs. 0.217, P = 0.012; 5-year: 0.198 vs. 0.216, P = 0.008; 7-year: 0.199 vs. 0.215, P = 0.014) and DCA. In external validation, the nomogram also showed better diagnostic value than traditional TNM staging and great prediction accuracy. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a novel nomogram and risk stratification system integrating clinicopathological characteristics for AEGpatients. The model showed superior prediction ability for AEGpatients than traditional TNM classification.
Authors: Sjoerd M Lagarde; J B Reitsma; F J W Ten Kate; O R C Busch; H Obertop; A H Zwinderman; J Moons; J J B van Lanschot; T Lerut Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jeroen Laurens Ad van Vugt; Louise Johanna Maria Alferink; Stefan Buettner; Marcia Patricia Gaspersz; Daphne Bot; Sarwa Darwish Murad; Shirin Feshtali; Peter Martinus Adranius van Ooijen; Wojciech Grzegorz Polak; Robert Jack Porte; Bart van Hoek; Aad Pieter van den Berg; Herold J Metselaar; Jan Nicolaas Maria IJzermans Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Dario Callegaro; Rosalba Miceli; Sylvie Bonvalot; Peter Ferguson; Dirk C Strauss; Antonin Levy; Anthony Griffin; Andrew J Hayes; Silvia Stacchiotti; Cecile Le Pechoux; Myles J Smith; Marco Fiore; Angelo P Dei Tos; Henry G Smith; Luigi Mariani; Jay S Wunder; Raphael E Pollock; Paolo G Casali; Alessandro Gronchi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 41.316