4.7 Article

DEVELOPMENT AND EXTERNAL VALIDATION OF PROGNOSTIC MODEL FOR 2-YEAR SURVIVAL OF NON-SMALL-CELL LUNG CANCER PATIENTS TREATED WITH CHEMORADIOTHERAPY

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.08.052

关键词

Non-small-cell lung cancer; NSCLC; Prognostic model; Radiotherapy; Chemotherapy; Nomogram

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Radiotherapy, combined with chemotherapy, is the treatment of choice for a large group of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Recent developments in the treatment of these patients have led to improved survival. However, the clinical TNM stage is highly inaccurate for the prediction of survival, and alternatives are lacking. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model for survival of NSCLC patients, treated with chemoradiotherapy. Patients and Methods: The clinical data from 377 consecutive inoperable NSCLC patients, Stage I-IIIB, treated radically with chemoradiotherapy were collected. A prognostic model for 2-year survival was developed, using 2-norm support vector machines. The performance of the model was expressed as the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic and assessed using leave-one-out cross-validation, as well as two external data sets. Results: The final multivariate model consisted of gender, World Health Organization performance status, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, number of positive lymph node stations, and gross tumor volume. The area under the curve, assessed by leave-one-out cross-validation, was 0.74, and application of the model to the external data sets yielded an area under the curve of 0.75 and 0.76. A high- and low-risk group could be clearly identified using a risk score based on the model. Conclusion: The multivariate model performed very well and was able to accurately predict the 2-year survival of NSCLC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. The model could support clinicians in the treatment decision-making process. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据