| Literature DB >> 35719922 |
Yuchen Liu1,2, Yanxun Han1,2, Bangjie Chen2,3, Jian Zhang4, Siyue Yin2,3, Dapeng Li1,2, Yu Wu1,2, Yuan Jiang1,2, Xinyi Wang2, Jianpeng Wang2, Ziyue Fu2, Hailong Shen1,2, Zhao Ding1,2, Kun Yao4, Ye Tao1, Jing Wu1, Yehai Liu1.
Abstract
Background: Laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) is the most common type of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. However, there are currently no reliable biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of LSCC. Thus, this study aimed to identify the independent risk factors and develop and validate a new dynamic web-based nomogram that can predict auxiliary laryngeal carcinogenesis.Entities:
Keywords: LASSO regression; diagnosis; dynamic nomogram; laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma; risk factors
Year: 2022 PMID: 35719922 PMCID: PMC9204277 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.829761
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Flow chart of the study process. ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001.
Patient demographics and clinicopathological characteristics.
| Characteristics | The First Affiliated Hospital | Affiliated Fuyang Hospital | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Cohort | Internal Test Cohort | External Test Cohort | |||||
| BLL n (%) | LSCC n (%) | BLL n (%) | LSCC n (%) | BLL n (%) | LSCC n (%) | ||
| 250 | 158 | 109 | 63 | 54 | 31 | ||
| <60 | 216 (86.4) | 46 (29.1) | 100 (91.7) | 26 (41.3) | 51 (94.4) | 12 (38.7) | |
| ≥60 | 34 (13.6) | 112 (70.9) | 9 (8.3) | 37 (58.7) | 3 (5.6) | 19 (61.3) | |
| Male | 144 (57.6) | 151 (95.6) | 61 (56.0) | 59 (93.7) | 23(42.6) | 2 (6.5) | |
| Female | 106 (42.4) | 7 (4.4) | 48 (44.0) | 4 (6.3) | 31 (57.4) | 29(93.5) | |
| No | 182 (72.8) | 59(37.3) | 77 (70.6) | 20 (31.7) | 42 (77.8) | 5 (16.1) | |
| Yes | 68 (27.2) | 99 (62.7) | 32 (29.4) | 43 (68.3) | 12 (22.2) | 26 (83.9) | |
| No | 201 (80.4) | 87 (55.1) | 91 (83.5) | 34 (54.0) | 46 (85.2) | 12 (38.7) | |
| Yes | 49 (19.6) | 71 (44.9) | 18 (16.5) | 29 (46.0) | 8 (14.8) | 19 (61.3) | |
| Supra-glottic | 50 (20.0) | 40 (25.3) | 19 (17.4) | 20 (31.7) | 4 (7.4) | 5 (16.1) | |
| Glottic | 200 (80.0) | 109 (69.0) | 90 (82.6) | 41(65.1) | 50 (92.6) | 26 (83.9) | |
| Sub-glottic | 0 (0) | 9 (5.7) | 0 (0) | 2 (3.2) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| ≤ 2 | 243 (97.2) | 84 (53.2) | 100 (91.7) | 31(49.2) | 54 (100.0) | 28 (90.3) | |
| >2 | 7 (2.8) | 74 (46.8) | 9 (8.3) | 32 (50.8) | 0(0) | 3 (9.7) | |
| T1+T2 | – | 120 (75.9) | – | 51 (81.0) | – | 22 (71.0) | |
| T3+T4 | – | 38 (24.1) | – | 12 (19.0) | – | 9 (29.0) | |
| N0 | – | 109 (69.0) | – | 51 (81.0) | – | 29 (93.4) | |
| N1 | – | 18(11.4) | – | 4 (6.3) | – | 1 (3.2) | |
| N2 | – | 29 (18.4) | – | 8 (12.7) | – | 1 (3.2) | |
| N3 | – | 2 (1.3) | – | 0 (0) | – | 0 (0) | |
| No | – | 155 (98.1) | – | 63 (100.0) | – | 31(100.0) | |
| Yes | – | 3 (1.9) | – | 0 (0) | – | 0 (0) | |
| I+II | – | 95 (60.1) | – | 43 (68.3) | – | 22 (71.0) | |
| III+IV | – | 63 (39.9) | – | 20 (31.7) | – | 9 (29.0) | |
| Well | – | 50 (31.6) | – | 19 (30.2) | – | 26 (83.9) | |
| Poor | – | 33 (20.9) | – | 13 (20.6) | – | 2 (6.5) | |
| Moderate | – | 75 (47.5) | – | 31 (49.2) | – | 3 (9.7) | |
BLL, benign laryngeal lesion; LSCC, laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma.
Comparison of variables between LSCC group and BLL group.
| Variables | The First Affiliated Hospital | Affiliated Fuyang Hospital | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Cohort | Internal Test Cohort | External Test Cohort | |||||||
| BLL | LSCC | P | BLL | LSCC | P | BLL | LSCC | P | |
| N | 250 | 158 | 109 | 63 | 54 | 31 | |||
| Gender n (%) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Female | 106 (42.4%) | 7 (4.4%) | 48(44.0%) | 4 (6.3%) | 32 (59.3%) | 2 (6.5%) | |||
| Male | 144 (57.6%) | 151 (95.6%) | 61(56.0%) | 59 (93.7%) | 22 (40.7%) | 29 (93.5%) | |||
| Age n (%) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| < 60 | 216 (86.4%) | 46 (29.1%) | 100(91.7%) | 26 (41.3%) | 51(94.4%) | 11 (35.5%) | |||
| ≥60 | 34 (13.6%) | 112 (70.9%) | 9(8.3%) | 37 (58.7%) | 3 (5.6%) | 20 (64.5%) | |||
| Smoking | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| No | 182 (72.8%) | 59 (37.3%) | 77(70.6%) | 20 (31.7%) | 42 (77.8%) | 5 (16.1%) | |||
| Yes | 68 (27.2%) | 99 (62.7%) | 32(29.4%) | 43 (68.3%) | 12 (22.2%) | 26 (83.9%) | |||
| Drinking n (%) | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| No | 201 (80.4%) | 87 (55.1%) | 91(83.5%) | 34 (5.0%) | 46 (85.2%) | 12 (38.7%) | |||
| Yes | 49 (19.6%) | 71 (44.9%) | 18 (16.5%) | 29 (46.0%) | 8 (14.8%) | 19 (61.3%) | |||
| RDW fL (median (IQR)) | 42.30 (3.80) | 44.90 (4.18) | <0.001 | 42.00 (4.10) | 44.30 (4.80) | <0.001 | 41.80 (3.38) | 44.70 (3.95) | 0.001 |
| PDW fL (median (IQR)) | 13.05 (3.78) | 13.10 (3.45) | 0.551 | 13.7 (4.00) | 13.1 (2.85) | 0.131 | 16.30 (0.50) | 16.30 (0.45) | 0.616 |
| MPV fL (median (IQR)) | 10.90 (1.75) | 11.10 (1.50) | 0.301 | 11.1 (1.80) | 10.9 (1.50) | 0.256 | 11.00 (1.88) | 10.10 (2.35) | 0.074 |
| PA mg/L (median (IQR)) | 251.50 (70.00) | 239.00 (84.75) | 0.062 | 244.0 (98.00) | 264.0 (77.50) | 0.094 | 243.50 (106.25) | 224.00 (62.50) | 0.169 |
| ALB g/L (median (IQR)) | 42.10 (4.08) | 39.90 (4.73) | <0.001 | 41.80 (4.30) | 41.70 (5.15) | 0.346 | 42.35 (2.65) | 41.00 (3.55) | 0.001 |
| NLR (median (IQR)) | 1.87 (0.99) | 2.20 (1.14) | <0.001 | 1.92 (1.05) | 2.19 (1.13) | 0.029 | 1.84 (0.62) | 2.22 (1.45) | 0.043 |
| LMR (median (IQR)) | 5.22 (2.01) | 4.25 (2.23) | <0.001 | 5.25 (2.40) | 4.13 (2.25) | 0.001 | 4.66 (1.53) | 3.82 (2.31) | 0.258 |
| PLR (median (IQR)) | 105.48 (46.86) | 117.59 (62.06) | 0.048 | 124.56 (56.72) | 124.55 (69.57) | 0.008 | 110.97 (40.81) | 118.07 (70.22) | 0.018 |
RDW, red blood cell width distribution; PDW, platelet distribution width; MPV, mean platelet volume; PA, prealbumin; ALB, albumin; NLR, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte/monocyte ratio; PLR, platelet/lymphocyte ratio; LSCC, laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma; BLL, benign laryngeal lesions. Red font text means statistically significant.
Figure 2Results of the LASSO regression analysis. (A) Plot of the LASSO coefficient profiles. (B) Tuning parameter (λ) selection cross-validation error curve.
Figure 3ROC curve analysis of seven candidate diagnostic indicators.
The Results of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
| Variables | AUC | Cut-off value | Youden index | Sensitivity | Specificity | 95%CI | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.690 | – | 0.380 | 0.424 | 0.956 | 0.655-0.725 | <0.001 |
| Age | 0.786 | – | 0.573 | 0.864 | 0.709 | 0.745-0.828 | <0.001 |
| Smoking | 0.677 | – | 0.355 | 0.728 | 0.627 | 0.630-0.724 | <0.001 |
| RDW | 0.684 | 44.85 | 0.329 | 0.816 | 0.513 | 0.631-0.738 | <0.001 |
| ALB | 0.692 | 41.15 | 0.314 | 0.668 | 0.646 | 0.639-0.745 | <0.001 |
| LMR | 0.652 | 4.52 | 0.282 | 0.700 | 0.582 | 0.597-0.708 | <0.001 |
| PLR | 0.558 | 120.11 | 0.150 | 0.656 | 0.494 | 0.499-0.617 | 0.048 |
RD, red blood cell width distribution; ALB, albumin; LMR, lymphocyte/monocyte ratio; PLR, platelet/lymphocyte ratio.
Figure 4Forest maps of the logistic regression analysis of the training cohort (A), internal test cohort (B), and, external test cohort (C).
Figure 5Linear correlation analysis of the five indicators (age, sex, smoking history, RDW, and ALB). The number in the right of the plot was the correlation coefficient.
Figure 6Nomogram prediction model for LSCC diagnosis. (A) Established nomogram in the training cohort by incorporating the following five parameters: age, sex, smoking history, RDW, and, ALB.** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. (B) Online dynamic nomogram accessible at https://hanchenchen.shinyapps.io/LSCCNomapp/.
Figure 7Evaluation of validity and reliability of the model. ROC curves of the nomogram prediction model in the training cohort (A), internal test cohort (B), and, external test cohort (C); calibration curves of the nomogram prediction model for the training cohort (D), internal test cohort (E), and, external test cohort (F).
Figure 8Decision curve analysis of the nomogram of the training cohort (A), internal test cohort (B), and, external test cohort (C).