Wei ZJ, Qiao YT, Zhou BC, Rankine AN, Zhang LX, Su YZ, Xu AM, Han WX, Luo PQ. Model established based on blood markers predicts overall survival in patients after radical resection of types II and III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction.
World J Gastrointest Surg 2022;
14:788-798. [PMID:
36157366 PMCID:
PMC9453332 DOI:
10.4240/wjgs.v14.i8.788]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Revised: 04/30/2022] [Accepted: 08/05/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
In recent years, the incidence of types II and III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has shown an obvious upward trend worldwide. The prognostic prediction after radical resection of AEG has not been well established.
AIM
To establish a prognostic model for AEG (types II and III) based on routine markers.
METHODS
A total of 355 patients who underwent curative AEG at The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from January 2014 to June 2015 were retrospectively included in this study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors. A nomogram was constructed based on Cox proportional hazards models. The new score models was analyzed by C index and calibration curves. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to compare the predictive accuracy of the scoring system and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage. Overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier curve amongst different risk AEG patients.
RESULTS
Multivariate analysis showed that TNM stage (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.286, P = 0.008), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR = 2.979, P = 0.001), and body mass index (HR = 0.626, P = 0.026) were independent prognostic factors. The new scoring system had a higher concordance index (0.697), and the calibration curves of the nomogram were reliable. The area under the ROC curve of the new score model (3-year: 0.725, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.676-0.777; 5-year: 0.758, 95%CI: 0.708-0.807) was larger than that of TNM staging (3-year: 0.630, 95%CI: 0.585-0.684; 5-year: 0.665, 95%CI: 0.616-0.715).
CONCLUSION
Based on the serum markers and other clinical indicators, we have developed a precise model to predict the prognosis of patients with AEG (types II and III). The new prognostic nomogram could effectively enhance the predictive value of the TNM staging system. This scoring system can be advantageous and helpful for surgeons and patients.
Collapse