Construction of a predictive model for extracapsular extension after radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer based on SEER database
10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20240928-00429
- VernacularTitle:基于SEER数据库构建临床局限性前列腺癌根治术后包膜外侵犯的预测模型
- Author:
Zhiheng HUANG
1
;
Changbao XU
;
Han XU
;
Tianhe ZHANG
;
Haiyang WEI
;
Junfeng GAO
;
Changhui FAN
Author Information
1. 郑州大学第二附属医院泌尿外科，郑州 450000
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Prostatic neoplasms;
Carcinoma;
Clinically localized;
Extracapsular extension;
Predictive model;
SEER database
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2025;46(3):180-187
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the independent factors influencing extraprostatic extension (EPE) after radical prostatectomy(RP) in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer by utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. A nomogram model was developed and externally validated.Methods:Clinical and pathological data of 20 916 clinically localized prostate cancer patients (T 1-2N 0M 0) who underwent RP between 2010 and 2021 were extracted from the SEER database. The mean age was (61.71±7.09) years old, and a total of 17 835 patients (85.3%) were married.There were 2 243 patients (10.7%) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <4 ng/ml, 14 831 patients (70.9%) with ≥4 and <10 ng/ml, and 2 965 patients (14.2%) with ≥10 and <20 ng/ml. There were 14 870 patients (71.1%) with clinical staging of stage T 1, and 6 046 patients (28.9%) with T 2. There were 48 patients (0.2%) with pathological staging of stage T 1, 15 794 (75.5%) with T 2, 5 001(23.9%) with T 3, and 73 (0.3%) with T 4 stage after radical surgery.The patients of SEER database were divided into training and internal validation groups in a 7∶3 ratio by using stratified sampling. Additionally, data were collected for 75 clinically localized prostate cancer patients who underwent RP at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from September 2019 to September 2024, serving as the external validation group.The mean age was(65.39±7.45) years old. Among them, 73 (97.3%) were married. There were 2 patients (2.7%) with PSA <4 ng/ml, 17 patients (22.7%) with ≥4 and <10 ng/ml, and 34 patients (45.3%) with ≥10 and <20 ng/ml. There were 47 patients (62.7%) with clinical staging of stage T 1, and 28 patients (37.3%) with T 2. There were 7 patients (9.3%) with pathological staging of stage T 1, 48 patients (64.0%)with T 2, 18 patients (24.0%) with T 3, and 2 patients (2.7%) with T 4 stage after radical surgery. All patients were categorized into organ-confined (OC) and EPE groups based on post-surgical pathology. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, with a stepwise backward selection, were performed on the training group to identify independent risk factors of EPE, which were used to construct a nomogram model. Model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve area under the curve (AUC), calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA) for the training group, internal validation group, and external validation group. Results:EPE was observed in 3 585 cases (24.5%), 1 489 cases (23.8%), and 20 cases (26.7%) in the training, internal validation, and external validation groups, respectively. Logistic regression analyses identified preoperative age ( OR=1.026, P<0.001), PSA levels (≥10 and <20 ng/ml: OR=1.790, P<0.001; ≥20 ng/ml: OR=2.683, P<0.001), tumor maximum diameter (10-20 mm: OR=2.051, P<0.001; >20 mm: OR=3.937, P<0.001), biopsy Gleason score (score 7: OR=1.911, P<0.001; score 8: OR=2.906, P<0.001; score 9: OR = 5.278, P<0.001; score 10: OR=4.421, P=0.003), number of positive biopsy cores (≥4 cores: OR=1.260, P<0.001), and their proportion of total cores ( OR=1.012, P<0.001) as independent predictors of EPE. The nomogram model demonstrated good predictive performance, with AUC of 0.741, 0.748, and 0.724 in the training, internal validation, and external validation groups, respectively. Calibration and DCA curves confirmed the model’s excellent stability and generalizability. Conclusions:Age, PSA levels, maximum tumor diameter, biopsy Gleason score, number of positive biopsy cores, and their proportion of total cores are independent predictors of EPE after RP in clinically localized prostate cancer. The constructed model effectively predicts the risk of EPE occurrence.
