| Literature DB >> 34367951 |
Wenbo Zou1,2,3, Chunyu Zhu1,2,3, Zizheng Wang2,3, Xianglong Tan2,3, Chenggang Li2,3, Zhiming Zhao2,3, Minggen Hu1,2,3, Rong Liu1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various lymph node staging strategies were reported to be significantly correlated with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma(pCCA) prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate their predictive abilities and construct an optimal model predicting overall survival (OS).Entities:
Keywords: SEER; log odds of metastatic lymph nodes; nomogram; overall survival; perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
Year: 2021 PMID: 34367951 PMCID: PMC8340771 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.649699
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Demographics and characteristics of patients in Training and Validation cohorts.
| Characteristics | Training cohort (n=319) | Validation cohort (n=109) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| n (%) | n (%) | <0.001 |
| <65 | 131(41%) | 74(68%) | |
| ≥65 | 188(59%) | 35(32%) | |
|
| <0.001 | ||
| White | 245(77%) | 0 | |
| Black | 19(6%) | 0 | |
| Others | 55(17%) | 109(100%) | |
|
| 0.35 | ||
| Female | 114(36%) | 33(30%) | |
| Male | 205(64%) | 76(70%) | |
|
| 0.335 | ||
| cholangiocarcinoma | 314(98%) | 109(100%) | |
| others | 5(2%) | 0 | |
|
| 0.003 | ||
| T1 | 45(14%) | 27(25%) | |
| T2 | 199(62%) | 66(61%) | |
| T3 | 54(17%) | 6(6%) | |
| T4 | 21(7%) | 10(9%) | |
|
| NA | ||
| N0 | 173(54%) | NA | |
| N1 | 140(44%) | NA | |
| N2 | 6(2%) | NA | |
|
| 0.075 | ||
| N0 | 174(55%) | 67(61%) | |
| N1 | 111(35%) | 38(35%) | |
| N2 | 34(11%) | 4(4%) | |
|
| 0.055 | ||
| M0 | 309(97%) | 109(100%) | |
| M1 | 10(3%) | 0 | |
|
| <0.001 | ||
| Well | 57(18%) | 3(3%) | |
| Moderate | 163(51%) | 66(61%) | |
| Poor | 96(30%) | 40(37) | |
| Undifferentiated | 3(1%) | NA | |
|
| 1 | ||
| <3 | 186(58%) | 64(59%) | |
| ≥3 | 133(42%) | 45(41%) | |
|
| 0.089 | ||
| <4 | 102(32%) | 25(23%) | |
| ≥4 | 217(68%) | 84(77%) | |
|
| 0.006 | ||
| 0 | 244(76%) | 68(62%) | |
| 1 | 75(24%) | 41(38%) | |
|
| 0.304 | ||
| 1 | 121(38%) | 49(45%) | |
| 2 | 156(49%) | 44(40%) | |
| 3 | 42(13%) | 16(15%) | |
|
| NA | ||
| No | 313(98%) | NA | |
| Yes | 6(2%) | NA |
LNR lymph node ratio, LODDS the log odds of metastatic lymph nodes, NA not available, RLNs retrieved lymph nodes.
The optimal cut-off value of LNR and LODDS.
| Variables | Numbers of patients | DR | RR |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| <0.001 | |||
| LNR<0.27 | 246 | 40.24 | 1 | |
| LNR≥0.27 | 73 | 73.97 | 1.84 | |
|
| <0.001 | |||
| -2.03≤LODDS<-0.88 | 121 | 32.23 | 1 | |
| -0.88<LODDS≤-0.16 | 156 | 52.56 | 1.63 | |
| LODDS>-0.16 | 42 | 76.19 | 2.36 |
DR dead rate, RR relative risk.
Univariate and multivariate Cox analysis of prognostic factors.
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI |
| HR | 95%CI |
| |
|
| 1.49 | 1.07-2.08 | 0.018 | |||
| <65 | Reference | |||||
| ≥65 | 1.71 | 1.20-2.43 | 0.003 | |||
|
| 1.29 | 1.07-1.57 | 0.009 | |||
| White | Reference | |||||
| Black | 1.82 | 0.95-3.49 | 0.07 | |||
| Others | 1.42 | 0.94-2.14 | 0.098 | |||
|
| 1.55 | 1.29-1.87 | <0.001 | |||
| T1 | Reference | |||||
| T2 | 3.12 | 1.61-6.02 | <0.001 | |||
| T3 | 6.02 | 2.91-12.45 | <0.001 | |||
| T4 | 4.09 | 1.78-9.43 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 2.31 | 1.08-4.94 | 0.031 | |||
| M0 | Reference | |||||
| M1 | 1.82 | 0.80-4.12 | 0.151 | |||
|
| 1.54 | 1.12-2.12 | 0.007 | |||
| <3 | Reference | |||||
| ≥3 | 1.4 | 1.00-1.94 | 0.048 | |||
|
| 0.96 | 0.69-1.34 | 0.816 | |||
|
| 0.41 | 0.06-2.94 | 0.376 | |||
|
| 1.22 | 0.95-1.57 | 0.117 | |||
|
| 0.97 | 0.7-1.36 | 0.867 | |||
|
| 2.15 | 1.65-2.82 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 2.09 | 1.67-2.62 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 2.95 | 2.09-4.12 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 2.2 | 1.71-2.82 | <0.001 | |||
|
| 1.56 | 0.58-4.23 | 0.379 | |||
Evaluation of four models.
| (a) Multivariate Cox analysis of prognostic factors including 7th N stage | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Multivariate analysis | |||
| HR | 95%CI |
| ||
|
| ||||
| <65 | Reference | |||
| ≥65 | 1.52 | 1.084-2.132 | 0.015 | |
|
| ||||
| T1 | Reference | |||
| T2 | 2.73 | 1.405-5.292 | 0.003 | |
| T3 | 3.87 | 1.825-8.217 | <0.001 | |
| T4 | 2.64 | 1.122-6.239 | 0.026 | |
|
| ||||
| <3 | Reference | |||
| ≥3 | 1.45 | 1.044-2.014 | 0.027 | |
|
| ||||
| N0 | Reference | |||
| N1 | 2.10 | 1.470-3.007 | <0.001 | |
| N2 | 1.46 | 0.521-4.098 | 0.471 | |
|
| 0.680 | |||
|
| 1501.86 | |||
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
| <65 | Reference | |||
| ≥65 | 1.475 | 1.049-2.047 | 0.026 | |
|
| ||||
| T1 | Reference | |||
| T2 | 2.717 | 1.400-5.273 | 0.003 | |
| T3 | 3.716 | 1.736-7.955 | <0.001 | |
| T4 | 2.699 | 1.145-6.358 | 0.023 | |
|
| ||||
| <3 | Reference | |||
| ≥3 | 1.401 | 1.011-1.942 | 0.043 | |
|
| ||||
| N0 | Reference | |||
| N1 | 1.878 | 1.306-2.703 | <0.001 | |
| N2 | 2.709 | 1.580-4.645 | <0.001 | |
|
| 0.685 | |||
|
| 1497.66 | |||
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||||
| <65 | Reference | |||
| ≥65 | 1.502 | 1.070-2.109 | 0.019 | |
|
| ||||
| T1 | Reference | |||
| T2 | 2.778 | 1.434-5.380 | 0.0024 | |
| T3 | 4.64 | 2.222-9.687 | <0.001 | |
| T4 | 3.16 | 1.362-7.331 | 0.0074 | |
|
| ||||
| <3 | Reference | |||
| ≥3 | 1.387 | 1.001-1.922 | 0.049 | |
|
| ||||
| 0 | Reference | |||
| 1 | 2.343 | 1.653-3.321 | <0.001 | |
|
| 0.685 | |||
|
| 1493.9 | |||
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||
| <65 | Reference | |||
| ≥65 | 1.538 | 1.098-2.154 | 0.012 | |
|
| ||||
| T1 | Reference | |||
| T2 | 2.685 | 1.384-5.207 | 0.003 | |
| T3 | 4.569 | 2.190-9.529 | <0.001 | |
| T4 | 3.184 | 1.371-7.393 | 0.007 | |
|
| ||||
| <3 | Reference | |||
| ≥3 | 1.297 | 0.932-1.804 | 0.122 | |
|
| ||||
| 1 | Reference | |||
| 2 | 1.636 | 1.113-2.405 | 0.012 | |
| 3 | 3.572 | 2.176-5.862 | <0.001 | |
|
| 0.695 | |||
|
| 1491 | |||
AIC Akaike information criterion, C-index concordance index
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves for pCCA patients based on four lymph node evaluation factors. (A) 7th N stage. (B) 8th N stage. (C) LNR. (D) LODDS.
Figure 2(A) The nomogram for predicting OS for pCCA patients. (B) Boxplot of C-index in four subgroups. (C) The time-dependent AUC of the nomogram in training cohort. (D) The time-dependent AUC of the nomogram in the validation cohort. (E–G) Calibration curves showed the probability of 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS between the nomogram prediction and the practical observation in the training cohort. (H–J) Calibration curves reveal the probability of 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS between the nomogram prediction and the practical observation in the validation cohort.
Figure 3(A) Decision curves showed clinical benefits of the nomogram predicting OS in the training cohort. (B) Decision curves showed clinical benefits of the nomogram predicting OS in the validation cohort.