Nomograms for predicting the survival rate of stage T1−T2 uterine cervical adenocarcinoma patients after hysterectomy
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, 350000 Fuzhou, Fujian, China
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fuding General Hospital, 355200 Fuding, Fujian, China
DOI: 10.22514/ejgo.2022.044 Vol.43,Issue 5,October 2022 pp.71-84
Submitted: 12 June 2022 Accepted: 16 August 2022
Published: 15 October 2022
† These authors contributed equally.
To explore factors associated with the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients with stage T1–T2 uterine cervical adenocarcinoma (UAC) after hysterectomy and develop nomogram models to predict their prognosis. The data of stage T1–T2 UAC patients after hysterectomy, diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, were retrieved and divided into a training cohort (n = 2103) and internal validation cohort (n = 1052). Another dataset of eligible patients (n = 107) diagnosed from 2013 to 2019 at the Fujian Maternal and Child Health Hospital was retrieved as the external validation set. Nomograms were developed by the results of univariate and multivariate Cox regression models of OS and CSS. C-index, calibration curve, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) value were used to assess the prediction model. Age, race, marital status, tumor grade, T stage, tumor size and number of positive lymph nodes were identified as independent prognostic factors for OS and CSS. The number of primary tumors was a specific influencing factor for OS, and postoperative radiotherapy was a beneficial factor for CSS. The C-indexes of OS and CSS nomograms constructed in this study in the training cohort were 0.825 (0800–0.850) and 0.820 (0.789–0.851), higher than the 0.701 (0.671–0.731) and 0.735 (0.702–0.768) of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, p < 0.001. The prediction ability of the nomogram models was successfully validated in both the internal and external validation cohorts. The established nomogram models had high prediction accuracy for predicting the OS and CSS of stage T1–T2 UAC patients after hysterectomy and were superior to the FIGO stage. They could help clinicians accurately predict patients’ prognoses and select the best treatment plan.
Uterine cervical adenocarcinoma; Overall survival; Cancer-special survival; Nomogram; FIGO
Hui Zheng,Shaoyu Zhang,Huan Yi,Xiangqin Zheng. Nomograms for predicting the survival rate of stage T1−T2 uterine cervical adenocarcinoma patients after hysterectomy. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2022. 43(5);71-84.
 Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. The Lancet. Global Health. 2020; 8: e191–e203.
 Islami F, Fedewa SA, Jemal A. Trends in cervical cancer incidence rates by age, race/ethnicity, histological subtype, and stage at diagnosis in the United States. Preventive Medicine. 2019; 123: 316–323.
 Matsuo K, Shimada M, Nakamura K, Takei Y, Ushijima K, Sumi T, et al. Predictors for pathological parametrial invasion in clinical stage IIB cervical cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2019; 45: 1417–1424.
 Jung EJ, Byun JM, Kim YN, Lee KB, Sung MS, Kim KT, et al. Cervical adenocarcinoma has a poorer prognosis and a higher propensity for distant recurrence than squamous cell carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2017; 27: 1228–1236.
 Yokoi E, Mabuchi S, Takahashi R, Matsumoto Y, Kuroda H, Kozasa K, et al. Impact of histological subtype on survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer that were treated with definitive radiotherapy: adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma versus squamous cell carcinoma. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2017; 28: e19.
 Gien LT, Beauchemin M, Thomas G. Adenocarcinoma: a unique cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2010; 116: 140–146.
 Xie X, Song K, Cui B, Jiang J, Yang X, Kong B. A comparison of the prognosis between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer. International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2018; 23: 522–531.
 Abu-Rustum NR, Yashar CM, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Chon HS, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: cervical cancer, version 1.2020. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2020; 18: 660–666.
 Ni X, Ma X, Qiu J, Zhou S, Cheng W, Luo C. Development and validation of a novel nomogram to predict cancer-specific survival in patients with uterine cervical adenocarcinoma. Annals of Translational Medicine. 2021; 9: 293–293.
 Ning L, Zhang W, Yang J, Cao D, Lang J, Yu M. Prognostic factors of FIGO stage I-IIA small-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2018; 142: 374–375.
 Yang X, Wang M, Kou L, Lai H, Wu D. Conditional survival for high-risk early-stage cervical cancer patients with lymph node metastasis after hysterectomy. Current Problems in Cancer. 2021; 45: 100756.
 Balachandran VP, Gonen M, Smith JJ, DeMatteo RP. Nomograms in oncology: more than meets the eye. The Lancet Oncology. 2015; 16: e173–e180.
 Yin J, Yang Y, Ma K, Yang X, Lu T, Wang S, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of pulmonary pleomorphic carcinoma: a population-based retrospective study using SEER data. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2018; 10: 4262–4273.
 He J, Albertsen PC, Moore D, Rotter D, Demissie K, Lu-Yao G. Validation of a contemporary five-tiered gleason grade grouping using population-based data. European Urology. 2017; 71: 760–763.
 Zhou H, Li X, Zhang Y, Jia Y, Hu T, Yang R, et al. Establishing a nomogram for stage IA–IIB cervical cancer patients after complete resection. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2015; 16: 3773–3777.
 Hankey BF, Ries LA, Edwards BK. The surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program: a national resource. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. 1999; 8: 1117–1121.
 Sherman ME, Wang SS, Carreon J, Devesa SS. Mortality trends for cervical squamous and adenocarcinoma in the United States. Cancer. 2005; 103: 1258–1264.
 Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, Denny LA, Grenman S, Karunaratne K, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2019; 145: 129–135.
 Kwon J, Eom K, Kim YS, Park W, Chun M, Lee J, et al. The prognostic impact of the number of metastatic lymph nodes and a new prognostic scoring system for recurrence in early-stage cervical cancer with high risk factors: a multicenter cohort study (KROG 15-04). Cancer Research and Treatment. 2018; 50: 964–974.
 Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, Rimm DL. X-tile. Clinical Cancer Research. 2004; 10: 7252–7259.
 McGregor S, Saulo D, Brotherton JML, Liu B, Phillips S, Skinner SR, et al. Decline in prevalence of human papillomavirus infection following vaccination among Australian Indigenous women, a population at higher risk of cervical cancer: the VIP-I study. Vaccine. 2018; 36: 4311–4316.
 Bray F, Carstensen B, Møller H, Zappa M, Žakelj MP, Lawrence G, et al. Incidence trends of adenocarcinoma of the cervix in 13 European countries. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2005; 14: 2191–2199.
 Huang Y, Wang C, Tsai C, Lai C, Chang T, Chou H, et al. Long-term outcome and prognostic factors for adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma of cervix after definitive radiotherapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology-Biology-Physics. 2011; 80: 429–436.
 Jonska-Gmyrek J, Gmyrek L, Zolciak-Siwinska A, Kowalska M, Kotowicz B. Adenocarcinoma histology is a poor prognostic factor in locally advanced cervical cancer. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2019; 35: 595–601.
 Zhou J, Chen Y, Xu X, Yan D, Lou H. Postoperative clinicopathological factors affecting cervical adenocarcinoma. Medicine. 2018; 97: e9323.
 Khalil J, Bellefqih S, Afif M, Elkacemi H, Kebdani T, Benjaafar N. Prognostic factors affecting cervical adenocarcinoma: 10 years experience in a single institution. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015; 292: 915–921.
 Buja A, Lago L, Lago S, Vinelli A, Zanardo C, Baldo V. Marital status and stage of cancer at diagnosis: a systematic review. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2018; 27: e12755.
 Mabuchi S, Okazawa M, Kinose Y, Matsuo K, Fujiwara M, Suzuki O, et al. Comparison of the prognoses of FIGO Stage I to Stage II adenosquamous carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with radical hysterectomy. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2012; 22: 1389–1397.
 Matsuo K, Mandelbaum RS, Machida H, Purushotham S, Grubbs BH, Roman LD, et al. Association of tumor differentiation grade and survival of women with squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2018; 29: e91.
 Huynh-Le M, Klapheke A, Cress R, Mell LK, Yashar CM, Einck JP, et al. Impact of marital status on receipt of brachytherapy and survival outcomes in locally advanced cervical cancer. Brachytherapy. 2019; 18: 612–619.
 Galic V, Herzog TJ, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Burke WM, Lu Y, et al. Prognostic significance of adenocarcinoma histology in women with cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012; 125: 287–291.
 Wang M, Yuan B, Zhou Z, Han W. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic factors of cervical adenocarcinoma. Scientific Reports. 2021; 11: 7506.
 Liu Y, Tu H, Zhang L, Zhong M, Wang Y, Li L, et al. The best postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with early stage cervical adenosquamous carcinoma. BMC Women’S Health. 2022; 22: 112.
 Feng Y, Wang Y, Xie Y, Wu S, Li Y, Li M. Nomograms predicting the overall survival and cancer-specific survival of patients with stage IIIC1 cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2021; 21: 450.
 Iasonos A, Schrag D, Raj GV, Panageas KS. How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2008; 26: 1364–1370.
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.