Zhu Xin, Gou Xin, Zhou Mi
Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Front Oncol. 2019 Jul 16;9:646. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00646. eCollection 2019.
Different proportions of Gleason pattern 3 and Gleason pattern 4 lead to various prognosis of prostate cancer with Gleason score 7. The objective of this study was to compare the survival outcomes of Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3 based on data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry database, and to investigate independent prognosis-associated factors and develop nomograms for predicting survival in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer patients. A retrospective study was conducted on 69,116 cases diagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma with Gleason score 7 between 2004 and 2009. Prognosis-associated factors were evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis, and a 1:1 ratio paired cohort by propensity score matching with the statistical software IBM SPSS, to evaluate prognostic differences between Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3. The primary cohort was randomly divided into training set ( = 48,384) and validation set ( = 20,732). Based on the independent factors of prognosis, nomograms for prognosis were established by the training group and validated by the validation group using R version 3.5.0. After propensity score matching, Cox regression analysis showed that Gleason 4+3 had an increased mortality risk both for overall survival (HR: 1.235, 95% CI: 1.179-1.294, < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (HR: 1.606, 95% CI: 1.468-1.762, < 0.001). Nomograms for overall survival and cancer-specific survival were established with C-index 0.786 and 0.842, respectively. The calibration plot indicated an optimal agreement between the actual observation and nomogram prediction for overall survival and cancer-specific survival probability at 5 or 10 year. Prostate cancer with Gleason score 4+3 had worse overall survival and cancer-specific survival than Gleason score 3+4. Nomograms were formulated to predict 5-year and 10-year OS and CSS in patients with prostate cancer of Gleason score 7.
Gleason 3级和Gleason 4级的不同比例导致Gleason评分为7分的前列腺癌具有不同的预后。本研究的目的是基于监测、流行病学和最终结果癌症登记数据库的数据,比较Gleason评分3 + 4和4 + 3的生存结果,调查独立的预后相关因素,并为预测Gleason评分为7分的前列腺癌患者的生存情况制定列线图。对2004年至2009年间诊断为Gleason评分为7分的前列腺腺癌的69116例病例进行了回顾性研究。使用单因素和多因素Cox回归分析评估预后相关因素,并使用统计软件IBM SPSS通过倾向得分匹配进行1:1比例配对队列,以评估Gleason评分3 + 4和4 + 3之间的预后差异。将主要队列随机分为训练集(n = 48384)和验证集(n = 20732)。基于预后的独立因素,由训练组建立预后列线图,并使用R 3.5.0版本由验证组进行验证。倾向得分匹配后,Cox回归分析显示,Gleason 4 + 3在总生存期(HR:1.235,95%CI:1.179 - 1.294,P < 0.001)和癌症特异性生存期(HR:1.606,95%CI:1.468 - 1.762,P < 0.001)方面均有更高的死亡风险。建立了总生存期和癌症特异性生存期的列线图,C指数分别为0.786和0.842。校准图表明在5年或10年时,实际观察结果与列线图预测的总生存期和癌症特异性生存概率之间具有最佳一致性。Gleason评分4 + 3的前列腺癌的总生存期和癌症特异性生存期比Gleason评分3 + 4的前列腺癌更差。制定了列线图以预测Gleason评分为7分的前列腺癌患者的5年和10年总生存期及癌症特异性生存期。