Establishment and validation of a prognostic nomogram for postoperative patients with gastric cardia adenocarcinoma: A study based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database and a Chinese cohort.
LODDS
SEER database
gastric cardia adenocarcinoma
nomogram
prognosis
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
revised:
13
04
2023
received:
14
12
2022
accepted:
15
04
2023
medline:
4
7
2023
pubmed:
3
5
2023
entrez:
3
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) is a highly fatal form of cancer in humans. The aim of this study was to extract clinicopathological data of postoperative patients with GCA from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, analyze prognostic risk factors, and build a nomogram. In this study, the clinical information of 1448 patients with GCA who underwent radical surgery and were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 was extracted from the SEER database. The patients were then randomly divided into training (n = 1013) and internal validation (n = 435) cohorts at a 7:3 ratio. The study also included an external validation cohort (n = 218) from a Chinese hospital. The study used the Cox and LASSO models to pinpoint the independent risk factors linked to GCA. The prognostic model was constructed according to the results of the multivariate regression analysis. To assess the predictive accuracy of the nomogram, four methods were used: C-index, calibration curve, time-dependent ROC curve, and DCA curve. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were also generated to illustrate the differences in cancer-specific survival (CSS) between the groups. The results of the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age, grade, race, marital status, T stage, and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) were independently associated with cancer-specific survival in the training cohort. Both the C-index and AUC values depicted in the nomogram were greater than 0.71. The calibration curve revealed that the nomogram's CSS prediction was consistent with the actual outcomes. The decision curve analysis suggested moderately positive net benefits. Based on the nomogram risk score, significant differences in survival between the high- and low-risk groups were observed. Race, age, marital status, differentiation grade, T stage, and LODDS are independent predictors of CSS in patients with GCA after radical surgery. Our predictive nomogram constructed based on these variables demonstrated good predictive ability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) is a highly fatal form of cancer in humans. The aim of this study was to extract clinicopathological data of postoperative patients with GCA from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, analyze prognostic risk factors, and build a nomogram.
METHODS
In this study, the clinical information of 1448 patients with GCA who underwent radical surgery and were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 was extracted from the SEER database. The patients were then randomly divided into training (n = 1013) and internal validation (n = 435) cohorts at a 7:3 ratio. The study also included an external validation cohort (n = 218) from a Chinese hospital. The study used the Cox and LASSO models to pinpoint the independent risk factors linked to GCA. The prognostic model was constructed according to the results of the multivariate regression analysis. To assess the predictive accuracy of the nomogram, four methods were used: C-index, calibration curve, time-dependent ROC curve, and DCA curve. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were also generated to illustrate the differences in cancer-specific survival (CSS) between the groups.
RESULTS
The results of the multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age, grade, race, marital status, T stage, and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) were independently associated with cancer-specific survival in the training cohort. Both the C-index and AUC values depicted in the nomogram were greater than 0.71. The calibration curve revealed that the nomogram's CSS prediction was consistent with the actual outcomes. The decision curve analysis suggested moderately positive net benefits. Based on the nomogram risk score, significant differences in survival between the high- and low-risk groups were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Race, age, marital status, differentiation grade, T stage, and LODDS are independent predictors of CSS in patients with GCA after radical surgery. Our predictive nomogram constructed based on these variables demonstrated good predictive ability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37132269
doi: 10.1002/cam4.5994
pmc: PMC10315777
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
13111-13122Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 May;26(5):1292-1300
pubmed: 30805805
Cancer Manag Res. 2020 May 26;12:3937-3948
pubmed: 32547229
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Jun;14(6):491-497
pubmed: 32324423
Chin J Cancer Res. 2017 Aug;29(4):323-332
pubmed: 28947864
Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Apr;16(3):285-94
pubmed: 15947880
Front Oncol. 2022 Sep 02;12:975846
pubmed: 36119520
Front Oncol. 2021 Feb 26;11:591009
pubmed: 33738248
World J Surg Oncol. 2022 Jun 28;20(1):217
pubmed: 35764996
J Surg Oncol. 2021 May;123(8):1836-1844
pubmed: 33684233
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):264-279
pubmed: 33592120
Front Oncol. 2020 Oct 30;10:579379
pubmed: 33194702
Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1948-1957
pubmed: 30982686
Cancer Control. 2020 Jan-Dec;27(1):1073274820977152
pubmed: 33297759
Psychother Psychosom. 2021;90(1):11-27
pubmed: 32799204
Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Jun 1;47(3):966-975
pubmed: 29672681
J Thorac Dis. 2018 Aug;10(Suppl 22):S2671-S2681
pubmed: 30345104
Front Oncol. 2021 Apr 16;11:643261
pubmed: 33937047
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Updates Surg. 2022 Oct;74(5):1551-1562
pubmed: 35821560
Ann Surg. 2015 Dec;262(6):991-8
pubmed: 25563867
Cancer Manag Res. 2022 Jan 25;14:287-301
pubmed: 35115828
J Gastric Cancer. 2022 Jul;22(3):197-209
pubmed: 35938366
Sci Rep. 2020 Aug 24;10(1):14143
pubmed: 32839498
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2022 Aug;11(8):1678-1691
pubmed: 36090634
Cancer Med. 2023 Jan;12(2):1685-1708
pubmed: 35789072
Dig Endosc. 2017 Apr;29 Suppl 2:3-10
pubmed: 28425656
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 31;7(1):10123
pubmed: 28860457
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2023 Mar;105(3):269-277
pubmed: 35446718
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Aug 1;110(8):825-830
pubmed: 30011032
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Apr;155(4):1793
pubmed: 29370910
CA Cancer J Clin. 2022 Sep;72(5):409-436
pubmed: 35736631
Gastric Cancer. 2019 May;22(3):506-517
pubmed: 30390154
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Mar;67(2):93-99
pubmed: 28094848
Cancer Med. 2023 Jun;12(12):13111-13122
pubmed: 37132269
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Feb;17(3):429-439
pubmed: 29902641
Cancer. 2010 Jun 1;116(11):2571-80
pubmed: 20336791
Oncologist. 2022 Jun 8;27(6):e494-e505
pubmed: 35641198