Key result
Postoperative nomograms significantly outperform AJCC staging in predicting cancer-specific survival.
Why the study?
The predictive accuracy of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages of colorectal cancer is mediocre, motivating development of improved postoperative prognostic tools.
Do postoperative nomograms improve the prediction of cancer-specific and overall survival compared to conventional AJCC stages in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection without preoperative therapy?
Cohort (n=56,072)
Yes
Do postoperative nomograms improve the prediction of cancer-specific and overall survival compared to conventional AJCC stages in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection without preoperative therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.816% vs 0.777%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Postoperative nomograms incorporating clinical and pathological variables provide better predictive accuracy for survival than conventional AJCC staging in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection.
Nomograms may refine postoperative prognostication in colorectal cancer; leaves open replacement of AJCC staging without prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: The predictive accuracy of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages of colorectal cancer (CRC) is mediocre. This study aimed to develop postoperative nomograms to predict cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) after CRC resection without preoperative therapy. METHODS: Eligible patients with stage I to IV CRC (n = 56072) diagnosed from 2004 to 2010 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The patients were allocated into training (n = 27,700), contemporary (n = 3158), and prospective (n = 25,214) validation cohorts. Clinically important variables were incorporated and selected using the Akaike information criterion in multivariate Cox regressions to derive nomograms with the training cohort. The performance of the nomograms was assessed and externally testified using the concordance index (c-index), bootstrap validation, calibration, time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic curves, Kaplan-Meier curves, mosaic plots, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Performance of the conventional AJCC stages was also compared with the nomograms using similar statistics. RESULTS: The nomograms for CSS and OS shared common predictors: sex, age, race, marital status, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen status, surgical extent, tumor size, location, histology, differentiation, infiltration depth, lymph node count, lymph node ratio, and metastasis. The c-indexes of the nomograms for CSS and OS were 0.816 (95 % CI 0.810-0.822) and 0.777 (95 % CI 0.772-0.782), respectively. Performance evaluations showed that the nomograms achieved considerable predictive accuracy, appreciable reliability, and significant clinical validity with wide practical threshold probabilities, while the results remained reproducible when applied to the validation cohorts. Additionally, model comparisons and DCA proved that the nomograms excelled in stratifying each AJCC stage into three significant prognostic subgroups, allowing for more robust risk classification with an improved net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: We propose two prognostic nomograms that exhibit improved predictive accuracy and net benefit for patients who have undergone CRC resection. The established nomograms are intended for risk assessment and selection of suitable patients who may benefit from adjuvant therapy and intensified follow-up after surgery. Independent external validations may still be required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luo et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Colorectal cancer (n=56,072). Prognostic nomograms vs. AJCC staging system was evaluated on Concordance index (c-index) for cancer-specific survival (95% CI 0.810-0.822, p=<0.0001). The proposed prognostic nomograms exhibited significantly improved predictive accuracy for cancer-specific survival (c-index 0.816) compared to the 7th edition AJCC staging system (c-index 0.777).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: