| Literature DB >> 34222019 |
Zijian Tian1,2, Lingfeng Meng1,2, Xin Wang1, Tongxiang Diao1, Maolin Hu1, Miao Wang1, Yaqun Zhang1,2, Ming Liu1,2.
Abstract
Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is an important prognostic factor for bladder cancer (BCA) and determines the treatment strategy. This study aimed to determine related clinicopathological factors of LNM and analyze the prognosis of BCA. A total of 10,653 eligible patients with BCA were randomly divided into training or verification sets using the 2004-2015 data of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. To identify prognostic factors for the overall survival of BCA, we utilized the Cox proportional hazard model. Independent risk factors for LNM were evaluated via logistic regression analysis. T-stage, tumor grade, patient age and tumor size were identified as independent risk factors for LNM and were used to develop the LNM nomogram. The Kaplan-Meier method and competitive risk analyses were applied to establish the influence of lymph node status on BCA prognosis. The accuracy of LNM nomogram was evaluated in the training and verification sets. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) showed an effective predictive accuracy of the nomogram in both the training (AUC: 0.690) and verification (AUC: 0.704) sets. In addition, the calibration curve indicated good consistency between the prediction of deviation correction and the ideal reference line. The decision curve analysis showed that the nomogram had a high clinical application value. In conclusion, our nomogram displayed high accuracy and reliability in predicting LNM. This could assist the selection of the optimal treatment for patients.Entities:
Keywords: bladder cancer; lymph node metastasis; nomogram; prognosis; risk
Year: 2021 PMID: 34222019 PMCID: PMC8242250 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.690324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Clinicopathological characteristics of the cohort by lymph node status.
| Characteristics | Training cohort | Validation cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LNM (-) | LNM (+) | P value | LNM (-) | LNM (+) | P value | |
| N=2570 | N=2757 | N=2558 | N=2768 | |||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| <50 | 89 (3.5%) | 149 (5.4%) | 101 (3.9%) | 135 (4.9%) | ||
| 50-65 | 719 (28.0%) | 993 (36.0%) | 662 (25.9%) | 987 (35.7%) | ||
| 65-79 | 1285 (50.0%) | 1320 (47.9%) | 1318 (51.5%) | 1336 (48.3%) | ||
| >80 | 477 (18.6%) | 295 (10.7%) | 477 (18.6%) | 310 (11.2%) | ||
|
| 0.135 | 0.834 | ||||
| Female | 609 (23.7%) | 702 (25.5%) | 635 (24.8%) | 694 (25.1%) | ||
| Male | 1961 (76.3%) | 2055 (74.5%) | 1923 (75.2%) | 2074 (74.9%) | ||
|
| 0.303 | 0.896 | ||||
| Caucasians | 2253 (87.7%) | 2417 (87.7%) | 2256 (88.2%) | 2457 (88.8%) | ||
| Afro-Americans | 153 (6.0%) | 185 (6.7%) | 154 (6.0%) | 154 (5.6%) | ||
| Other | 156 (6.1%) | 151 (5.5%) | 143 (5.6%) | 151 (5.5%) | ||
| Unknown | 8 (0.3%) | 4 (0.1%) | 5 (0.2%) | 6 (0.2%) | ||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| Grade I | 74 (2.9%) | 10 (0.4%) | 52 (2.0%) | 10 (0.4%) | ||
| Grade II | 148 (5.8%) | 47 (1.7%) | 151 (5.9%) | 63 (2.3%) | ||
| Grade III | 747 (29.1%) | 774 (28.1%) | 790 (30.9%) | 724(26.2%) | ||
| Grade IV | 1601 (62.3%) | 1926 (69.9%) | 1565 (61.2%) | 1971 (71.2%) | ||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| <1cm | 165 (6.4%) | 81 (2.9%) | 136 (5.3%) | 71 (2.6%) | ||
| 1-2cm | 292 (11.4%) | 213 (7.7%) | 312 (12.2%) | 236 (8.5%) | ||
| 2-3cm | 457 (17.8%) | 439 (15.9%) | 450 (17.6%) | 456 (16.5%) | ||
| 3-4cm | 480 (18.7%) | 522 (18.9%) | 473 (18.5%) | 524 (18.9%) | ||
| 4+cm | 1176 (45.8%) | 1502 (54.5%) | 1187 (46.4%) | 1481 (53.5%) | ||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| T1 | 372 (14.5%) | 113 (4.1%) | 425 (16.6%) | 113 (4.1%) | ||
| T2 | 1004 (39.1%) | 895 (32.5%) | 1049 (41.0%) | 909 (32.8%) | ||
| T3 | 783 (30.5%) | 1142 (41.4%) | 737 (28.8%) | 1157 (41.8%) | ||
| T4 | 246 (9.6%) | 585 (21.2%) | 189 (7.4%) | 565 (20.4%) | ||
| Ta | 148 (5.8%) | 21 (0.8%) | 142 (5.6%) | 20 (0.7%) | ||
| Tis | 17 (0.7%) | 1 (0.1%) | 16 (0.6%) | 4 (0.1%) | ||
LNM, lymph node metastasis.
Logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for lymph nodes metastasis.
| Clinicopathological variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | P value | OR (95%CI) | P value | |
| Age at diagnosis | ||||
| <50 | Reference | Reference | ||
| 50-65 | 0.825 (0.624-1.091) | 0.177 | 0.760 (0.564-1.024) | 0.071 |
| 65-79 | 0.614 (0.467-0.807) | <0.001 | 0.541 (0.404-0.725) | <0.001 |
| >80 | 0.369 (0.274-0.499) | <0.001 | 0.288 (0.209-0.397) | <0.001 |
| Sex | ||||
| Female | Reference | |||
| Male | 0.909 (0.802-1.030) | 0.135 | ||
| Race | ||||
| Caucasians | Reference | |||
| Afro-Americans | 1.127 (0.903-1.407) | 0.290 | ||
| Other | 0.902 (0.716-1.137) | 0.383 | ||
| Unknown | 0.466 (0.140-1.550) | 0.213 | ||
| Grade | ||||
| Grade I | Reference | Reference | ||
| Grade II | 2.350 (1.124-4.913) | 0.023 | 1.687 (0.773-3.681) | 0.189 |
| Grade III | 7.667 (3.932-14.953) | <0.001 | 3.063 (1.497-6.269) | 0.002 |
| Grade IV | 8.902 (4.584-17.287) | <0.001 | 3.730 (1.831-7.599) | <0.001 |
| Tumor size | ||||
| <1cm | Reference | Reference | ||
| 1-2cm | 1.486 (1.080-2.045) | 0.015 | 1.290 (0.919-1.812) | 0.141 |
| 2-3cm | 1.957 (1.455-2.632) | <0.001 | 1.542 (1.124-2.115) | 0.007 |
| 3-4cm | 2.215 (1.652-2.971) | <0.001 | 1.662 (1.215-2.272) | 0.001 |
| 4+cm | 2.602 (1.973-3.431) | <0.001 | 1.839 (1.367-2.473) | <0.001 |
| T | ||||
| T1 | Reference | Reference | ||
| T2 | 2.935 (2.334-3.690) | <0.001 | 2.849 (2.256-3.598) | <0.001 |
| T3 | 4.801 (3.817-6.039) | <0.001 | 4.798 (3.791-6.073) | <0.001 |
| T4 | 7.829 (6.049-10.132) | <0.001 | 7.587 (5.824-9.883) | <0.001 |
| Ta | 0.467 (0.282-0.773) | 0.003 | 0.745 (0.438-1.268) | 0.278 |
| Tis | 0.194 (0.025-1.471) | 0.113 | 0.299 (0.038-2.321) | 0.248 |
OR, odd ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 1Nomogram for predicting lymph node metastasis in patients with bladder cancer.
Figure 2Calibration curve, receiver operating characteristic curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and clinical impact curve for predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with bladder cancer (BCA). (A) Calibration curve of positive lymph node probability nomogram in the training set (bootstrap method, 1000 repetitions). (B) Area under the curve for predicting the LNM of patients with BCA in the training and verification sets. (C) The DCA curve of the training set. The x-axis and y-axis mean the threshold probability and net benefit, respectively. The black line indicates all patients experienced LNM, and the blue line indicates no patient developed LNM. (D) Clinical impact curve of the training set. The red curve demonstrates the number of people who were classified positive by the nomogram under each threshold probability, and the blue curve indicates the number of true positives under each threshold probability.
Figure 3Calibration curve, decision curve analysis (DCA), and clinical impact curve for predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with bladder cancer. (A) Calibration curve of positive lymph node probability nomogram in the verification set (bootstrap method, 1000 repetitions). (B) The DCA curve of the verification set. The x-axis and y-axis mean the threshold probability and net benefit, respectively. The black line indicates all patients experienced LNM, and the blue line indicates no patient developed LNM. (C) Clinical impact curve of the verification set. The red curve demonstrates the number of people classified as positive by the nomogram under each threshold probability, and the blue curve is the number of true positives under each threshold probability.
Figure 4(A) Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier survival curves grouped according to lymph node status in the training set. (B) Competitive risk curve: death from non-bladder cancer in the training set was regarded as a competitive risk event.
Figure 5(A) Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier survival curves grouped according to the lymph node status in the verification set. (B) Competitive risk curve: death from a non-bladder cancer cause in the verification set was regarded as a competitive risk event.