A Novel Method for Dynamically Assessing the Prognosis of Patients with pT1 Gastric Cancer: A Large Population-Based Dynamic Prognostic Analysis

Pan, Siwei; Cao, Mengxuan; Hu, Can; Zhang, Yanqiang; Du, Yian; Xu, Zhiyuan; Cheng, Xiangdong

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8629166

Journal of Oncology

On this page

Abstract Background Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Abbreviations Data Availability Ethical Approval Consent Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 8629166 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8629166

A Novel Method for Dynamically Assessing the Prognosis of Patients with pT1 Gastric Cancer: A Large Population-Based Dynamic Prognostic Analysis

Siwei Pan,¹Mengxuan Cao,¹Can Hu,¹Yanqiang Zhang,¹Yian Du,¹Zhiyuan Xu,¹and Xiangdong Cheng¹

Academic Editor: Guan-Jun Yang

Received09 Dec 2022

Revised05 Jan 2023

Accepted17 Jan 2023

Published28 Jan 2023

Abstract

Background. While early gastric cancer (EGC) patients are likely to experience relatively long postoperative survival, certain disease-related findings are associated with a poorer prognosis. This study sought to develop and validate a novel predictive model capable of estimating conditional disease-specific survival (CDSS) in EGC patients. Methods. A total of 3016 patients diagnosed with pT1NxM0 GC after gastrectomy between 1998 and 2016 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and were separated into training and validation cohorts. Kaplan‒Meier curves and log-rank tests were employed to evaluate DSS, after which univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to construct a predictive nomogram and to estimate CDSS at 1, 2, and 3 years postoperatively in these patients. Results. In the training cohort, the 3-year CDSS rose from 89.1% to 94.6% from 0 to 5 years postoperatively, while the 5-year CDSS rose from 84.5% to 92.0%. Cox regression analyses led to the construction of a nomogram that was able to reliably predict 3- and 5-year CDSS at 1, 2, and 3 years postoperatively (all ) based upon patient age, tumor size, pT stage, pN stage, and the number of retrieved lymph nodes. This model exhibited good discriminative power in the training and validation cohorts (concordance index: 0.791 and 0.813, respectively), and nomogram calibration curves confirmed that actual and predicted survival outcomes were close to one another. Conclusions. We herein developed a nomogram capable of accurately predicting the CDSS of EGC patients that had survived for multiple years after undergoing surgery.

1. Background

Early gastric cancer (EGC) is a subtype of gastric cancer (GC) wherein local tumor invasion extends only into the mucosa (T1a) or submucosa (T1b), whether or not lymph node (LN) metastasis is evident. EGC has a better prognosis following radical resection than do other forms of GC [1–3]. However, patient outcomes vary substantially as a function of individual clinicopathological conditions, and postoperative recurrence rates can be as high as 7.0% [2, 4, 5].

Several prior studies have shown that patients with stage cT1a and cT1b EGC have significantly different prognostic outcomes [6–8]. For example, Kamarajah et al. [6] determined that individuals with stage cT1b disease had significantly higher LN metastasis rates (18% vs. 5%) and a decreased 5-year overall survival (OS) (60% vs. 72%) relative to those with stage cT1a disease following gastrectomy. Significant differences in survival outcomes between EGC patients with and without metastatic LNs have also been reported [7–9]. In prior studies, metastatic LNs have been reported in over 47% of individuals with EGC [10–12]. Age, tumor size, Lauren’s classification, and other factors have also been associated with EGC patients’ prognosis and postoperative treatment selection [8, 13–16]. For EGC, the favorable prognosis may only apply to patients with pT1aN0M0 GC, while for the other types of EGC, maintaining the traditional perception may have a negative impact on clinical decision-making and the formulation of follow-up schemes. Therefore, an accurate, evidence-based tool be developed to individualize and dynamically assess the prognosis of EGC is more conducive to promoting the individualized treatment.

Conditional survival (CS) or conditional disease-specific survival (CDSS) is a prognostic indicator that is utilized for dynamic evaluation of patient prognosis, allowing clinicians to more accurately gauge patient prognosis in light of the fact that the risk of death declines as survival time increases. For example, if a patient with advanced disease has survived 5 years after surgery, we generally consider that the probability of survival of another 3 years, i.e., cumulative survival of 8 years, will be optimistic due to the declines of the risk of death, rather than the almost zero 8-year survival rate that we normally recognize [1, 17, 18]. CS has been confirmed to offer valuable prognostic information when used for the postoperative surveillance of cancer patients, making it a promising tool for patient management and treatment selection [19–22].

In the present study, we therefore sought to develop and validate a nomogram capable of predicting EGC patients’ CDSS based on data derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

The SEER data browser was used to access all information in the SEER database, which compiled incidence and survival data pertaining to roughly 28% of the US population [23, 24]. The SEER-stat software (SEERStat 8.3.6) was used to screen the cohort data in the present study. Patients eligible for inclusion in the present study were those in the SEER database who had undergone gastrectomy and been diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma from 1998 to 2016 exhibiting tumor invasion of the mucosa (T1a) or submucosa (T1b) without distant metastasis. Patients were excluded from the study if they met the following criteria: (1) patients with tumors at the cardia; (2) patients <18 or >90 years old; (3) patients without clear clinical or follow-up information; (4) patients that survived for <1 month; (5) patients who died as a consequence of diseases other than GC. Using these criteria, 3016 eligible patients were identified for further analysis.

Data extracted for patients included in the present study included patient sex, age, race, primary tumor location, primary tumor size, grade, pT and pN stage, the number of retrieved and metastatic LNs, information regarding patient adjuvant therapy, follow-up duration, and patient survival status as of most recent follow-up (Nov. 2018). The depth of invasion and LN metastasis were defined as per the 8^th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual [25].

2.2. Nomogram Development and Validation

Patients were randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts (n = 2011 and n = 1005, respectively) at a 2 : 1 ratio. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was then employed to identify predictors of disease-specific survival (DSS) in these patient cohorts. Variables evaluated using this model included sex, age, race, primary tumor location, primary tumor size, grade, pT and pN stage, the number of retrieved and metastatic LNs, and patient adjuvant therapy information. The results of this analysis were used to construct a nomogram capable of predicting EGC patient DSS and CDSS. The advantage of the nomogram is to quantify variables into points specifically, so that users can more conveniently obtain the total point of each patient according to their clinical information and then find the corresponding DSS and CDSS. When using the nomogram for external validation, the prognosis of patients can be easily predicted after obtaining clinical information and the total points of patients.

Nomogram performance was assessed based upon discrimination and calibration criteria. Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) was used to quantify the discriminative power of the model, with higher C-index values corresponding to greater model accuracy [26, 27]. A C-index value > 0.75 is generally consistent with good model discrimination. Calibration curves were used to compare actual patient survival to that predicted using our constructed nomogram, with a bootstrapping method being utilized to decrease the potential for bias [28]. For validation, this nomogram was used to calculate scores for each patient in the validation cohort. A decision curve analysis (DCA) was then performed to measure the clinical utility of this model by measuring the net benefits for a group of threshold probabilities [29].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

DSS was defined as the time between tumor resection and death due to GC. As mortality risk changes dynamically over time after gastrectomy, we used CDSS as a metric for evaluating DSS at specific time points using the following formula: CDSS (y | x) = DSS(x + y)/DSS(x), where DSS(x) corresponds to the actual DSS at time point x, and y corresponds to the additional expected survival duration after time point x [17, 30]. For example, if a given patient has survived for one year postsurgery, their probability of surviving an additional 3 years can be calculated as follows: CDSS (3 | 1) = DSS(4)/DSS(1). DSS was calculated using Kaplan–Meier curves, with log-rank tests being used for statistical verification. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to identify predictors of patient prognosis, while follow-up was quantified via the reverse Kaplan–Meier method [31, 32].

R software (v 3.5.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and SPSS (v 23.0; SPSS Inc., IL, USA) were used to conduct all statistical testing, with a two-tailed as the significance threshold for this study. For the R software, the muhaz package was used to dynamically analyze the hazard ratio (HR) of patients after surgery. The survival package was used to analyze the prognosis of patients and calculate the c-index. The rms, foreign, and nomogramFormula packages were used to develop the nomogram and verify the validity of the model. The rmda package was used to perform DCA. For the SPSS, we mainly used this to perform univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models and identify predictors to develop the nomogram.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Clinicopathological Characteristics

In total, 3016 EGC patients were incorporated into the present analyses (Figure 1). The clinicopathological characteristics of the overall, training, and validation patient cohorts in this study are shown in Table 1. More than half of patients in the present study were male. The overall patient cohort had a median age of 69 years (IQR: 59–76), and over 60% (n = 1868) of patients were diagnosed with stage pT1b disease. The mean number of LNs retrieved per patient was 16.3 ± 14.0, with > 15 LNs being obtained for 1256 (41.64%) patients. LN metastasis was detected in 20.52% of these patients. Follow-up times ranged from 1 to 226 months, and no patients were lost to follow-up. The median patient follow-up time was calculated as being 76 months.

3.2. Study Cohort Survival Analyses

In our overall study cohort, the 3- and 5-year DSS rates were 88.1% and 83.4%, respectively. HR curves were generated for these patients after their random assignment to training and validation cohorts (Figure 2), which had respective median follow-up times of 76 and 75 months. The 3- and 5-year DSS rates were 89.1% and 84.5%, respectively, in the training cohort, and 86.0% and 81.3% in the validation cohort. HR curves for both cohorts confirmed that the risk of mortality was highest within the first year after surgery, with this risk declining thereafter (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)). Survival analyses similarly confirmed that the extension of postoperative survival time increased the odds of patients surviving for additional time (Figures 2(c) and 2(d)). As such, actual DSS does not reliably reflect the prognosis of EGC patients who have survived for multiple years after gastrectomy, indicating that CDSS is a more reliable index for evaluating these individuals. The actual DSS, as well as the 3- and 5-year CDSS of patients in the training cohort who had survived 0–5 years after surgery are shown in Figures 2(e) and 2(f). The 3-year CDSS at 1-year postsurgery was 91.3%, and it rose to 94.6% for patients that had survived 5 years postoperatively. In contrast, actual 4- and 8-year DSS rates postsurgery were just 86.5% and 79.9%, respectively. Comparable results were also obtained when assessing 5-year CDSS and actual DSS.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

3.3. Identification of Predictors of EGC Patient DSS and CDSS

To develop a nomogram capable of predicting EGC patient DSS and CDSS, we next utilized Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify independent predictors of these outcomes (Tables 2 and 3). Univariate analyses of the training cohort revealed age, tumor size, pT and pN stage, the number of retrieved LNs, and adjuvant therapy to all be associated with patient prognosis (all ). These factors were incorporated into a subsequent multivariate analysis, which identified age, tumor size, pT and pN stage, and the number of retrieved LNs to be independent predictors of patient survival (all ).

3.4. Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting DSS and CDSS

We next used the results of the above multivariate analysis to construct a nomogram capable of predicting EGC patient 3-, 4-, 5-year DSS, as well as 3- and 5-year CDSS at 1, 2, or 3 years after surgery in the training cohort (Figure 3). The resultant nomogram enables users to calculate an individualized risk score that can estimate patient-specific DSS and CDSS. The C-index value of this nomogram was 0.791 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.767–0.815) in the training cohort, and similar discrimination ability was observed in the validation cohort in which the C-index value was 0.813 (95% CI: 0.778–0.848). In contrast, the C-index values of AJCC-TNM staging system in the training and validation cohorts were only 0.601 (95% CI: 0.587–0.615) and 0.597 (95% CI: 0.580–0.614), respectively. Calibration curves were additionally constructed to compare predicted and actual survival rates in both patient cohorts (Figures 4(a) and 4(b)), revealing that this nomogram could effectively estimate EGC patient prognosis under all tested conditions without any significant error. DCA curves, analyzed via DSS, additionally revealed that the clinical utility of this nomogram was promising and showed a better clinical utility to predict the death of patients than the 8^th TNM staging system at different points after surgery (Figures 4(c)–4(f)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

4. Discussion

Advances in diagnostic and therapeutic technologies are steadily improving GC patient survival rates, with D2 lymphadenectomy with gastrectomy and continuous postoperative treatment being particularly beneficial in this regard [33]. As the number of GC survivors continues to rise, particularly among those with EGC, it is increasingly important that tools be developed to dynamically evaluate patient prognosis so that postoperative treatment can be individually tailored. Herein, we developed and validated a nomogram that was able to predict EGC patient CDSS and DSS at 3, 4, and 5 years postoperatively while also enabling the reliable prediction of additional 3- or 5-year survival after having survived for a given number of years after gastrectomy.

EGC patients are generally considered to have better survival rates than other GC patients, with individuals with EGC that do not exhibit mLNs having a 5-year OS of approximately 90% [1–3]. However, EGC is a heterogeneous condition, with factors such as LN metastasis and tumor stage being closely related to patient outcomes [6, 7, 9, 16]. Lee et al. [9] found that the 5-year OS of individuals with T1N0, T1N1, T1N2, and T1N3 disease was 99.3%, 96.8%, 72.7%, and 0.0%, respectively (). Yang et al. [16] found that metastatic LNs were present in just 2.4% of individuals with T1a stage disease, whereas this incidence rose to 11.0% in those with T1b stage disease. Tumor size and metastatic LN incidence were also confirmed to be significantly related to one another (), and the 5-year DSS rates of T1a and T1b stage patients in their study were 90.6% and 81.4%, respectively. Consistent with these results, Kamarajah et al. [6] found that EGC patients’ prognoses varied as a function of patient clinicopathological characteristics. Evaluating patient OS based solely on tumor stage is thus not sufficient to reliably identify EGC patients likely to experience favorable or unfavorable outcomes. OS or DSS rates calculated in most studies also focus on a single defined time point, and thus fail to reliably reflect dynamic changes in postoperative prognosis, potentially leading to an inaccurate understanding of disease status and associated risk.

Herein, we incorporated the concept of CS as a means of accounting for dynamic changes in patient mortality risk over time after surgery, as this approach is particularly valuable when evaluating patients that have experienced long-term survival [21]. Given the prolonged survival of most EGC patients, we posited that CS or CDSS would be a more reliable index for the assessment of these patients. Wang et al. [17] determined that patients with unfavorable disease characteristics exhibited larger increases in CS, potentially providing some degree of psychological comfort to these individuals. Another study examined postoperative changes in CS under different surveillance strategies, enabling the authors to propose a means of optimizing the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Japanese Gastric Cancer Association treatment guidelines [34, 35]. When CS is >95.0%, researchers have suggested that patient follow-up frequency can be reduced to avoid excess patient re-evaluation [36], as the cancer-related mortality risk for these patients was similar to that of the general population. We similarly observed gradual increases in 3- and 5-year CDSS in the study population as postoperative survival time increased. At 8 years postsurgery, actual DSS in our patient cohort was just 79.9%, while our model revealed a CDSS for 3 additional years of up to 94.6% for patients that had survived 5 years postsurgery. Similarly, while the actual 10-year DSS for these patients was just 77.0%, the 5-year CDSS for patients that had already survived 5 years postsurgery was 15.0% higher than the overall DSS for this 10-year endpoint. We also found that CDSS rose as postoperative survival time grew longer, potentially providing insights that may guide clinicians in the formulation of appropriate treatment and surveillance strategies. Individualized CS or CDSS-based analyses such as the nomogram developed herein also have the potential to improve patient psychological comfort and to reduce associated postoperative costs.

Chen et al. [37] first reported a nomogram capable of predicting the cancer-specific survival (CSS) and the conditional probability for their multicenter cancer patient cohorts. In that study, the authors incorporated age, tumor site, tumor size, depth of invasion, number of examined LNs, number of metastatic LNs, and surgical margin into their final nomogram. However, their model may not be applicable to GC patients at a particular disease stage given that the study population included all GC patients. In this study, we therefore sought to facilitate precision medicine analyses by specifically evaluating EGC patients in order to identify independent predictors of CDSS and DSS for this particular population.

There are a number of limitations to this analysis. For one, this study was reliant upon retrospective data such that selection bias cannot be excluded, although the selection criteria for this study were based upon the long-time horizon of the SEER database. Second, adjuvant therapy has been repeatedly shown to be relevant to patient prognosis, yet the information in the SEER database regarding patient adjuvant treatment was often unclear, potentially biasing our findings. Third, we did not validate our nomogram on an external patient cohort separate from the SEER database. In future studies, we will include additional patient information and will perform prospective clinical studies aimed at validating and further optimizing our nomogram.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the nomogram that we developed and validated in this study was able to reliably predict EGC patient CDSS. As CDSS can guide patient postoperative management and follow-up frequency, this tool may be valuable in clinical settings and has the potential to alleviate mental and financial stress for patients found to have higher odds of survival. The applicability of this nomogram as a tool for evaluating EGC patients from other institutions will, however, require future validation.

Abbreviations

EGC:	Early gastric cancer
GC:	Gastric cancer
LN:	Lymph node
OS:	Overall survival
CS:	Conditional survival
CDSS:	Conditional disease-specific survival
SEER:	Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
AJCC:	American Joint Committee on Cancer
DSS:	Disease-specific survival
DCA:	Decision curve analysis
HR:	Hazard ratio
CI:	Confidence interval
CSS:	Cancer-specific survival.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the SEER database (https://seer.cancer.gov/) and from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Ethical Approval

The analyses were solely based on publicly available data of population sizes and aggregate number of cancer cases and as such, ethical approval was not deemed to be necessary. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations in the current study.

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

ZYX and XDC contributed to the conception and design of the study and drafted the manuscript. SWP and MXC contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data, and revised the manuscript. SWP and CH participated in data acquisition and literature research. YQZ and YAD participated in language expression and polishing. All authors had roles in the manuscript drafting. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Siwei Pan and Mengxuan Cao contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank MJEditor (https://www.mjeditor.com) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

References

T. Sano, D. G. Coit, H. H. Kim et al., “Proposal of a new stage grouping of gastric cancer for TNM classification: international Gastric Cancer Association staging project,” Gastric Cancer, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 217–225, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Lai, S. Kim, K. Kim et al., “Prediction of recurrence of early gastric cancer after curative resection,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 1896–1902, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Suzuki, I. Oda, S. Abe et al., “High rate of 5-year survival among patients with early gastric cancer undergoing curative endoscopic submucosal dissection,” Gastric Cancer, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 198–205, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Cao, L. V. Selby, X. Hu et al., “Risk factors for recurrence in T1-2N0 gastric cancer in the United States and China,” Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 745–749, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. G. Youn, J. Y. An, M. G. Choi, J. H. Noh, T. S. Sohn, and S. Kim, “Recurrence after curative resection of early gastric cancer,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 448–454, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Kamarajah, S. R. Markar, A. W. Phillips, G. I. Salti, and F. S. Dahdaleh, “Local endoscopic resection is inferior to gastrectomy for early clinical stage T1a and T1b gastric adenocarcinoma: a propensity-matched study,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 2992–2998, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Yura, T. Yoshikawa, S. Otsuki et al., “Is surgery alone sufficient for treating T1 gastric cancer with extensive lymph node metastases?” Gastric Cancer, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 349–355, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Pyo, H. Lee, Y. W. Min et al., “Effect of age on the clinical outcomes of patients with early gastric cancer with undifferentiated-type histology,” Surgery, vol. 165, no. 4, pp. 802–807, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Lee, Y. H. Kim, W. H. Kim et al., “Clinicopathological analysis for recurrence of early gastric cancer,” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 209–214, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Saka, H. Katai, T. Fukagawa, R. Nijjar, and T. Sano, “Recurrence in early gastric cancer with lymph node metastasis,” Gastric Cancer, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 214–218, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Sun, Z. N. Wang, Z. Zhu et al., “Evaluation of the seventh edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system for gastric cancer: results from a Chinese monoinstitutional study,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1918–1927, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Kim, J. Y. An, J. Lee, T. S. Sohn, and S. Kim, “Adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone for early gastric cancer with one or two lymph node metastasis,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1616–1624, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. W. Kim, Y. J. Lee, J. H. Kim et al., “The role of tumor size in surgical decision making after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 2799–2803, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Y. Yin, T. Pang, Y. Liu et al., “Development and validation of a nomogram for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer,” World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 2, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Pan, S. Yin, Z. Zhu, F. Liu, and H. Xu, “Decision-making of adjuvant therapy in pT1N1M0 gastric cancer: should radiotherapy be added to chemotherapy? A propensity score-matched analysis,” Journal of Cancer, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1179–1189, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Yang, K. Sun, Y. Hui et al., “Large population-based study using the SEER database: is endoscopic resection appropriate for early gastric cancer patients in the United States?” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 834–842, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Wang, Z. Sun, W. Wang et al., “Conditional survival of patients with gastric cancer who undergo curative resection: a multi-institutional analysis in China,” Cancer, vol. 124, no. 5, pp. 916–924, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Kim, A. Ejaz, G. Spolverato et al., “Conditional survival after surgical resection of gastric cancer: a multi-institutional analysis of the us gastric cancer collaborative,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 557–564, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. W. Pan, P. L. Wang, H. W. Huang et al., “A proposal of a personalized surveillance strategy for gastric cancer: a retrospective analysis of 9191 patients,” Gastroenterology Research and Practice, vol. 2019, Article ID 3248727, 9 pages, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Thuret, M. Sun, F. Abdollah et al., “Conditional survival predictions after surgery for patients with penile carcinoma,” Cancer, vol. 117, no. 16, pp. 3723–3730, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Y. C. Polley, K. R. Lamborn, S. M. Chang, N. Butowski, J. L. Clarke, and M. Prados, “Conditional probability of survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 31, pp. 4175–4180, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Kim, G. A. Margonis, J. D. Prescott et al., “Curative surgical resection of adrenocortical carcinoma: determining long-term outcome based on conditional disease-free probability,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 265, no. 1, pp. 197–204, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Xie, Y. Y. Ying, B. Xu, Y. Li, X. Zhang, and C. Li, “Metastasis pattern and prognosis of male breast cancer patients in US: a population-based study from SEER database,” Ther Adv Med Oncol, vol. 11, Article ID 1758835919889003, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. P. Li, H. F. Gao, F. Ji et al., “The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage I-III male breast cancer: a SEER-based analysis,” Ther Adv Med Oncol, vol. 12, Article ID 1758835920958358, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. In, I. Solsky, B. Palis, M. Langdon-Embry, J. Ajani, and T. Sano, “Validation of the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system for gastric cancer using the national cancer database,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 24, pp. 3683–3691, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
F. E. Harrell Jr., R. M. Califf, D. B. Pryor, K. L. Lee, and RA. Rosati, “Evaluating the yield of medical tests,” JAMA, vol. 247, no. 18, pp. 2543–2546, 1982.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. D. Huitzil-Melendez, M. Capanu, E. M. O’Reilly et al., “Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: which staging systems best predict prognosis?” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 17, pp. 2889–2895, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. W. Steyerberg, F. E. Harrell Jr., G. J. Borsboom, M. Eijkemans, Y. Vergouwe, and J. F. Habbema, “Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 774–781, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Van Calster, L. Wynants, J. F. M. Verbeek et al., “Reporting and interpreting decision curve analysis: a guide for investigators,” European Urology, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 796–804, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. L. Dikken, R. E. Baser, M. Gonen et al., “Conditional probability of survival nomogram for 1-2-and 3-year survivors after an R0 resection for gastric cancer,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1623–1630, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Huang, L. Jansen, Y. Balavarca et al., “Significance of examined lymph node number in accurate staging and long-term survival in resected stage I-ii pancreatic cancer-more is better? A large international population-based cohort study,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 274, no. 6, pp. e554–e563, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Schemper and T. L. Smith, “A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time,” Controlled Clinical Trials, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 343–346, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Zeng, W. Chen, R. Zheng et al., “Changing cancer survival in China during 2003-15: a pooled analysis of 17 population-based cancer registries,” Lancet Global Health, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. e555–e567, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Nccn, “Practice guidelines in oncology(gastric cancer)-V4,” 2019, https://www.nccn.org.
View at: Google Scholar
Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, “Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4),” Gastric Cancer, vol. 20, pp. 1–19, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Janssen-Heijnen, A. Gondos, F. Bray et al., “Clinical relevance of conditional survival of cancer patients in europe: age-specific analyses of 13 cancers,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 28, no. 15, pp. 2520–2528, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Y. Chen, Q. Zhong, W. Wang et al., “Development and external validation of a nomogram for predicting the conditional probability of survival after D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a multicentre study,” European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1934–1942, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Siwei Pan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

234

Downloads

438

Citations