The Journal of urology · 2010
Development and evaluation of a nomogram to predict inguinal lymph node metastasis in patients with penile cancer and clinically negative lymph nodes.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhu Yao, Zhang Hai-Liang, Yao Xu-Dong, Zhang Shi-Lin, Dai Bo, Shen Yi-Jun, Ye Ding-Wei
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Optimal management for penile cancer in patients with clinically negative lymph nodes is still under debate. We developed and evaluated a nomogram to stratify patients who are suitable candidates for further treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 110 men with penile cancer and clinically negative lymph nodes from 1990 to 2008. All patients underwent primary tumor resection and regional lymphadenectomy. We retrospectively reviewed medical records and tumor slides. Statistical analysis was done in R with library rms.
RESULTS: The lymph node metastasis rate in the entire cohort was 23.6%. The final model, presented as a nomogram, included T stage, grade, lymphovascular invasion and p53 expression. Only lymphovascular invasion showed independent prognostic value on multivariate analysis (p = 0.024). The model also showed good calibration (bootstrap corrected concordance index 0.79). To determine the clinical usefulness of the nomogram we compared it with the European Association of Urology risk classification using decision curve analysis. At a 10% probability threshold our nomogram led to 1 positive result per 100 patients without an increase in the number of false-positive results. At this probability threshold the model also decreased 13 unnecessary interventions per 100 patients without missing more metastatic disease.
CONCLUSIONS: We generated a nomogram in patients with clinically node negative penile cancer based on readily available pathological factors. The clinical usefulness of the nomogram was evidenced by decision curve analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 110 men with penile cancer and clinically negative lymph nodes from 1990 to 2008. All patients underwent primary tumor resection and regional lymphadenectomy. We retrospectively reviewed medical records and tumor slides. Statistical analysis was done in R with library rms.
RESULTS: The lymph node metastasis rate in the entire cohort was 23.6%. The final model, presented as a nomogram, included T stage, grade, lymphovascular invasion and p53 expression. Only lymphovascular invasion showed independent prognostic value on multivariate analysis (p = 0.024). The model also showed good calibration (bootstrap corrected concordance index 0.79). To determine the clinical usefulness of the nomogram we compared it with the European Association of Urology risk classification using decision curve analysis. At a 10% probability threshold our nomogram led to 1 positive result per 100 patients without an increase in the number of false-positive results. At this probability threshold the model also decreased 13 unnecessary interventions per 100 patients without missing more metastatic disease.
CONCLUSIONS: We generated a nomogram in patients with clinically node negative penile cancer based on readily available pathological factors. The clinical usefulness of the nomogram was evidenced by decision curve analysis.