4.3 Article

Development and validation of nomogram based on lncRNA ZFAS1 for predicting survival in lymph node-negative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 8, Issue 35, Pages 59048-59057

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.19937

Keywords

lncRNA; ZFAS1; nomogram; ESCC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: There is increasing evidence of a relationship between long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) and cancer. This study aimed to examine the prognostic value of the lncRNA ZFAS1 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Results: The results showed that ZFAS1 expression was significantly higher in ESCC tissues compared with the corresponding adjacent normal tissues (P < 0.001). ESCC patients with high ZFAS1 expression had a poor overall survival (OS). Histological grade, T stage and ZFAS1 expression were integrated to develop the nomogram. The nomogram showed a significantly better prediction of OS for patients with lymph node-negative ESCC. The ROC curve also showed higher specificity and sensitivity for predicting 3-and 5-year ESCC patient survival compared with the AJCC staging system. The decision curve analysis also indicated a greater potential for the nomogram in clinical application compared with the AJCC staging system. Importantly, our findings were supported by a validation cohort. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively investigated 398 lymph node-negative ESCC patients. Data from the primary cohort (n = 246) were used to develop a multivariate nomogram. The nomogram was internally validated for discrimination and calibration with bootstrap samples and was externally validated with an independent patient cohort (n = 152). Conclusions: Our proposed nomogram, which integrates clinicopathological factors and ZFAS1 expression, can accurately predict the prognosis of lymph node-negative ESCC patients without preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available