China Oncology ›› 2022, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (3): 234-242.doi: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2022.03.006
• Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
WANG Zimao, CAO Yuan, WANG Qiying()
Received:
2021-10-27
Revised:
2021-12-29
Online:
2022-03-30
Published:
2022-04-02
Contact:
WANG Qiying
E-mail:wangqiying@zzu.edu.cn
CLC Number:
WANG Zimao, CAO Yuan, WANG Qiying. Construction and validation of the survival prediction model for patients with cutaneous spindle cell melanoma[J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(3): 234-242.
Tab. 1
Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of 1 445 SCM patients [n (%)]"
Characteristic | Total (n=1 445) | Training (n=1 011) | Validation (n=434) | P value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age/year | 0.640 | |||
≤65 | 581 (40.2) | 411 (40.7) | 170 (39.2) | |
≥66 | 864 (59.8) | 600 (59.3) | 264 (60.8) | |
Gender | 0.509 | |||
Female | 483 (33.4) | 332 (32.8) | 151 (34.8) | |
Male | 962 (66.6) | 679 (67.2) | 283 (65.2) | |
Race | 0.786 | |||
Non-white | 23 (1.6) | 15 (1.5) | 8 (1.8) | |
White | 1422 (98.4) | 996 (98.5) | 426 (98.2) | |
Site | 0.635 | |||
Extremities | 557 (38.5) | 393 (38.9) | 164 (37.8) | |
Scalp/face/neck | 600 (41.5) | 412 (40.8) | 188 (43.3) | |
Trunk | 288 (20.0) | 206 (20.3) | 82 (18.9) | |
Depth D/mm | 0.648 | |||
≤1.00 | 343 (23.7) | 238 (23.5) | 105 (24.2) | |
1.01-2.00 | 342 (23.7) | 243 (24.0) | 99 (22.8) | |
2.01-4.00 | 325 (22.5) | 234 (23.2) | 91 (21.0) | |
≥4.01 | 435 (30.1) | 296 (29.3) | 139 (32.0) | |
Ulceration | 0.079 | |||
Absent | 936 (64.8) | 670 (66.3) | 266 (61.3) | |
Present | 509 (35.2) | 341 (33.7) | 168 (38.7) | |
N stage | 0.779 | |||
N0 | 1292 (89.4) | 904 (89.4) | 388 (89.4) | |
N1 | 68 (4.7) | 45 (4.4) | 23 (5.3) | |
N2 | 52 (3.6) | 39 (3.9) | 13 (3.0) | |
N3 | 33 (2.3) | 23 (2.3) | 10 (2.3) | |
M stage | 0.542 | |||
M0 | 1412 (97.7) | 990 (97.9) | 422 (97.2) | |
M1 | 33 (2.3) | 21 (2.1) | 12 (2.8) | |
Surgery | 0.620 | |||
No/unknown | 29 (2.0) | 22 (2.2) | 7 (1.6) | |
Yes | 1416 (98.0) | 989 (97.8) | 427 (98.4) | |
Radiotherapy | 0.329 | |||
No/unknown | 1357 (93.9) | 954 (94.4) | 403 (92.9) | |
Yes | 88 (6.1) | 57 (5.6) | 31 (7.1) | |
Chemotherapy | 0.874 | |||
No/unknown | 1412 (97.7) | 987 (97.6) | 425 (97.9) | |
Yes | 33 (2.3) | 24 (2.4) | 9 (2.1) |
Tab. 2
Univariate COX regression analysis of SCM patients"
Characteristic | CSS | OS | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
P value | HR (95% CI) | P value | HR (95% CI) | ||
Age/year | |||||
≤65 | Ref | Ref | |||
≥66 | 0.000 | 2.30 (1.63-3.23) | 0.000 | 4.53 (3.54-5.81) | |
Gender | |||||
Female | Ref | Ref | |||
Male | 0.015 | 1.54 (1.09-2.19) | 0.000 | 1.56 (1.25-1.93) | |
Race | |||||
Non-white | Ref | Ref | |||
White | 0.318 | 0.60 (0.22-1.63) | 0.573 | 0.82 (0.41-1.65) | |
Site | |||||
Extremities | Ref | Ref | |||
Scalp/face/neck | 0.000 | 1.98 (1.41-2.80) | 0.000 | 2.19 (1.76-2.71) | |
Trunk | 0.961 | 0.99 (0.62-1.58) | 0.862 | 1.03 (0.77-1.37) | |
Depth D/mm | |||||
≤1.00 | Ref | Ref | |||
1.01-2.00 | 0.190 | 1.51 (0.82-2.80) | 0.278 | 1.20 (0.86-1.66) | |
2.01-4.00 | 0.001 | 2.66 (1.50-4.70) | 0.000 | 2.07 (1.53-2.80) | |
≥4.01 | 0.000 | 5.47 (3.24-9.21) | 0.000 | 3.13 (2.37-4.15) | |
N stage | |||||
N0 | Ref | Ref | |||
N1 | 0.000 | 2.86 (1.64-4.97) | 0.010 | 1.73 (1.14-2.61) | |
N2 | 0.000 | 4.05 (2.36-6.93) | 0.001 | 2.12 (1.38-3.27) | |
N3 | 0.000 | 12.04 (6.86-21.12) | 0.000 | 6.54 (4.09-10.44) | |
M stage | |||||
M0 | Ref | Ref | |||
M1 | 0.000 | 6.04 (3.27-11.15) | 0.000 | 3.56 (2.16-5.88) | |
Ulceration | |||||
Absent | Ref | Ref | |||
Present | 0.000 | 3.07 (2.26-4.17) | 0.000 | 2.59 (2.14-3.13) | |
Surgery | |||||
No/unknown | Ref | Ref | |||
Yes | 0.032 | 0.41 (0.18-0.93) | 0.009 | 0.48 (0.28-0.83) | |
Radiotherapy | |||||
No/unknown | Ref | Ref | |||
Yes | 0.039 | 1.78 (1.03-3.08) | 0.016 | 1.57 (1.09-2.26) | |
Chemotherapy | |||||
No/unknown | Ref | Ref | |||
Yes | 0.000 | 4.82 (2.73-8.5) | 0.013 | 1.96 (1.15-3.34) |
Tab. 3
The corresponding score of each factor in the nomogram"
Characteristic | Points (CSS) | Points (OS) |
---|---|---|
Age/year | ||
≤65 | 0 | 0 |
≥66 | 39 | 80 |
Site | ||
Extremities | 0 | 0 |
Scalp/face/neck | 25 | 28 |
Trunk | 10 | 12 |
Depth D/mm | ||
≤1.00 | 0 | 0 |
1.01-2.00 | 10 | 1 |
2.01-4.00 | 22 | 13 |
≥4.01 | 50 | 32 |
N stage | ||
N0 | 0 | 0 |
N1 | 53 | 40 |
N2 | 53 | 38 |
N3 | 100 | 100 |
M stage | ||
M0 | 0 | 0 |
M1 | 51 | 48 |
Ulceration | ||
Absent | 0 | 0 |
Present | 29 | 30 |
Surgery | ||
No/unknown | 40 | 38 |
Yes | 0 | 0 |
Fig. 5
DCA for training cohort and validation cohort to predict 5- and 10-year CSS (A and B) and OS (C and D) in SCM patients The abscissa represents threshold probability and the ordinate represents net benefit. The X-axis (purple line) shows that all samples are negative, and the net benefit is zero. The slash line (blue line) indicates that all samples are positive. The net benefit is expressed as a negative slope. The nomogram had the clinical net benefit in a wide range of threshold probabilities (0.10-0.99). A: Threshold probability of validation cohort (green line) was <0.44; B: Threshold probability of validation cohort (green line) was <0.75; C: Threshold probability of validation cohort (green line) was <0.67; D: Threshold probability of validation cohort (green line) was <0.65. DCA: Decision curve analysis."
[1] | WINNEPENNINCKX V, DE VOS R, STAS M, et al. New phenotypical and ultrastructural findings in spindle cell (desmoplastic/neurotropic) melanoma[J]. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol, 2003, 11(4): 319-325. |
[2] |
WALIA R, JAIN D, MATHUR S R, et al. Spindle cell melanoma: a comparison of the cytomorphological features with the epithelioid variant[J]. Acta Cytol, 2013, 57(6): 557-561.
doi: 10.1159/000354405 |
[3] |
KIM J, LAZAR A J, DAVIES M A, et al. BRAF, NRAS and KIT sequencing analysis of spindle cell melanoma[J]. J Cutan Pathol, 2012, 39(9): 821-825.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0560.2012.01950.x |
[4] |
PIAO Y C, GUO M, GONG Y. Diagnostic challenges of metastatic spindle cell melanoma on fine-needle aspiration specimens[J]. Cancer, 2008, 114(2): 94-101.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.23345 |
[5] |
BANERJEE S S, HARRIS M. Morphological and immunophenotypic variations in malignant melanoma[J]. Histopathology, 2000, 36(5): 387-402.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2000.00894.x |
[6] |
MORGAN M B, PUROHIT C, ANGLIN T R. Immunohistochemical distinction of cutaneous spindle cell carcinoma[J]. Am J Dermatopathol, 2008, 30(3): 228-232.
doi: 10.1097/DAD.0b013e31816de820 |
[7] |
STOWMAN A M, MILLS S E, WICK M R. Spindle cell melanoma and interdigitating dendritic cell sarcoma: do they represent the same process?[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2016, 40(9): 1270-1279.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000678 |
[8] |
TACHA D, QI W M, RA S, et al. A newly developed mouse monoclonal SOX10 antibody is a highly sensitive and specific marker for malignant melanoma, including spindle cell and desmoplastic melanomas[J]. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2015, 139(4): 530-536.
doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0077-OA |
[9] | RAWANDALE N A, SURYAWANSHI K H. Primary spindle cell malignant melanoma of esophagus: an unusual finding[J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2016, 10(2): OD03-OD04. |
[10] |
DAINICHI T, KOBAYASHI C, FUJITA S, et al. Interdigital amelanotic spindle-cell melanoma mimicking an inflammatory process due to dermatophytosis[J]. J Dermatol, 2007, 34(10): 716-719.
doi: 10.1111/jde.2007.34.issue-10 |
[11] | XU Z, SHI P, YIBULAYIN F, et al. Spindle cell melanoma: Incidence and survival, 1973-2017[J]. Oncol Lett, 2018, 16(4): 5091-5099. |
[12] |
XU Z, YIBULAYIN F, SHI P, et al. Desmoplastic melanoma versus spindle cell melanoma: incidence and survival, 1973 to 2017[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018, 97(29): e11563.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011563 |
[13] |
GERSHENWALD J E, SCOLYER R A, HESS K R, et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2017, 67(6): 472-492.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21409 |
[14] |
EL SHAROUNI M A, VAREY A H R, WITKAMP A J, et al. Predicting sentinel node positivity in patients with melanoma: external validation of a risk-prediction calculator (the Melanoma Institute Australia nomogram) using a large European population-based patient cohort[J]. Br J Dermatol, 2021, 185(2): 412-418.
doi: 10.1111/bjd.v185.2 |
[15] |
MARCHETTI M A, LIOPYRIS K, NAVARRETE-DECHENT C. Net benefit and decision curve analysis of competing diagnostic strategies for cutaneous melanoma[J]. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2021, 85(2): e87-e88.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.170 |
[16] |
IASONOS A, SCHRAG D, RAJ G V, et al. How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2008, 26(8): 1364-1370.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9791 |
[17] | WACHTEL J G, CAPLAN C W, MAKLEY T A Jr. Juvenile melanoma (mixed spindle cell and epithelioid cell nevus) of the conjunctiva[J]. Surv Ophthalmol, 1967, 12(1): 12-16. |
[18] |
HOLLMIG S T, SACHDEV R, COCKERELL C J, et al. Spindle cell neoplasms encountered in dermatologic surgery: a review[J]. Dermatol Surg, 2012, 38(6): 825-850.
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2012.02296.x |
[19] |
BALACHANDRAN V P, GONEN M, SMITH J J, et al. Nomograms in oncology: more than meets the eye[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2015, 16(4): e173-e180.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71116-7 |
[20] |
GONG H Z, ZHENG H Y, LI J. Amelanotic melanoma[J]. Melanoma Res, 2019, 29(3): 221-230.
doi: 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000571 |
[21] |
XIAO Y, PENG S S, HU Y H, et al. Development and validation of prognostic nomogram in patients with nonmetastatic malignant melanoma: a SEER population-based study[J]. Cancer Med, 2020, 9(22): 8562-8570.
doi: 10.1002/cam4.v9.22 |
[22] |
VERVER D, VAN KLAVEREN D, FRANKE V, et al. Development and validation of a nomogram to predict recurrence and melanoma-specific mortality in patients with negative sentinel lymph nodes[J]. Br J Surg, 2019, 106(3): 217-225.
doi: 10.1002/bjs.10995 |
[1] | GAO Heli, XU Jin, YU Xianjun. Updates on the research and management of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm in 2021 [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(9): 772-778. |
[2] | ZHANG Rihong, GUO Yu, LIANG Yun, CHEN Luohai, CHEN Jie, WANG Wei. Prognostic significance of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(9): 807-817. |
[3] | CAO Mengxuan, HU Can, ZHANG Yanqiang, HUANG Ling, DU Yian, YU Pengcheng, ZHANG Ruolan, XU Zhiyuan, CHENG Xiangdong. Analysis of risk factors of early recurrence and metastasis after radical resection of gastric cancer [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(7): 588-595. |
[4] | HONG Yaping, HUANG Yunjian, HUANG Zhangzhou, CHEN Shengjia, ZHONG Qiaofeng, ZENG Hongfu, ZHUANG Wu. Efficacy and prognostic predictors of first-generation EGFR TKI-targeted therapy in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(7): 624-634. |
[5] | QIAN Yao, LIU Feng. Research progress and prospects of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(7): 643-649. |
[6] | LIU Yanquan, HU Xiaomei, YIN Yue, LIN Lin, SHEN Jianzhen, CHEN Yuting, TANG Huanwen. A retrospective study and clinical analysis of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(7): 650-656. |
[7] | QU Yiping, HOU Peng. Genetic characteristics and prognosis of metastatic thyroid cancer in children [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(5): 373-379. |
[8] | MA Guang, OU Xiaomin, HU Chaosu, SONG Shaoli, YANG Zhongyi. Value of pretreatment 18F-FLT PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT uptake heterogeneity for early prediction of treatment outcome in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(4): 309-315. |
[9] | YANG Yilan, ZHAO Xu, CHEN Xingxing, WANG Xuanyi, JIN Kairui, ZHANG Zhen, SHAO Zhimin, GUO Xiaomao, YU Xiaoli. A single-center prognotic analysis of breast ductal carcinoma in situ [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(3): 228-233. |
[10] | CHEN Xi, ZENG Xiaoying, CHEN Jiayan, LIU Fei, TANG Xi. The clinical value of mismatch repair protein combined with serum tumor markers and Ki-67 proliferation index in the prognostic evaluation of colorectal cancer [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(3): 243-250. |
[11] | HOU Qinghua, ZHONG Yanfeng, LIU Linzhuang, WU Liusheng, LIU Jixian. Expression, prognostic value of CBX3 in lung adenocarcinoma and its effect on biological behavior of cancer cells [J]. China Oncology, 2022, 32(2): 152-160. |
[12] | MA Yifei , LIANG Xinjun , WEI Shaozhong . Prognostic value of inflammatory and immune markers in resectable colorectal cancer [J]. China Oncology, 2021, 31(9): 845-851. |
[13] | LEI Yajie , GAO Yi , WANG Zhijie , CHENG Xi , YANG Yufei , ZHOU Hongyu , CHEN Lihua , CHEN Yixin , LI Haoran , LI Ziting , WU Xiaohua . Potential role of lymphadenectomy in patients with ovarian cancer (ⅠC-ⅡA): a retrospective trial [J]. China Oncology, 2021, 31(8): 740-745. |
[14] | GAO Heli, XU Jin, YU Xianjun. Advances in clinical diagnosis and treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor G3 [J]. China Oncology, 2021, 31(7): 567-573. |
[15] | GONG Runze, HU Haiyan. Clinical significance of CCL2 expression in osteosarcoma tissue [J]. China Oncology, 2021, 31(6): 455-459. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||
沪ICP备12009617
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd