BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PaC) patients with positive lymph nodes (PLNs) have a dismal prognosis and lack a specific prognostic stage. This study aimed to construct a nomogram for the prediction of overall survival (OS) in these patients. METHODS: A total of 1,340 patients screened from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were included and randomly divided at a ratio of 7:3 into a training set (n=940) and an internal validation set (n=400). Cox regression analyses were conducted to select independent predictors in the training set, and a nomogram was constructed. The model was verified in the internal validation set and in an external validation set, which comprised 64 patients from a Chinese institute. RESULTS: Six independent prognostic factors (age at diagnosis, tumor grade, lymph node ratio, T stage, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) were identified in PaC patients with PLNs and were entered into the nomogram. The final model had a higher C-index for predicting OS than the American Joint Committee on Cancer-8th edition staging system (training set: 0.658 vs. 0.546; internal validation set: 0.661 vs. 0.546; external validation set: 0.691 vs. 0.581). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values indicated better discrimination power for the established nomogram with respect to the prediction of OS in the training, internal validation, and external validation sets than for the American Joint Committee on Cancer-8th edition staging system. Furthermore, the nomogram performed well in both calibration and decision curve analyses (DCA) of clinical applicability. OS in PaC patients with PLNs was significantly distinguished among the three risk groups stratified according to the nomogram score (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The well-calibrated nomogram was determined to be extremely efficient in predicting survival, and defining a high-risk population based on the nomogram score among PaC patients with PLNs after surgery. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PaC) patients with positive lymph nodes (PLNs) have a dismal prognosis and lack a specific prognostic stage. This study aimed to construct a nomogram for the prediction of overall survival (OS) in these patients. METHODS: A total of 1,340 patients screened from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were included and randomly divided at a ratio of 7:3 into a training set (n=940) and an internal validation set (n=400). Cox regression analyses were conducted to select independent predictors in the training set, and a nomogram was constructed. The model was verified in the internal validation set and in an external validation set, which comprised 64 patients from a Chinese institute. RESULTS: Six independent prognostic factors (age at diagnosis, tumor grade, lymph node ratio, T stage, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) were identified in PaC patients with PLNs and were entered into the nomogram. The final model had a higher C-index for predicting OS than the American Joint Committee on Cancer-8th edition staging system (training set: 0.658 vs. 0.546; internal validation set: 0.661 vs. 0.546; external validation set: 0.691 vs. 0.581). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values indicated better discrimination power for the established nomogram with respect to the prediction of OS in the training, internal validation, and external validation sets than for the American Joint Committee on Cancer-8th edition staging system. Furthermore, the nomogram performed well in both calibration and decision curve analyses (DCA) of clinical applicability. OS in PaC patients with PLNs was significantly distinguished among the three risk groups stratified according to the nomogram score (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The well-calibrated nomogram was determined to be extremely efficient in predicting survival, and defining a high-risk population based on the nomogram score among PaC patients with PLNs after surgery. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Carole Fakhry; Qiang Zhang; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tân; David I Rosenthal; Randal S Weber; Louise Lambert; Andy M Trotti; William L Barrett; Wade L Thorstad; Christopher U Jones; Sue S Yom; Stuart J Wong; John A Ridge; Shyam S D Rao; James A Bonner; Eric Vigneault; David Raben; Mahesh R Kudrimoti; Jonathan Harris; Quynh-Thu Le; Maura L Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sivesh K Kamarajah; William R Burns; Timothy L Frankel; Clifford S Cho; Hari Nathan Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mariam F Eskander; Susanna W L de Geus; Gyulnara G Kasumova; Sing Chau Ng; Waddah Al-Refaie; Gamze Ayata; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Helmut Oettle; Peter Neuhaus; Andreas Hochhaus; Jörg Thomas Hartmann; Klaus Gellert; Karsten Ridwelski; Marco Niedergethmann; Carl Zülke; Jörg Fahlke; Michael B Arning; Marianne Sinn; Axel Hinke; Hanno Riess Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: James S Tomlinson; Sushma Jain; David J Bentrem; Evangelos G Sekeris; Melinda A Maggard; O Joe Hines; Howard A Reber; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2007-08