We have located open access text paper links.
A Prognostic Model Based on the Log Odds Ratio of Positive Lymph Nodes Predicts Prognosis of Patients with Rectal Cancer.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer 2024 May 4
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the prognostic value of rectal cancer by comparing different lymph node staging systems, and a nomogram was constructed based on superior lymph node staging.
METHODS: Overall, 8700 patients with rectal cancer was obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015. The area under the curve (AUC), the C index, and the Akaike informativeness criteria (AIC) were used to examine the predict ability of various lymph node staging methods. Prognostic indicators were assessed using univariate and multivariate COX regression, and further correlation nomograms were created after the data were randomly split into training and validation cohorts. To evaluate the effectiveness of the model, the C index, calibration curves, decision curves (DCA), and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) were used. We ran Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to look for variations in risk classification.
RESULTS: While compared to the N-stage positive lymph node ratio (LNR), the log odds ratio of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) had the highest predictive effectiveness. Multifactorial COX regression analyses were used to create nomograms for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The C indices of OS and CSS for this model were considerably higher than those for TNM staging in the training cohort. The created nomograms demonstrated good efficacy based on ROC, rectification, and decision curves. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed notable variations in patient survival across various patient strata.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to AJCC staging, the LODDS-based nomograms have a more accurate predictive effectiveness in predicting OS and CSS in patients with rectal cancer.
METHODS: Overall, 8700 patients with rectal cancer was obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015. The area under the curve (AUC), the C index, and the Akaike informativeness criteria (AIC) were used to examine the predict ability of various lymph node staging methods. Prognostic indicators were assessed using univariate and multivariate COX regression, and further correlation nomograms were created after the data were randomly split into training and validation cohorts. To evaluate the effectiveness of the model, the C index, calibration curves, decision curves (DCA), and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) were used. We ran Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to look for variations in risk classification.
RESULTS: While compared to the N-stage positive lymph node ratio (LNR), the log odds ratio of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) had the highest predictive effectiveness. Multifactorial COX regression analyses were used to create nomograms for overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). The C indices of OS and CSS for this model were considerably higher than those for TNM staging in the training cohort. The created nomograms demonstrated good efficacy based on ROC, rectification, and decision curves. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed notable variations in patient survival across various patient strata.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to AJCC staging, the LODDS-based nomograms have a more accurate predictive effectiveness in predicting OS and CSS in patients with rectal cancer.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Obesity pharmacotherapy in older adults: a narrative review of evidence.International Journal of Obesity 2024 May 7
Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future.Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 April 31
SGLT2 Inhibitors in Kidney Diseases-A Narrative Review.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 May 2
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app