4.6 Article

Prognostic nomogram models for predicting survival probability in elderly glioblastoma patients

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-023-05232-w

关键词

Elderly glioblastoma; Nomogram; SEER; Overall survival; Cancer-specific survival

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A predictive nomogram model was developed to investigate prognostic factors and survival probability in elderly GBM patients. The model can provide clinical references for treatment strategies and prognosis.
PurposeTo investigate the prognostic factors of survival and develop a predictive nomogram model for elderly GBM patients.MethodsElderly patients (> = 65 years) with histologically diagnosed GBM were extracted from the SEER database. Survival analysis of overall survival (OS) was performed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to determine independent prognostic factors and these factors were used to further construct the nomogram model.ResultsA total of 9068 elderly GBM patients (5122 males and 3946 females) were included, with a median age of 72 years (65-96 years). All patients were divided randomly into the training group (n = 6044) and the validation group (n = 3024) by a ratio of 2:1. Cox regression analyses on OS showed eight independent prognostic factors (race, age, tumor side, tumor size, metastasis, surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) in the training cohort. Also, seven variables (except for race) were identified on CSS in the training group. By comprising these variables, the nomogram models on OS and CSS for predicting the 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year survival probability were constructed and exhibited moderate consistency, respectively. Then, they could be validated well in the validation cohort and by C-index, time-dependent ROC curve, calibration plot, and DCA curve.ConclusionsNomogram models on OS and CSS could provide an applicable tool to predict the survival probability and provide clinical references regarding treatment strategies and prognosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据