A preoperative nomogram predicting the pseudocapsule status in localized renal cell carcinoma.
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC)
nomogram
pseudocapsule invasion
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
19
5
2020
pubmed:
19
5
2020
medline:
19
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tumor enucleation (TE) surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) relies on a complete peritumoral pseudocapsule (PC). Study objective was to develop a preoperative model to predict PC status. The prediction model was developed in a cohort that consisted of 170 patients with localized RCC, and data was gathered from 2010 to 2015. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and R were used to generate this prediction model. The statistical performance was assessed with respect to the calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness. The prediction model incorporated the systemic inflammatory markers [neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR); albumin-globulin ratio (AGR)], CT imaging features (tumor size and necrosis), and clinical risk factors (BMI). The model showed good discrimination, with a C-index of 0.85 (0.78-0.91), and good calibration (P=0.60). The sensitivity and specificity were 62% and 94% respectively. Decision curves and clinical impact curve demonstrated that the current model was clinically useful. We constructed a model that incorporated both the systematic inflammatory markers and clinical risk factors. It can be conveniently used to preoperatively predict the individualized risk of PC invasion and identify the best candidates to receive TE surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tumor enucleation (TE) surgery for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) relies on a complete peritumoral pseudocapsule (PC). Study objective was to develop a preoperative model to predict PC status.
METHODS
METHODS
The prediction model was developed in a cohort that consisted of 170 patients with localized RCC, and data was gathered from 2010 to 2015. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and R were used to generate this prediction model. The statistical performance was assessed with respect to the calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The prediction model incorporated the systemic inflammatory markers [neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR); albumin-globulin ratio (AGR)], CT imaging features (tumor size and necrosis), and clinical risk factors (BMI). The model showed good discrimination, with a C-index of 0.85 (0.78-0.91), and good calibration (P=0.60). The sensitivity and specificity were 62% and 94% respectively. Decision curves and clinical impact curve demonstrated that the current model was clinically useful.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We constructed a model that incorporated both the systematic inflammatory markers and clinical risk factors. It can be conveniently used to preoperatively predict the individualized risk of PC invasion and identify the best candidates to receive TE surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32420152
doi: 10.21037/tau.2020.01.26
pii: tau-09-02-462
pmc: PMC7214989
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
462-472Informations de copyright
2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2020.01.26). XZ serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Andrology and Urology from Mar 2019 to Feb 2021. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018 Dec;16(6):e1251-e1256
pubmed: 30122517
Urology. 2014 Jun;83(6):1294-9
pubmed: 24713137
Urol Oncol. 2017 Jun;35(6):370-378
pubmed: 28188091
Urol Oncol. 2017 Apr;35(4):135-141
pubmed: 28233671
Eur Radiol. 2019 Feb;29(2):509-516
pubmed: 30043161
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Mar;472(3):849-55
pubmed: 23640206
Oncotarget. 2017 Jul 11;8(28):45178-45189
pubmed: 28423351
Cancer Biomark. 2016 Mar 4;16(4):523-8
pubmed: 27062567
J Urol. 2011 May;185(5):1604-10
pubmed: 21419454
Eur Urol. 2006 Dec;50(6):1263-8; discussion 1269-71
pubmed: 16787695
Eur Urol. 2009 Jun;55(6):1410-8
pubmed: 18692300
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 01;11(7):e0158770
pubmed: 27368058
Urol Oncol. 2018 Dec;36(12):527.e1-527.e11
pubmed: 30268711
Oncotarget. 2017 Sep 22;8(53):91694-91702
pubmed: 29207678
World J Urol. 2016 Dec;34(12):1693-1699
pubmed: 27052014
BJU Int. 2007 Feb;99(2):286-9
pubmed: 17155985
Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):799-810
pubmed: 30803729
J Urol. 2012 May;187(5):1667-73
pubmed: 22425124
PLoS One. 2018 May 1;13(5):e0195699
pubmed: 29715308
Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;46(4):1352-1364
pubmed: 29689562
Oncotarget. 2017 Jul 18;8(29):48291-48302
pubmed: 28187463
Urology. 2013 Aug;82(2):263-8
pubmed: 23791213
J Urol. 2006 Jun;175(6):2022-6; discussion 2026
pubmed: 16697790