Predictors and outcomes of recurrent retroperitoneal liposarcoma with multiple tumors

Figure 1. The flow diagram of recurrent RLS patients with multiple tumors. RLS, retroperitoneal liposarcoma.

Figure 2. The nomogram model was built to predict the OS of recurrent RLS patients with multiple tumors. (A) Nomogram for 1-year, 2-years and 3-years overall survival in all enrolled patients. (B) Calibration plots of training set for 1-year, 2-years, and 3-years OS in all enrolled patients. (C) Calibration plots of validation set for 1-year, 2-years, and 3-years OS in all enrolled patients. The X-axis: bootstrap-predicted survival; the Y-axis: actual outcome. LR, local recurrence; RLS, retroperitoneal liposarcoma; OS, overall survival. The cutoff value of tumor size was the median value of the variable (the median value included in the lower side; the 5-years OS was too low to be displayed in the nomogram model).

Figure 3. The nomogram model was built to predict the PFS of recurrent RLS patients with multiple tumors. (A) Nomogram for 1-year, 2-years, and 3-years PFS in all enrolled patients. (B) Calibration plots of training set for 1-year, 2-years, and 3-years PFS in all enrolled patients. (C) Calibration plots of validation set for 1-year, 2-years, and 3-years PFS in all enrolled patients. The X-axis: bootstrap-predicted survival; the Y-axis: actual outcome. LR, local recurrence; RLS, retroperitoneal liposarcoma; PFS, progression-free survival. The cutoff value of surgery times was the median value of the variable (the median value included in the lower side; the 5-years PFS was too low to be displayed in the nomogram model).

Figure 4. The prognostic analysis of recurrent RLS patients with multiple tumors based on risk scores predicted by nomogram models. (A) The OS analysis of enrolled patients in different risk grade. (B) The PFS analysis of enrolled patients in different risk grade. The cutoff value of risk score was the median value of the risk scores in all patients. RLS, retroperitoneal liposarcoma; LR, local recurrence; OS, overall survival.

Figure 5. The OS analysis of recurrent RLS patients with multiple tumors. (A) The OS analysis of 113 recurrent RLS patients with multiple tumors. (B) The OS analysis of 113 enrolled patients with three resection methods. (C) The OS analysis of enrolled patients with two types of tumor size. (D) The OS analysis of 113 enrolled patients with two types of pathological classification. (E) The OS analysis of 113 enrolled patients with different status of pathological differentiation. (F) The OS analysis of 113 enrolled patients with different recurrence patterns. (G) The OS analysis of enrolled patients with LR pattern after combined organ resection. (H) The OS analysis of enrolled patients with LR pattern after R0/R1 resection. The cutoff value of tumor size was the median value of the variable (the median value included in the lower side). OS, overall survival; RLS, retroperitoneal liposarcoma; LR, local recurrence.

Figure 6. The PFS analysis of recurrent RLS patients with multiple tumors. (A) The PFS analysis of 113 recurrent RLS patients with multiple tumors. (B) The PFS analysis of 113 enrolled patients with three resection methods. (C) The PFS analysis of enrolled patients with two types of tumor size. (D) The PFS analysis of 113 enrolled patients with two types of pathological classification. (E) The PFS analysis of 113 enrolled patients with different status of pathological differentiation. (F) The PFS analysis of 113 enrolled patients with different recurrence patterns. (G) The PFS analysis of enrolled patients with LR pattern after combined organ resection. (H) The PFS analysis of enrolled patients with LR pattern after R0/R1 resection. The cutoff value of tumor size was the median value of the variable (the median value included in the lower side). PFS, progression-free survival; RLS, retroperitoneal liposarcoma; LR, local recurrence.