| Literature DB >> 35912189 |
Yuanxin Zhang1, Xiusen Qin1,2, Yang Li1, Xi Zhang3, Rui Luo1, Zhijie Wu1, Victoria Li4, Shuai Han3, Hui Wang1,2, Huaiming Wang1,2.
Abstract
Background: The early diagnosis of occult peritoneal metastasis (PM) remains a challenge due to the low sensitivity on computed tomography (CT) images. Exploratory laparoscopy is the gold standard to confirm PM but should only be proposed in selected patients due to its invasiveness, high cost, and port-site metastasis risk. In this study, we aimed to develop an individualized prediction model to identify occult PM status and determine optimal candidates for exploratory laparoscopy. Method: A total of 622 colorectal cancer (CRC) patients from 2 centers were divided into training and external validation cohorts. All patients' PM status was first detected as negative on CT imaging but later confirmed by exploratory laparoscopy. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors, which were used to build a prediction model for identifying occult PM in CRC. The concordance index (C-index), calibration plot and decision curve analysis were used to evaluate its predictive accuracy and clinical utility.Entities:
Keywords: colorectal cancer; decision curve analysis; exploratory laparoscopy; nomogram; occult peritoneal metastasis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35912189 PMCID: PMC9326510 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.943951
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Characteristics of patients in the training and validation cohorts.
| Characteristics | Training cohort | External-validation cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM (+) | PM (-) | P value | PM (+) | PM (-) | P value | |
| Sex | 0.056 | 0.042* | ||||
| Male | 97 (28.4) | 244 (71.6) | 22 (48.9) | 23 (51.1) | ||
| Female | 62 (29.4) | 149 (70.6) | 6 (24.0) | 19 (76.0) | ||
| Age at diagnosis | 0.023* | 0.075 | ||||
| < 60 | 99 (32.8) | 203 (67.2) | 20 (48.8) | 21 (51.2) | ||
| ≥ 60 | 60 (24.0) | 190 (76.0) | 8 (27.6) | 21 (72.4) | ||
| Primary site | <0.001* | 0.472 | ||||
| Right colon | 63 (39.6) | 96 (60.4) | 11 (45.8) | 13 (54.2) | ||
| Left colon | 70 (40.2) | 104 (59.8) | 17 (37.0) | 29 (63.0) | ||
| Rectum | 26 (11.9) | 193 (88.1) | – | – | ||
| Histological type | <0.001* | 0.367 | ||||
| AD | 108 (23.3) | 355 (76.7) | 24 (37.5) | 40 (62.5) | ||
| MAD | 38 (55.9) | 30 (44.1) | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | ||
| SRCC | 13 (61.9) | 8 (38.1) | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | ||
| Differentiation | <0.001* | 0.025* | ||||
| Well/Moderate | 82 (19.7) | 335 (80.3) | 21 (34.4) | 40 (65.6) | ||
| Poor/Undifferentiated | 77 (57.0) | 58 (43.0) | 7 (77.8) | 2 (22.2) | ||
| T stage | <0.001* | 0.472 | ||||
| T1-3 | 72 (21.7) | 260 (78.3) | 17 (37.0) | 29 (63.0) | ||
| T4 | 87 (39.5) | 133 (60.5) | 11 (45.8) | 13 (54.2) | ||
| N stage | 0.014* | 0.077 | ||||
| N0 | 31 (20.9) | 117 (79.1) | 12 (30.8) | 27 (69.2) | ||
| N1/N2 | 128 (31.7) | 276 (68.3) | 16 (51.6) | 15 (48.4) | ||
| Obstruction | <0.001* | 0.024* | ||||
| Negative | 64 (16.7) | 319 (83.3) | 14 (30.4) | 32 (69.6) | ||
| Positive | 95 (56.2) | 74 (43.8) | 14 (58.3) | 10 (41.7) | ||
| Perforation | 0.041* | 0.400 | ||||
| Negative | 156 (28.5) | 392 (71.5) | 27 (39.1) | 42 (60.9) | ||
| Positive | 3 (75.0) | 1 (25.0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | ||
| CEA | 0.707 | 0.451 | ||||
| Nomal | 74 (29.6) | 176 (70.4) | 13 (36.1) | 23 (63.9) | ||
| Elevated | 85 (28.1) | 217 (71.9) | 14 (45.2) | 17 (54.8) | ||
| CA125 | <0.001* | <0.001* | ||||
| Nomal | 81 (19.7) | 330 (80.3) | 7 (16.3) | 36 (83.7) | ||
| Elevated | 78 (55.3) | 63 (44.7) | 21 (77.8) | 6 (22.2) | ||
| CA19-9 | 0.392 | 0.197 | ||||
| Nomal | 102 (27.6) | 267 (72.4) | 19 (35.8) | 34 (64.2) | ||
| Elevated | 57 (31.1) | 126 (68.9) | 7 (58.3) | 5 (41.7) | ||
| NLR | <0.001* | 0.626 | ||||
| <2.5 | 55 (19.0) | 235 (81.0) | 15 (42.9) | 20 (57.1) | ||
| ≥2.5 | 104 (39.7) | 158 (60.3) | 13 (37.1) | 22 (62.9) | ||
| PLR | <0.001* | 0.329 | ||||
| <172.1 | 63 (20.7) | 241 (79.3) | 16 (45.7) | 19 (54.3) | ||
| ≥172.1 | 96 (38.7) | 152 (61.3) | 12 (34.3) | 23 (65.7) | ||
| LMR | <0.001* | 0.840 | ||||
| <2.6 | 89 (40.8) | 129 (59.2) | 10 (38.5) | 16 (61.5) | ||
| ≥2.6 | 70 (21.0) | 264 (79.0) | 18 (40.9) | 26 (59.1) |
PM, peritoneal metastasis; AD, adenocarcinoma; MAD, mucinous adenocarcinoma; SRCC, signet-ring cell carcinoma; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA125, carbohydrate antigen 125; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; NLR, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; PLR, platelet-lymphocyte ratio; LMR, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio.
P was calculated from univariate association of characteristics with occult PM status in colorectal cancer cohort; *P value < 0.05.
Demographics of NRAS, KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and dMMR status.
| Characteristics | Training cohort | External-validation cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM (+) | PM (-) | P value | PM (+) | PM (-) | P value | |
| NRAS | 0.036* | – | ||||
| Wild | 61 (27.4) | 162 (72.6) | 5 (45.5) | 6 (54.5) | ||
| Mutation | 3 (75.0) | 1 (25.0) | – | – | ||
| KRAS | 0.546 | >0.999 | ||||
| Wild | 37 (29.8) | 87 (70.2) | 3 (50.0) | 3 (50.0) | ||
| Mutation | 27 (26.2) | 76 (73.8) | 2 (40.0) | 3 (60.0) | ||
| BRAF | 0.293 | – | ||||
| Wild | 58 (27.4) | 154 (72.6) | 6 (42.9) | 8 (57.1) | ||
| Mutation | 6 (40.0) | 9 (60.0) | – | – | ||
| PIK3CA | 0.938 | – | ||||
| Wild | 56 (28.3) | 142 (71.7) | 5 (55.6) | 4 (44.4) | ||
| Mutation | 8 (27.6) | 21 (72.4) | – | – | ||
| dMMR | 0.537 | 0.079 | ||||
| No | 60 (27.8) | 156 (72.2) | 16 (40) | 24 (60) | ||
| Yes | 4 (36.4) | 7 (63.6) | 5 (83.3) | 1 (16.7) | ||
dMMR, mismatch-repair deficiency.
P was calculated from univariate association of characteristics with occult PM status in colorectal cancer cohort; *P value < 0.05.
Figure 1Independent predictors of occult PM identified by multivariate analysis. NLR, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; MAD, mucinous adenocarcinoma; AD, adenocarcinoma.
Figure 2Nomogram for predicting the possibility of occult PM in CRC patients.
Figure 3(A) The predictive accuracy of the model was assessed by a ROC curve. (B) Calibration curve of the prediction model.
Figure 4Webserver display of the dynamic online platform.
Performance evaluation of the prediction model.
| Parameter | Training cohort | External-validation cohort |
|---|---|---|
| TP | 122 | 24 |
| TN | 328 | 29 |
| FN | 37 | 4 |
| FP | 65 | 13 |
| Sensitivity | 0.767 | 0.857 |
| Specificity | 0.835 | 0.690 |
| AUC | 0.850 (0.815-0.885) | 0.794 (0.690-0.899) |
| Risk cutoff, % | 30* | – |
TP, true positive; TN, true negative; FN, false negative; FP, false positive; AUC, area under curve.
*The cutoff value for probability threshold was set according to the maximum Youden index.
Figure 5Decision curve analysis for the prediction model. (A) Net benefit. (B) Net reduction.