4.6 Article

Risk stratification system to predict recurrence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after hepatic resection

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3464-5

关键词

Risk stratification; Staging system; Nomogram; Hepatitis B virus-associated intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Hepatic resection

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81,300,337, 81,472,243, 81,670,598]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous nomograms for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) were conducted to predict overall survival, which could be influenced by various factors. Herein, we conducted our nomogram to predict recurrence of the tumor only after hepatic resection. Methods: The nomogram was established with prognostic factors for the relapse-free survival (RFS) analyzed from our single center cohort and was evaluated by comparing with the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for the predictive accuracy. Results: Seropositivity of hepatitis B surface antigen (hazard ratio [HR], 0.505; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.279 to 0.914; P = 0.024), tumor size of larger than 5 cm (HR, 1.947; 95% CI, 1.177 to 3.219; P = 0.009), Child-Pugh score of B (HR, 3.067; 95% CI, 1.293 to 7.275; P = 0.011), and lymph node metastasis (HR, 2.790; 95% CI, 1.628 to 4.781; P < 0.001) were found to be independent prognostic factors that significantly affected RFS. The calibration curve for the prediction revealed excellent agreement between estimation by our stratification system and actual RFS. The concordance C index of the nomogram (0.71; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.77) revealed to be significantly higher than the AJCC staging system (0.66; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.72). In the validation cohort, our risk stratification system (C-index 0.65; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.71) also revealed more precise prediction than the AJCC staging system (C-index, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.64). Conclusions: Our nomogram could more accurately predict recurrence of ICC after hepatic resection than the AJCC staging system.

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