Dataset Information

Dynamic nomograms combining N classification with ratio-based nodal classifications to predict long-term survival for patients with lung adenocarcinoma after surgery: a SEER population-based study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The prognostic roles of three lymph node classifications, number of positive lymph nodes (NPLN), log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS), and lymph node ratio (LNR) in lung adenocarcinoma are unclear. We aim to find the classification with the strongest predictive power and combine it with the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th TNM stage to establish an optimal prognostic nomogram.

Methods

25,005 patients with T1-4N0-2M0 lung adenocarcinoma after surgery between 2004 to 2016 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were included. The study cohort was divided into training cohort (13,551 patients) and external validation cohort (11,454 patients) according to different geographic region. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed on the training cohort to evaluate the predictive performance of NPLN (Model 1), LODDS (Model 2), LNR (Model 3) or LODDS+LNR (Model 4) respectively for cancer-specific survival and overall survival. Likelihood-ratio χ² test, Akaike Information Criterion, Harrell concordance index, integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were used to evaluate the predictive performance of the models. Nomograms were established according to the optimal models. They're put into internal validation using bootstrapping technique and external validation using calibration curves. Nomograms were compared with AJCC 8th TNM stage using decision curve analysis.

Results

NPLN, LODDS and LNR were independent prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival and overall survival. LODDS+LNR (Model 4) demonstrated the highest Likelihood-ratio χ² test, highest Harrell concordance index, and lowest Akaike Information Criterion, and IDI and NRI values suggested Model 4 had better prediction accuracy than other models. Internal and external validations showed that the nomograms combining TNM stage with LODDS+LNR were convincingly precise. Decision curve analysis suggested the nomograms performed better than AJCC 8th TNM stage in clinical practicability.

Conclusions

We constructed online nomograms for cancer-specific survival and overall survival of lung adenocarcinoma patients after surgery, which may facilitate doctors to provide highly individualized therapy.

SUBMITTER: Wang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8336099 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Different proportions of Gleason pattern 3 and Gleason pattern 4 lead to various prognosis of prostate cancer with Gleason score 7. The objective of this study was to compare the survival outcomes of Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3 based on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry database, and to investigate independent prognosis-associated factors and develop nomograms for predicting survival in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 69,116 cases diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma with Gleason score 7 between 2004 and 2009. Prognosis-associated factors were evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis, and a 1:1 ratio paired cohort by propensity score matching with the statistical software IBM SPSS, to evaluate prognostic differences between Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3. The primary cohort was randomly divided into training set (n = 48,384) and validation set (n = 20,732). Based on the independent factors of prognosis, nomograms for prognosis were established by the training group and validated by the validation group using R version 3.5.0. Results: After propensity score matching, Cox regression analysis showed that Gleason 4+3 had an increased mortality risk both for overall survival (HR: 1.235, 95% CI: 1.179-1.294, P < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (HR: 1.606, 95% CI: 1.468-1.762, P < 0.001). Nomograms for overall survival and cancer-specific survival were established with C-index 0.786 and 0.842, respectively. The calibration plot indicated an optimal agreement between the actual observation and nomogram prediction for overall survival and cancer-specific survival probability at 5 or 10 year. Conclusions: Prostate cancer with Gleason score 4+3 had worse overall survival and cancer-specific survival than Gleason score 3+4. Nomograms were formulated to predict 5-year and 10-year OS and CSS in patients with prostate cancer of Gleason score 7.

Project description:Background Myeloid sarcoma (MS) is a rare hematological tumor that presents with extramedullary tumor masses comprising myeloid blasts. A controversial issue is whether MS involving normal hematopoietic sites (liver, spleen, and lymph nodes) should be excluded in future studies. We aimed to compare MS characteristics and outcomes involving hematopoietic and non-hematopoietic sites and construct a prognostic nomogram exclusively for the latter. Methods Data from patients diagnosed with MS between 2000 and 2018 were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. According to the primary site, patients were classified as having MS involving hematopoietic sites (hMS) or non-hematopoietic sites (eMS). Clinical characteristics and survival outcomes were compared between the two groups using Wilcoxon, chi-square, and log-rank tests. Cox regression analysis was used to identify eMS prognostic factors to establish prognostic nomograms. The models’ efficiency and value were assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results In total, 694 patients were enrolled, including 86 with hMS and 608 with eMS. There were no sex, race or marital status distribution differences between the two groups. Patients with eMS had better overall and cancer-specific survival rates than those with hMS. Additionally, prognostic factor effects differed between the two groups. Patients with eMS were randomly divided into the training (number of patiens, n=425) and validation cohorts (n=183). Age, first primary tumor, primary site, and chemotherapy were used to establish nomograms. The C-index values of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) nomograms were 0.733 (validation: 0.728) and 0.722 (validation: 0.717), respectively. Moreover, ROC, calibration curves, and DCA confirmed our models’ good discrimination and calibration ability and potential clinical utility value. Conclusion Our study described the differences between patients with eMS and those with hMS. Moreover, we developed novel nomograms based on clinical and therapeutic factors to predict patients with eMS’ 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates.