| Literature DB >> 35774392 |
Zhixin Huang1,2,3,4, Zhinuan Hong1,2,3,4, Ling Chen5, Mingqiang Kang1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Introduction: The limitations of preoperative examination result in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) often going undetected preoperatively. This study aimed to develop a clinical tool for identifying patients at high risk for occult locally advanced ESCC; the tool can be supplemented with preoperative examination to improve the reliability of preoperative staging. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; neoadjuvant therapy; nomogram; occult lymph node metastasis; predictor factors
Year: 2022 PMID: 35774392 PMCID: PMC9237504 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.917070
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Surg ISSN: 2296-875X
Figure 1Study flow chart.
Early-advanced ESCC classification.
| Stage | pT | pN | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage0 | tis | N0 | Early |
| Stage IA | T1a | N0 | |
| T1a | N0 | ||
| Stage IB | T1a | N0 | |
| T1b | N0 | ||
| T1b | N0 | ||
| T2 | N0 | ||
| Stage IIA | T2 | N0 | |
| T2 | N0 | ||
| T3 | N0 | Advanced (event point) | |
| T3 | N0 | ||
| Stage IIB | T3 | N0 | |
| T3 | N0 | ||
| T3 | N0 | ||
| T1 | N1 | ||
| Stage IIIA | T1 | N2 | |
| T2 | N1 | ||
| Stage IIIB | T2 | N2 | |
| T3 | N1-2 | ||
| T4a | N0-1 | ||
| Stage IVA | T4a | N2 | |
| T4b | N0-2 | ||
| any T | N3 |
The goss aspect classification of digestive-tract cancer.
| Type | Describe | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| Superficial type 0 | Superficial protruding or non-protruding lesions | early gross aspect |
| Advanced type 1 | Protruding carcinoma, attached on a wide base | advanced gross aspect |
| Advanced type 2 | Ulcerated carcinoma with sharp and raised margins | |
| Advanced type 3 | Ulcerated carcinoma without definite limits | |
| Advanced type 4 | Nonulcerated, diffusely infiltrating carcinoma | |
| Advanced type 5 | Unclassifiable advanced carcinoma |
Participant characteristics.
| Variable | Total ( | Cohort, No. (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training ( | Validation ( | |||
| Age (years) ±SD | 59.17 ± 8.212 | 59.37 ± 8.384 | 58.67 ± 7.769 | 0.344 |
| BMI (kg/m2) ±SD | 22.18 ± 3.105 | 22.06 ± 3.188 | 22.45 ± 2.881 | 0.165 |
| CEA (ng/mL) ±SD | 2.86 ± 2.232 | 2.89 ± 2.311 | 2.78 ± 2.030 | 0.610 |
| Sex, | 0.680 | |||
| Male | 438 (73.2%) | 116 (27.2%) | 44 (25.6%) | |
| Female | 160 (26.8%) | 312 (72.8%) | 128 (74.4%) | |
| Smoking, | 0.110 | |||
| Yes | 324 (54.2%) | 222 (52.1%) | 102 (59.3%) | |
| No | 274 (45.8%) | 204 (47.9%) | 70 (40.7%) | |
| Concomitant disease, | 0.005 | |||
| Yes | 161 (26.9%) | 101 (23.7%) | 60 (34.9%) | |
| No | 437 (73.1%) | 325 (76.3%) | 112 (65.1%) | |
| Tumor location, | 0.396 | |||
| Upper | 52 (8.7%) | 40 (9.4%) | 12 (7.0%) | |
| Middle | 294 (49.2%) | 213 (50.0%) | 82 (47.1%) | |
| Lower | 252 (42.1%) | 173 (40.6%) | 79 (45.9%) | |
| Lymph node enlargement, | <0.001 | |||
| Yes | 284 (47.5%) | 236 (55.4%) | 48 (27.9%) | |
| No | 314 (52.5%) | 190 (44.6%) | 124 (72.1%) | |
| Preoperative symptoms, | <0.001 | |||
| Yes | 516 (86.3%) | 381 (89.4%) | 135 (78.5%) | |
| No | 82 (13.7%) | 45 (10.6%) | 37 (21.5%) | |
| Gross aspect | 0.031 | |||
| Early | 194 (32.4%) | 127 (29.8%) | 67 (39.0%) | |
| Advanced | 404 (67.6%) | 299 (70.2%) | 105 (61.0%) | |
| pTNM-stage, | 0.269 | |||
| Early | 199 (33.3%) | 136 (31.9%) | 63 (36.6%) | |
| Advanced | 399 (66.7%) | 290 (68.1%) | 109 (63.4%) | |
CEA, Carcinoembryonic antigen; BMI, body mass index.
Logistic univariate and multivariate regression analysis of occult locally advanced ESCC based on preoperative data in the training cohort.
| Variable | Univariable | Multivariable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||
| Age | 0.138 | |||
| ≤64.5 | reference | |||
| >64.5 | 1.497 (0.878–2.552) | |||
| BMI | 0.657 | |||
| ≤18.97 | reference | |||
| >18.97 | 1.149 (0.623–2.117) | |||
| CEA | <0.001 | 0.006 | ||
| ≤2.43 | reference | reference | ||
| >2.43 | 2.401 (1.566–3.679) | 2.093 (1.233–2.554) | ||
| Sex | 0.105 | |||
| Female | reference | |||
| Male | 1.448 (0.926–2.265) | |||
| Smoking | 0.102 | |||
| No | reference | |||
| Yes | 1.406 (0.935–2.117) | |||
| Concomitant disease | 0.853 | |||
| No | reference | |||
| Yes | 0.956 (0.593–1.540) | |||
| Tumor location | 0.580 | |||
| Upper | reference | |||
| Middle | 1.282 (0.628–2.616) | 0.495 | ||
| Lower | 1.040 (0.506–2.141) | 0.914 | ||
| Lymph node enlargement | <0.001 | 0.006 | ||
| No | reference | reference | ||
| Yes | 2.105 (1.392–3.183) | 2.100 (1.243–3.550) | ||
| Preoperative symptoms | <0.001 | 0.017 | ||
| No | reference | reference | ||
| Yes | 5.189 (2.684–10.030) | 2.737 (1.194–6.277) | ||
| Gross aspect | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Early | reference | reference | ||
| Advanced | 14.168 (8.659–23.510) | 13.103 (7.689–23.330) | ||
BMI, body mass index; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; CEA, Carcinoembryonic antigen.
Figure 2To use the nomogram, find the position of each variable on the corresponding axis, draw a line to the points axis for the number of points, add the points from all of the variables, and draw a line from the total points axis to determine the occult advanced ESCC probabilities at the lower line of the nomogram.
Figure 3A, Validity of the predictive performance of the nomogram in estimating the risk of occult advanced ESCC presence in the training cohort (n = 426). B, Validity of the predictive performance of the nomogram in estimating the risk of occult advanced ESCC presence in the validation cohort (n=172). C, Decision curve for prediction of occult advanced ESCC. Pink line: assume no patient will have occult advanced ESCC; Purple line: assume all patients will have occult advanced ESCC; The x-axis and the y-axis were the threshold probability and the net benefit, respectively.
Accuracy of the prediction score of the nomogram for estimating the risk of occult locally advanced ESCC.
| Variable | Value | |
|---|---|---|
| Training cohort | Validation cohort | |
| C-index, AUC | 0.827 (95% CI, 0.782–0.872) | 0.897 (95% CI, 0.849–0.945) |
| Bootstrap C-index | 0.824 | 0.888 |
| Cutoff score | 98 | 98 |
| Sensitivity, % | 87.6% | 87.2% |
| Specificity, % | 66.9% | 81.0% |
| Positive predictive value, % | 84.9% | 88.8% |
| Negative predictive value, % | 71.7% | 78.5% |
| Positive likelihood ratio | 2.65 | 4.58 |
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0.19 | 0.16 |
AUC, Area under ROC curve.
The accuracy of nomogram in T1/T2 staging of ESCC.
| pT1/ pT2 and pN+ | pT1/ pT2 and pN0 | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-risk group (training cohort) | 36 | 45 | 81 | |
| Low-risk group (training cohort) | 19 | 84 | 103 | |
| Total (training cohort) | 55 | 129 | 184 | |
| High-risk group (validation cohort) | 16 | 12 | 28 | |
| Low-risk group (validation cohort) | 9 | 47 | 56 | |
| Total (validation cohort) | 25 | 59 | 84 | |
| Sensitivity, % | training cohort | 65.5% | ||
| validation cohort | 64.0% | |||
| Specificity, % | training cohort | 65.1% | ||
| validation cohort | 79.7% | |||
| PPV, % | training cohort | 44.4% | ||
| validation cohort | 57.1% | |||
| NPV, % | training cohort | 81.6% | ||
| validation cohort | 83.9% | |||
| PLR | training cohort | 1.88 | ||
| validation cohort | 3.14 | |||
| NLR | training cohort | 0.53 | ||
| validation cohort | 0.45 | |||
PPV, Positive predictive value; NPV, Negative predictive value; PLR, Positive likelihood ratio; NLR, Negative likelihood ratio.