Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2026
Refining adjuvant radiation therapy decision using a nomogram in major salivary gland carcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gau Max, Su Jie, Huang Shao Hui, Alfaraj Fatimah A, Souied Osama, Mierzwa Michelle L, Marta Gustavo N, Kowalski Luiz P, Moraes Fabio Y, Xu Wei, Bayley Andrew, Hahn Ezra, Kim John J, McPartlin Andrew, O'Sullivan Brian, Hope Andrew, Tsai C Jillian, Malik Nauman, Waldron John, Bratman Scott V, Javed Hamna, de Almeida John R, Yao Christopher M K L, Hosni Ali
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Major salivary gland carcinoma (SGC) comprises diverse histologies with multiple interrelated risk factors, making it difficult to determine which patients truly benefit from post-operative radiotherapy (PORT). We developed a nomogram to predict the risk of locoregional failure (LRF) and model postoperative risk estimates under different PORT scenarios.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Major SGC patients treated with curative-intent surgery between 2000 and 2021 across five tertiary cancer centers were identified. Prognostic factors (p < 0.05) from multivariable analysis and clinicopathologically relevant characteristics were utilized to construct a nomogram estimating five-year LRF risk. Subsequently, we modeled the five-year LRF and overall survival (OS) risks for each nomogram point-value, with and without PORT.
RESULTS: A total of 1175 patients were included in the analysis. The median follow-up was 5.3 years. The nomogram for prediction of five-year LRF risk comprised six statistically significant negative prognostic factors (lymphovascular invasion [100 points], WHO high-risk pathology [84], involved resection margins [61], parotid primary tumor [69], pathologic T3-4 category [44], and the non-utilization of PORT [57]), and two relevant factors (pathologic nodal involvement [34] and perineural invasion [7]). The corrected C-index was 0.77. We estimated the values of five-year LRF and OS depending on the PORT. For example, a patient with 271 points had a five-year LRF risk of 20% without PORT versus 11% with PORT, and a five-year OS of 65% versus 79%, respectively.
DISCUSSION: This nomogram provides individualized estimates of LRF after surgery for major SGC and offers model-based risk estimates under different PORT scenarios. It may serve as a practical tool to guide personalized adjuvant treatment decisions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Major SGC patients treated with curative-intent surgery between 2000 and 2021 across five tertiary cancer centers were identified. Prognostic factors (p < 0.05) from multivariable analysis and clinicopathologically relevant characteristics were utilized to construct a nomogram estimating five-year LRF risk. Subsequently, we modeled the five-year LRF and overall survival (OS) risks for each nomogram point-value, with and without PORT.
RESULTS: A total of 1175 patients were included in the analysis. The median follow-up was 5.3 years. The nomogram for prediction of five-year LRF risk comprised six statistically significant negative prognostic factors (lymphovascular invasion [100 points], WHO high-risk pathology [84], involved resection margins [61], parotid primary tumor [69], pathologic T3-4 category [44], and the non-utilization of PORT [57]), and two relevant factors (pathologic nodal involvement [34] and perineural invasion [7]). The corrected C-index was 0.77. We estimated the values of five-year LRF and OS depending on the PORT. For example, a patient with 271 points had a five-year LRF risk of 20% without PORT versus 11% with PORT, and a five-year OS of 65% versus 79%, respectively.
DISCUSSION: This nomogram provides individualized estimates of LRF after surgery for major SGC and offers model-based risk estimates under different PORT scenarios. It may serve as a practical tool to guide personalized adjuvant treatment decisions.