| Literature DB >> 36052281 |
Yongju Tian1,2, Yiping Hao1, Qingqing Liu1, Ruowen Li1, Zhonghao Mao1, Nan Jiang1, Bingyu Wang1, Wenjing Zhang1, Xiaofang Zhang3,4, Baoxia Cui1.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to develop a nomogram that can predict lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with cervical adenocarcinoma (cervical AC).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36052281 PMCID: PMC9427274 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6816456
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunol Res ISSN: 2314-7156 Impact factor: 4.493
Variables of pathologic characteristics.
| Variable | Total ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Lymph node positive | No | 177 (80.82) |
| Yes | 42 (19.18) | |
| LVI | Absent | 173 (79) |
| Present | 46 (21) | |
| Silva pattern | Pattern A | 21 (9.59) |
| Pattern B | 27 (12.33) | |
| Pattern C | 171 (78.08) | |
| Silva pattern | Low risk | 48 (21.92) |
| High risk | 171 (78.08) | |
| Marital status | Unmarried | 2 (0.91) |
| Married | 208 (94.98) | |
| Divorced | 9 (4.11) | |
| Parametrium involvement | No | 207 (94.52) |
| Yes | 12 (5.48) | |
| Vaginal involvement | No | 218 (99.54) |
| Yes | 1 (0.46) | |
| Grade | High | 25 (11.42) |
| Moderate | 76 (34.70) | |
| Poor | 67 (30.59) | |
| NOS | 51 (23.29) | |
| Smoke | No | 215 (98.17) |
| Yes | 4 (1.83) | |
| Depth of cervical stromal infiltration | <1/2 | 113 (51.6) |
| ≥1/2 | 106 (48.4) | |
| Laparoscopic surgery | No | 166 (75.8) |
| Yes | 53 (24.2) | |
| FIGO stage | IA | 10 (4.57) |
| IB | 191 (87.21) | |
| IIA | 18 (8.22) | |
| Profession | Farmer | 71 (32.42) |
| Nonfarmer | 148 (67.58) | |
| Size | <4 cm | 71 (32.42) |
| ≥4 cm | 148 (67.58) | |
| Age (years) | [Median (range)] | 46.30594 (22-69) |
| Size (cm) | [Median (range)] | 2.734247 (0.2-7.5) |
| Gravidity | [Median (range)] | 3 (0-8) |
| Pregnancy | [Median (range)] | 1.72093 (0-5) |
| Number of lymph node resection | [Median (range)] | 20.7032 (6-52) |
| Number of lymph node positive | [Median (range)] | 0.5342466 (0-11) |
Abbreviations: LVI: lymphovascular invasion; FIGO: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses of variables.
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Character | OR (95% CI) |
| OR (95% CI) |
| |
| LVI | Absent | Reference | Reference | — | |
| Present | 3.99 (1.92-8.30) | 0.0003∗ | 2.31 (1.03-5.20) | 0.043∗ | |
| Silva | Low risk | Reference | Reference | — | |
| High risk | 14.82 (1.98-110.80) | 0.009∗ | 3.38 (0.40-28.61) | 0.264 | |
| Marital status | Married | Reference | — | — | |
| Unmarried | Empty | — | — | ||
| Divorced | Empty | — | — | ||
| Parametrium involvement | No | Reference | Reference | — | |
| Yes | 4.75 (1.45-15.57) | 0.01∗ | 2.24 (0.61-8.30) | 0.226 | |
| Vaginal involvement | No | Reference | — | — | |
| Yes | — | — | — | ||
| Grade | High | Reference | — | — | |
| Moderate | 2.83 (0.60-13.34) | 0.189 | — | — | |
| Poor | 3.61 (0.77-17.0) | 0.105 | — | — | |
| NOS | 2.46 (0.49-12.38) | 0.274 | — | — | |
| Smoke | No | Reference | — | — | |
| Yes | 1.41 (0.14-13.95) | 0.766 | — | — | |
| Depth of cervical stromal infiltration | <1/2 | Reference | Reference | — | |
| ≥1/2 | 7.46 (3.14-17.74) | 0.000∗ | 3.01 (1.13-8.04) | 0.028∗ | |
| Laparoscopic surgery | No | Reference | — | — | |
| Yes | 0.57 (0.24-1.37) | 0.209 | — | — | |
| FIGO stage | IA | Reference | Reference | — | |
| IB | 0.35 (0.1-0.97) | 0.044∗ | 0.47 (0.15-1.52) | 0.209 | |
| IIA | Omitted | Omitted | |||
| Profession | Farmer | Reference | — | — | |
| Nonfarmer | 0.50 (0.25-1.00) | 0.051 | — | — | |
| Size | <4 cm | Reference | Reference | — | |
| ≥4 cm | 4.80 (2.35-9.80) | 0.000∗ | 2.42 (1.08-5.39) | 0.031 | |
| Age (years) | 1.01 (0.98-1.05) | 0.538 | — | — | |
| Size (cm) | 1.65 (1.32-2.07) | 0.000∗ | — | — | |
| Gravidity | 1.00 (0.80-1.24) | 0.968 | — | — | |
| Pregnancy | 1.45 (0.96-2.19) | 0.077 | — | — | |
| Number of lymph node resection | 1.45 (0.96-2.19) | 0.056 | — | — | |
Abbreviations: LVI: lymphovascular invasion; FIGO: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Figure 1Nomogram for predicting LNM.
Figure 2ROC curve of the developed model.
Figure 3Internal verification plots of the nomogram calibration curves by 10-fold cross-validation.
Figure 4Decision curve analysis of the nomogram for predicting LNM.