| Literature DB >> 35281412 |
Tien-Manh Hoang1, Minh-Tien Nguyen1,2, Weisin Chen1, Chenyang Zhuang1, Zixiang Wang1, Hanquan Wang1, Juan Li1,3, Hong Lin1,3.
Abstract
Background: Distant metastasis is a significant factor influencing chondrosarcoma (CHS) patients' treatment and prognosis. We aimed to establish a consistent and effective nomogram to better predict distant metastases of CHS individuals.Entities:
Keywords: Chondrosarcoma (CHS); Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER); metastasis; nomogram; risk factors
Year: 2022 PMID: 35281412 PMCID: PMC8904951 DOI: 10.21037/tcr-21-2212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Cancer Res ISSN: 2218-676X Impact factor: 1.241
Figure 1Flow diagram of the process of the patient selection and analyses in the present study. 1,923 patients were initially gathered from the SEER database, and 857 ineligible patients were excluded based on the exclusion criteria, then 1,066 eligible patients were randomly divided into the training [746] and validation [320] set. SEER, Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; DCA, decision curve analysis.
Baseline characteristics of patients with chondrosarcoma
| Characteristics | Total (n=1,066) | Training cohort (n=746) | Validation cohort (n=320) | P value† |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 51.41±17.21 | 51.17±16.94 | 51.97±17.84 | 0.493 |
| Race, n (%) | 0.444 | |||
| White | 931 (87.34) | 653 (87.53) | 278 (86.88) | |
| Black | 73 (6.85) | 47 (6.3) | 26 (8.12) | |
| Other | 62 (5.82) | 46 (6.17) | 16 (5.00) | |
| Sex, n (%) | 0.353 | |||
| Male | 586 (54.97) | 417 (55.90) | 169 (52.81) | |
| Female | 480 (45.03) | 329 (44.10) | 151 (47.19) | |
| Marital status, n (%) | 0.294 | |||
| Married | 632 (59.29) | 450 (60.32) | 182 (56.88) | |
| Unmarried | 434 (40.71) | 296 (39.68) | 138 (43.12) | |
| Primary site, n (%) | 0.278 | |||
| Extremity | 527 (49.44) | 373 (50.00) | 154 (48.12) | |
| Pelvis/spine | 448 (42.03) | 316 (42.36) | 132 (41.25) | |
| Skull | 91 (8.54) | 57 (7.64) | 34 (10.62) | |
| Grade, n (%) | 0.832 | |||
| Low | 814 (76.36) | 571 (76.54) | 243 (75.94) | |
| High | 252 (23.64) | 175 (23.46) | 77 (24.06) | |
| T stage, n (%) | 0.519 | |||
| T1 | 648 (60.79) | 447 (59.92) | 201 (62.81) | |
| T2 | 395 (37.05) | 281 (37.67) | 114 (35.62) | |
| T3 | 23 (2.16) | 18 (2.41) | 5 (1.56) | |
| N stage, n (%) | 0.778 | |||
| N0 | 1,051 (98.59) | 736 (98.66) | 315 (98.44) | |
| N1 | 15 (1.41) | 10 (1.34) | 5 (1.56) | |
| Surgery, n (%) | 0.910 | |||
| No | 998 (93.62) | 698 (93.57) | 300 (93.75) | |
| Yes | 68 (6.38) | 48 (6.43) | 20 (6.25) | |
| Size (cm) | 7.53±7.51 | 7.63±7.87 | 7.3±6.62 | 0.476 |
| Metastasis, n (%) | 0.544 | |||
| No | 1,000 (93.81) | 702 (94.10) | 298 (93.12) | |
| Yes | 66 (6.19) | 44 (5.90) | 22 (6.88) |
†, between-group differences were compared by Pearson’s chi-squared test or Student’s t-test, respectively.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier analysis for overall survival in metastatic and non-metastatic chondrosarcoma.
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis in the training cohort
| Characteristics | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P value | OR (95% CI) | P value | ||
| Age | 0.001 | 1.018 (0.992–1.045) | 0.178 | |
| Race | 0.723 | NI | ||
| White | ||||
| Black | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Sex | 0.453 | NI | ||
| Female | ||||
| Male | ||||
| Marital status | 0.010 | |||
| Married | R | |||
| Unmarried | 0.268 (0.098–0.733) | 0.010 | ||
| Primary site | 0.408 | NI | ||
| Extremity | ||||
| Pelvis/spine | ||||
| Skull | ||||
| Grade | <0.001 | |||
| Low | R | |||
| High | 10.163 (4.098–25.202) | <0.001 | ||
| T stage | <0.001 | |||
| T1 | R | |||
| T2 | 1.831 (0.650–5.153) | 0.252 | ||
| T3 | 11.864 (2.258–62.325) | 0.003 | ||
| N stage | 0.005 | |||
| N0 | R | |||
| N1 | 3.746 (0.694–20.223) | 0.125 | ||
| Surgery | <0.001 | |||
| No | R | |||
| Yes | 0.037 (0.013–0.100) | <0.001 | ||
| Size | <0.001 | 1.055 (1.010–1.101) | 0.016 | |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; NI, not included; R, reference.
Figure 3Nomogram predicting the risk of distant metastasis of CHS patients. Each factor’s points were determined by creating a vertical line between it and the Points scale. We compute the metastatic risk by adding the points from each factor and creating a vertical line between the Total points scale and the Risk scale. CHS, chondrosarcoma.
Detailed scores of each factor in the nomogram
| Characteristics | Classification | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Marital status | Unmarried | 0 |
| Married | 28 | |
| Grade | Low | 0 |
| High | 51 | |
| T stage | T1 | 0 |
| T2 | 15 | |
| T3 | 48 | |
| Surgery | Yes | 0 |
| No | 72 | |
| Size (cm) | x | 1.11x |
Figure 4ROC curves of the Nomogram for predicting metastases in the training (A) and validation (B) sets. The AUCs were 0.931 in the training set, and 0.951 in the validation set. ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 5Plots depicting internal (A) and external (B) calibration diagrams. The x-axis depicts the nomogram-predicted probability and the y-axis depicts the actual probability in the calibration curve.
Figure 6DCA for the Nomogram for predicting metastases in the training and validation sets. DCA, decision curve analysis.