The ability of different Briganti nomograms to predict lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer
10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20221203-00645
- VernacularTitle:不同版本Briganti列线图对前列腺癌淋巴结转移预测效能的比较研究
- Author:
Xianqi SHEN
1
;
Wenhui ZHANG
;
Shaoqin JIANG
;
Yan WANG
;
Min QU
;
Xu GAO
Author Information
1. 上海长海医院泌尿外科，上海 200433
- Keywords:
Prostatic neoplasms;
Carcinoma;
Lymph node metastasis;
Nomogram;
Comparative
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2023;44(4):270-275
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the predictive efficacy of different versions of Briganti nomogram in predicting lymph node metastasis in Chinese patients with prostate cancer.Methods:From October 2012 to April 2021, 583 cases with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy by a single surgeon were retrospectively collected. For all 583 patients, the median age was 67 (63, 72)years old, median BMI was 24.39(22.58, 26.35)kg/m 2, median PSA was 22(12, 43)ng/ml. There were 65 cases, 357 cases, 140 cases and 21 cases with clinical stage T 1, T 2, T 3 and T 4. There were 30 cases, 109 cases, 104 cases, 160 cases and 180 cases for ISUP 1 group, 2 group, 3 group, 4 group and 5 group. The median percentage of positive biopsy cores was 50%(33%-83%). The validated nomograms were Briganti's 2006, 2012 and 2017. Compared with the 2006 edition, the new variables in the 2012 edition and 2017 edition were the percentage of positive biopsy cores, the percentage of the highest grade positive biopsy cores and the percentage of the lower grade positive biopsy cores, respectively. The validation patients for the 2006, 2012 and 2017 versions of nomogram were 560, 513 and 357, respectively, which were used as the differential validation cohorts. A total of 357 patients were validated for all three versions of nomogram, which was considered as the general validation cohort. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), calibration curve and clinical decision curve analysis were used to evaluate the predictive efficacy of the three versions of nomograms. Results:In the differential validation cohort, the AUC values of the 2006, 2012 and 2017 versions of the nomogram were 0.738(95% CI 0.690-0.785), 0.765(95% CI 0.717-0.814) and 0.779(95% CI 0.724-0.834), respectively. There was no significant difference in AUC values among versions ( P>0.05). In the general validation cohort, the AUC values of the three versions of the nomogram were as follows 0.744(95% CI 0.682-0.805), 0.759(95% CI 0.700-0.818) and 0.779(95% CI 0.724-0.834), respectively. There was no significant difference in AUC values among the three versions ( P>0.05). The calibration curve showed that the prediction probability of 2012 and 2017 editions was in good agreement with the actual risk within the prediction probability of 0-40%. Analysis of the clinical decision curve showed that the clinical benefit of the 2012 version was greater than that of the other two versions in the prediction threshold of 0-33%. Conclusion:Briganti nomogram is suitable for predicting pelvic lymph node metastasis in Chinese patients with prostate cancer. The 2012 and 2017 versions of the nomogram have good predictive performance, and the versions can be selected according to the predictive variables that can be provided.
