Metabolic syndrome score as an indicator in a predictive nomogram for lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer.

Xuan Feng, Xing Chen Li, Xiao Yang, Yuan Cheng, Yang Yang Dong, Jing Yuan Wang, Jing Yi Zhou, Jian Liu Wang
Author Information
  1. Xuan Feng: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China.
  2. Xing Chen Li: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China.
  3. Xiao Yang: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China.
  4. Yuan Cheng: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China.
  5. Yang Yang Dong: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China.
  6. Jing Yuan Wang: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China.
  7. Jing Yi Zhou: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China. sy_zhoujingyi@bjmu.edu.cn.
  8. Jian Liu Wang: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100044, China. wangjianliu1203@163.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is an important factor affecting endometrial cancer (EC) prognosis. Current controversy exists as to how to accurately assess the risk of lymphatic metastasis. Metabolic syndrome has been considered a risk factor for endometrial cancer, yet its effect on LNM remains elusive. We developed a nomogram integrating metabolic syndrome indicators with other crucial variables to predict lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer.
METHODS: This study is based on patients diagnosed with EC in Peking University People's Hospital between January 2004 and December 2020. A total of 1076 patients diagnosed with EC and who underwent staging surgery were divided into training and validation cohorts according to the ratio of 2:1. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the significant predictive factors.
RESULTS: The prediction nomogram included MSR, positive peritoneal cytology, lymph vascular space invasion, endometrioid histological type, tumor size >  = 2 cm, myometrial invasion >  = 50%, cervical stromal invasion, and tumor grade. In the training group, the area under the curve (AUC) of the nomogram and Mayo criteria were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.90) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.77-0.83), respectively (P < 0.01). In the validation group (N = 359), the AUC was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.93) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.87) for the nomogram and the Mayo criteria, respectively (P = 0.01). Calibration plots revealed the satisfactory performance of the nomogram. Decision curve analysis showed a positive net benefit of this nomogram, which indicated clinical value.
CONCLUSION: This model may promote risk stratification and individualized treatment, thus improving the prognosis.

Keywords

References

  1. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Dec 16;12(12): [PMID: 33339340]
  2. Ann Oncol. 2011 Apr;22(4):884-889 [PMID: 20937645]
  3. JAMA Oncol. 2017 Jan 01;3(1):117-118 [PMID: 27893009]
  4. EClinicalMedicine. 2022 Sep 17;53:101662 [PMID: 36147628]
  5. Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Apr;161(1):130-134 [PMID: 33551203]
  6. Gynecol Oncol. 2019 Oct;155(1):27-33 [PMID: 31349997]
  7. Ann Oncol. 2016 Jan;27(1):16-41 [PMID: 26634381]
  8. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Mar;18(3):384-392 [PMID: 28159465]
  9. Gynecol Oncol. 2016 May;141(2):199-205 [PMID: 26905210]
  10. Front Oncol. 2020 Jan 21;9:1508 [PMID: 32039004]
  11. Pathol Oncol Res. 2020 Jul;26(3):1377-1384 [PMID: 31203571]
  12. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Sep;240:310-315 [PMID: 31377459]
  13. Lancet. 2009 Jan 10;373(9658):125-36 [PMID: 19070889]
  14. Int J Cancer. 2009 Jun 15;124(12):2938-41 [PMID: 19267407]
  15. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Sep;158(3):727-733 [PMID: 32600790]
  16. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jun;261:29-33 [PMID: 33873085]
  17. J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Sep;28(5):e59 [PMID: 28657221]
  18. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2012;5(1):28-34 [PMID: 22582124]
  19. Eur Radiol. 2020 Sep;30(9):4985-4994 [PMID: 32337640]
  20. Cancer. 1987 Oct 15;60(8 Suppl):2035-41 [PMID: 3652025]
  21. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2007 Sep;14(3):755-67 [PMID: 17914105]
  22. J Inflamm Res. 2021 Dec 21;14:7131-7142 [PMID: 34992410]
  23. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jun;182(6):1506-19 [PMID: 10871473]
  24. Gynecol Oncol. 1990 Feb;36(2):166-71 [PMID: 2298404]
  25. JAMA Surg. 2021 Feb 1;156(2):157-164 [PMID: 33175109]
  26. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Dec;147(3):541-548 [PMID: 28965698]
  27. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Sep;8(9):831-41 [PMID: 17765192]
  28. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Feb;29(2):312-319 [PMID: 30718312]
  29. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Oct;1207 Suppl 1:E94-102 [PMID: 20961312]
  30. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jan 18;20(3): [PMID: 36767092]
  31. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Dec;159(3):758-766 [PMID: 32981697]
  32. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr;14(4):200 [PMID: 28220050]
  33. Med Decis Making. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):565-74 [PMID: 17099194]
  34. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Dec 16;12:780769 [PMID: 34975754]
  35. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021 Aug;73:169-177 [PMID: 33130036]
  36. J Cancer. 2018 Mar 8;9(7):1173-1181 [PMID: 29675098]
  37. Int J Cancer. 2021 Jan 15;148(2):307-319 [PMID: 32851660]
  38. BMC Cancer. 2021 Jun 29;21(1):748 [PMID: 34187416]
  39. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jul;132(1):52-58 [PMID: 29889752]
  40. AJOG Glob Rep. 2023 Jan 05;3(1):100154 [PMID: 36691400]
  41. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Dec 3;100(23):1707-16 [PMID: 19033573]
  42. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Apr;29(4):2594-2599 [PMID: 34837130]
  43. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Jan;31(1):12-39 [PMID: 33397713]
  44. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jan;222(1):60.e1-60.e7 [PMID: 31401259]
  45. Cancer. 2017 Jan 1;123(2):263-272 [PMID: 28067948]
  46. Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1138-40 [PMID: 20188409]
  47. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 May;301(5):1117-1125 [PMID: 32253551]
  48. Gynecol Oncol. 2022 Apr;165(1):192-197 [PMID: 35078650]
  49. Ann Transl Med. 2021 Apr;9(7):538 [PMID: 33987236]
  50. Front Oncol. 2019 Oct 09;9:1007 [PMID: 31649877]
  51. Int J Cancer. 2020 Nov 1;147(9):2405-2415 [PMID: 32338769]
  52. Br J Cancer. 2014 Sep 23;111(7):1432-9 [PMID: 25051408]
  53. Diabetologia. 2007 Jul;50(7):1365-74 [PMID: 17476474]
  54. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Apr;109(1):11-8 [PMID: 18304622]
  55. Lancet. 2022 Apr 9;399(10333):1412-1428 [PMID: 35397864]
  56. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Mar;220(3):263.e1-263.e8 [PMID: 30521798]
  57. Eur Radiol. 2021 Jan;31(1):411-422 [PMID: 32749583]
  58. BMJ. 2016 Jan 25;352:i6 [PMID: 26810254]
  59. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 02;10:CD007585 [PMID: 28968482]
  60. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Feb;16(2):170-199 [PMID: 29439178]
  61. Gynecol Oncol. 2021 Aug;162(2):401-406 [PMID: 34088515]
  62. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Apr;129(1):28-32 [PMID: 23333911]
  63. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2022 Sep;65(5):395-405 [PMID: 35916013]
  64. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Oct;131(1):103-8 [PMID: 23845691]

Grants

  1. 82103419/National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. RDY2021-13/Research and Development Fund of Peking University People's Hospital

MeSH Term

Female
Humans
Nomograms
Lymphatic Metastasis
Metabolic Syndrome
Retrospective Studies
Endometrial Neoplasms
Lymph Nodes

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.00nomogrammetastasiscancernodeendometrial95%CI:ECriskMetabolicsyndromelymphLymphLNMfactorprognosispatientsdiagnosedtrainingvalidationpredictivepositiveinvasiontumorgroupcurveAUCMayocriteriarespectively0187BACKGROUND:importantaffectingCurrentcontroversyexistsaccuratelyassesslymphaticconsideredyeteffectremainselusivedevelopedintegratingmetabolicindicatorscrucialvariablespredictMETHODS:studybasedPekingUniversityPeople'sHospitalJanuary2004December2020total1076underwentstagingsurgerydividedcohortsaccordingratio2:1UnivariatemultivariatelogisticregressionanalysesuseddeterminesignificantfactorsRESULTS:predictionincludedMSRperitonealcytologyvascularspaceendometrioidhistologicaltypesize >  = 2 cmmyometrialinvasion >  = 50%cervicalstromalgradearea8581-0907777-083P < 0N = 35982-0938074-0P = 0CalibrationplotsrevealedsatisfactoryperformanceDecisionanalysisshowednetbenefitindicatedclinicalvalueCONCLUSION:modelmaypromotestratificationindividualizedtreatmentthusimprovingscoreindicatorEndometrialNomogram

Similar Articles

Cited By (4)