| Literature DB >> 35936720 |
Wenle Li1,2, Gui Wang3, Rilige Wu4, Shengtao Dong5, Haosheng Wang6, Chan Xu2, Bing Wang2, Wanying Li2, Zhaohui Hu7, Qi Chen8, Chengliang Yin9.
Abstract
Chondrosarcoma is a malignant bone tumor with a low incidence rate. Accurate risk evaluation is crucial for chondrosarcoma treatment. Due to the limited reliability of existing predictive models, we intended to develop a credible predictor for clinical chondrosarcoma based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data and four Chinese medical institutes. Three algorithms (Best Subset Regression, Univariate and Cox regression, and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selector Operator) were used for the joint training. A nomogram predictor including eight variables-age, sex, grade, T, N, M, surgery, and chemotherapy-is constructed. The predictor provides good performance in discrimination and calibration, with area under the curve ≥0.8 in the receiver operating characteristic curves of both internal and external validations. The predictor especially had very good clinical utility in terms of net benefit to patients at the 3- and 5-year points in both North America and China. A convenient web calculator based on the prediction model is available at https://drwenle029.shinyapps.io/CHSSapp, which is free and open to all clinicians.Entities:
Keywords: chondrosarcoma; multicenter; nomogram; prediction model; web calculator
Year: 2022 PMID: 35936720 PMCID: PMC9351692 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.880305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Baseline data table of the training group and the validation group.
| Variable | Level | Multicenter data ( | Surveillance, epidemiology and end results data ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survival months, mean (SD) | NA | 33.29 (24.03) | 34.19 (24.16) | 0.713 |
| Age, mean (SD) | NA | 49.61 (14.63) | 53.44 (18.12) | 0.036 |
| Race (%) | Black | 0 (0.0) | 96 (7.4) | <0.001 |
| Other | 104 (100.0) | 77 (6.0) | ||
| White | 0 (0.0) | 1,117 (86.6) | ||
| Sex (%) | Female | 38 (36.5) | 571 (44.3) | 0.154 |
| Male | 66 (63.5) | 719 (55.7) | ||
| Primary site (%) | Axis bone | 58 (55.8) | 677 (52.5) | 0.39 |
| Bone of limb | 38 (36.5) | 544 (42.2) | ||
| other | 8 (7.7) | 69 (5.3) | ||
| Laterality (%) | left | 40 (38.5) | 496 (38.4) | 0.839 |
| Not a paired site | 26 (25.0) | 293 (22.7) | ||
| right | 38 (36.5) | 501 (38.8) | ||
| T (%) | T1 | 47 (45.2) | 716 (55.5) | 0.022 |
| T2 | 38 (36.5) | 389 (30.2) | ||
| T3 | 4 (3.8) | 13 (1.0) | ||
| TX | 15 (14.4) | 172 (13.3) | ||
| N (%) | N0 | 91 (87.5) | 1,237 (95.9) | <0.001 |
| N1 | 9 (8.7) | 11 (0.9) | ||
| NX | 4 (3.8) | 42 (3.3) | ||
| M (%) | M0 | 93 (89.4) | 1,215 (94.2) | 0.084 |
| M1 | 11 (10.6) | 75 (5.8) | ||
| Radiation (%) | No | 96 (92.3) | 1,149 (89.1) | 0.388 |
| Yes | 8 (7.7) | 141 (10.9) | ||
| Chemotherapy (%) | No/Unknown | 97 (93.3) | 1,231 (95.4) | 0.449 |
| Yes | 7 (6.7) | 59 (4.6) | ||
| Bone metastases (%) | No | 99 (95.2) | 1,273 (98.7) | 0.019 |
| Yes | 5 (4.8) | 17 (1.3) | ||
| Lung metastases (%) | No | 94 (90.4) | 1,234 (95.7) | 0.028 |
| Yes | 10 (9.6) | 56 (4.3) | ||
| Surgery (%) | No | 19 (18.3) | 177 (13.7) | 0.256 |
| Yes | 85 (81.7) | 1,113 (86.3) | ||
| Lymph node dissection (%) | No | 95 (91.3) | 1,213 (94.0) | 0.377 |
| Yes | 9 (8.7) | 77 (6.0) |
By chi-square test and t-test.
T, tumor volume; N, lymph nodes metastases; M, distant metastasis.
Figure 1Clinical risk factor identification. (A) Forest plot about univariate cox regression. (B) Best subset regression. A graph was drawn with the adjustment R² as the criterion to see the combination of variables. (C) LASSO coefficient profiles of the 14 variables. When the β coefficient became zero, the variable made a negligible contribution to the model at this point and can be eliminated. (D) Partial-likelihood deviance curve for cross-validation of tuning parameter selection in the LASSO model. Two penalty values (tuning factors) λ were given: one is the value of λ when the mean squared error is smallest, i.e., λ.min; the other was the value of λ within a range of variance of λ.min. Receiver operating characteristic curves for the training (E, F) and validation (G, H) groups at 3- and 5-year overall survival.
Figure 2Clinical factors associated with survival risk. (A) multivariate Cox forest plot for the variables on Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results data. (B–H) Kaplan–Meier survival curve; log-rank tests were performed for categorical variables. P <0.05, significant.
Figure 3Nomogram model construction. Survival risk nomogram (A) and decision tree (B) for the prediction process.
Figure 4Nomogram model validation. Calibration diagram for internal (A, B) and external (C, D) cohorts. The x/y axes represent the predicted risk proportion to actual incidence, respectively. Risk factor association plots for the training (E) and validation (F) groups, respectively. Top, plots of risk scores; middle, scatter plots of survival time and survival status for high and low risk; bottom, heat maps of key value of risk factors.
Figure 5Decision curves of the nomogram comparison for the training (A, B) and validation (C, D) cohorts at 3 and 5 years. The solid black horizontal line represents no interventions triggered for all patients, the gray line represents all interventions triggered, and the dashed line is for the predictive model-guided trigger of medical interventions.