Clinical Evaluation of Two Different Prevention Programs in Adults Depending on Their Caries Risk Profile: One-year Results

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
E Achilleos ◽  
C Rahiotis ◽  
K Kavvadia ◽  
G Vougiouklakis
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Risk Profile ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Caries Risk ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Incipient Caries ◽  
One Year

SUMMARYThe aim of this study was to investigate the management of incipient caries lesions in adults with two preventive protocols. A total of 44 adult patients with high, moderate and low caries risk with 516 incipient caries took part in the study. These patients were assessed for caries with International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) criteria and were then divided into three groups depending on their caries risk profile: a high-risk group (group A), a moderate-risk group (group B), and a low-risk group (group C). Participants in each group were further divided randomly into two subgroups. In subgroups A1, B1, and C1, an intensive preventive protocol was applied, while in subgroups A2, B2, and C2, the protocol consisted only of instructions in oral hygiene. The invasive-intensive protocol included the topical application of fluoride, brushing with 5000-ppm fluoride toothpaste, use of amorphous calcium phosphate-casein phosphopeptide, applications of sealants for occlusal lesions (ICDAS code 2), and minimal resin restorations for occlusal lesions (ICDAS code 3). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of lesions (baseline and after one year) in the high-risk and moderate-risk groups that received the intensive protocol (groups A1 and B1), while the control groups were statistically significant different (groups A2 and B2). In the low-risk group, there was no statistically significant difference in the number of lesions (groups C1 and C2). The two different preventive protocols in the high- and moderate-risk groups presented differences in effectiveness, while in the low-risk group, no significant difference was demonstrated.

scholarly journals Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index as a Tool to Evaluate Impact of Malnutrition Risk on Mortality in Adult Patients with Polytrauma

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (24) ◽  
pp. 9233
Author(s):  
Cheng-Hsi Yeh ◽  
Shao-Chun Wu ◽  
Sheng-En Chou ◽  
Wei-Ti Su ◽  
Ching-Hua Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Survival Group ◽  
Nutritional Risk Index

Background: Identification of malnutrition is especially important in severely injured patients, in whom hypermetabolism and protein catabolism following traumatic injury worsen their nutritional condition. The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), based on serum albumin level and the current body weight/ideal body weight ratio, is useful for identifying patients with malnutrition in many clinical conditions. This study aimed to explore the association between admission GNRI and mortality outcomes of adult patients with polytrauma. Methods: From 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2019, a total of 348 adult patients with polytrauma, registered in the trauma database of a level I trauma center, were recognized and categorized into groups of death (n = 71) or survival (n = 277) and into four nutritional risk groups: a high-risk group (GNRI < 82, n = 87), a moderate-risk group (GNRI 82 to <92, n = 144), a low-risk group (GNRI 92–98, n = 59), and a no-risk group (GNRI > 98, n = 58). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent risk factors for mortality. The mortality outcomes of patients at various nutritional risks were compared to those of patients in the no-risk group. Results: The comparison between the death group (n = 71) and the survival group (n = 277) revealed that there was no significant difference in gender predominance, age, pre-existing comorbidities, injury mechanism, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate upon arrival at the emergency room. A significantly lower GNRI and Glasgow Coma Scale score but higher injury severity score (ISS) was observed in the death group than in the survival group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), odds ratio (OR), 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83–0.95; p < 0.001), ISS (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04–1.11; p < 0.001), and GNRI (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91–0.97; p < 0.001) were significant independent risk factors for mortality in these patients. The mortality rates for the high-risk, moderate-risk, low-risk, and no-risk groups were 34.5%, 20.1%, 8.5%, and 12.1%, respectively. Unlike patients in the moderate-risk and low-risk groups, patients in the high-risk group had a significantly higher death rate than that of those in the no-risk group. Conclusions: This study revealed that the GNRI may serve as a simple, promising screening tool to identify the high risk of malnutrition for mortality in adult patients with polytrauma.

scholarly journals Risk-Adapted Postmastectomy Radiotherapy Decision Based on Prognostic Nomogram for pT1-2N1M0 Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming Li ◽  
Jinbo Yue ◽  
Xiangbo Wan ◽  
Bin Hua ◽  
Qiuan Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Locoregional Recurrence ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference

PurposeThe aim of this study was to develop a widely accepted prognostic nomogram and establish a risk-adapted PMRT strategy based on locoregional recurrence for pT1-2N1M0 breast cancer.Methods and MaterialsA total of 3,033 patients with pT1-2N1M0 breast cancer treated at 6 participating institutions between 2000 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. A nomogram was developed to predicted locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS). A propensity score-matched (PSM) analyses was performed in risk-adapted model.ResultsWith the median follow-up of 65.0 months, the 5-year overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and LRFS were 93.0, 84.8, and 93.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between patients who received PMRT or not for the entire group. A nomogram was developed and validated to estimate the probability of 5-year LRFS based on five independent factors including age, primary tumor site, positive lymph nodes number, pathological T stage, and molecular subtype that were selected by a multivariate analysis of patients who did not receive PMRT in the primary cohort. According to the total nomogram risk scores, the entire patients were classified into low- (40.0%), moderate- (42.4%), and high-risk group (17.6%). The 5-year outcomes were significantly different among these three groups (P&lt;0.001). In low-risk group, patients who received PMRT or not both achieved a favorable OS, DFS, and LRFS. In moderate-risk group, no differences in OS, DFS, and LRFS were observed between PMRT and no PMRT patients. In high-risk group, compared with no PMRT, PMRT resulted in significantly different OS (86.8 vs 83.9%, P = 0.050), DFS (77.2 vs 70.9%, P = 0.049), and LRFS (90.8 vs. 81.6%, P = 0.003). After PSM adjustment, there were no significant differences in OS, DFS, and LRFS in low-risk and moderate-risk groups. However, in the high-risk group, PMRT still resulted in significantly better OS, DFS and improved LRFS.ConclusionsThe proposed nomogram provides an individualized risk estimate of LRFS in patients with pT1-2N1M0 breast cancer. Risk-adapted PMRT for high-risk patients is a viable effective strategy.

scholarly journals Oseltamivir, Lopinavir/ritonavir and Reduning May Improve Survival of COVID-19 Patients With High-risk

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
zhiyong zeng ◽  
Chaohui Wu ◽  
Zhenlv Lin ◽  
Yong Ye ◽  
Shaodan Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Lasso Regression ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Reduning Injection ◽  
Total Point

Abstract Background No therapeutics have demonstrated specific efficacy for patients with COVID-19. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 351 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the Third People's Hospital of Yichang from 9 January to 25 March, 2020.Univariate logistic regression and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression were employed to identify risk factors associated with progression, which were then incorporated into the nomogram. Survival of patients between high-risk and low-risk groups was compared by kaplan-Meier analysis. Moreover, we assessed the effects of existing common drugs on survival of patients with high-risk. Results Based on the LASSO, four variables (white blood cell, C-reactive protein, whether lymphocyte ≥ 0.8 × 109/L, and whether lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 400 U/L) were selected for construction of the nomogram. Patients in the total cohort were stratified into low-risk group (total point < 160) and high-risk group (total point ≥ 160). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that there was significant difference in survival of patients between high-risk and low-risk groups (8-week survival rate: 71.41% vs 100%, P < 0.0001). Among the common drugs, we found that patients with high-risk received oseltamivir, lopinavir/ritonavir or Reduning injection exhibited better survival. The combination of these three drugs showed the effect of improving survival, although single drug may have no effect in different grouping analysis. Conclusions The combination of oseltamivir, lopinavir/ritonavir and Reduning injection may improve survival of COVID-19 patients with high-risk identified by our simple-to-use nomogram.

scholarly journals Predicting the difference in treatment response and survival time of lung adenocarcinoma patients based on a prognostic risk model of glycolysis-related genes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rongchang Zhao ◽  
Dan Ding ◽  
Yan Ding ◽  
Rongbo Han ◽  
Xiujuan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Lung Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Roc Curve ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Multiple factors affect the survival time of patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). Specifically, the therapeutic effect of medicines and the disease recurrence probability differs among patients with the same stage of LUAD. Thus, effective prognostic predictors need to be identified. Methods Based on the tumor mutation burden (TMB) data obtained by TCGA, LUAD was divided into high and low groups, and the differentially expressed glycolysis-related genes between the two groups were screened out. Cox regression was used to obtain a prognostic model. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and calibration curve were generated to evaluate the nomogram that was constructed based on clinicopathological characteristics and the risk score. Two datasets (GSE68465 and GSE11969) from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) were used to verify the prognostic performance of the gene. Furthermore, differences in immune cell distribution, immune-related molecules and drug susceptibility were assessed for their relationship with the risk score. Results We confirmed a 5-gene signature (FKBP4, HMMR, B4GALT1, ERO1L, ENO1) capable of dividing patients into two risk groups. There was a significant difference in overall survival (OS) times between the high-risk group and the low-risk group (P = 1.085e-4), with the low-risk group having a better survival outcome. Through multivariate Cox analysis, the risk score was confirmed to be an independent prognostic factor (HR = 1.289, 95% CI = 1.202-1.383, P < 0.001), and the ROC curve and nomogram exhibited accurate prediction performance. Validation of the data obtained in the GEO database yielded similar results. Additionally, there were significant differences in cisplatin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, docetaxel, gefitiniband erlotinib sensitivity between the low-risk and high-risk groups. Conclusions Our results reveal that glycolysis-related gene are feasible predictors of LUAD patient survival and response to therapeutics.

scholarly journals Clinical management of vesicoureteral reflux with respect to EAU Guidelines: A multicenter study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eda Tokat ◽  
Serhat Gurocak ◽  
Seçil Özkan ◽  
Hasan Serkan Dogan ◽  
Burak Citamak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference

Purpose: We designed a multicenter, retrospective study to investigate the current trends in initial management of reflux with respect to EAU guidelines in Urology clinics of our country. Materials and Methods: The study group consisted of 1988 renal units (RU) of 1345 patients treated surgically due to VUR between years 2003-2017 in 9 different institutions. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to time of initial treatment and also grouped according to risk factors by “EAU guidelines on VUR”. Results: 1426 RUs were treated initially conservatively and 562 RUs were initially treated with surgery. In initially surgically treated group, success rates of surgery decreased significantly in low and moderate risk groups after 2013 (p=0.046, p=0.0001, respectively), while success rates were not significantly different in high risk group (p=0.46). While 26.6% of patients in low risk group were initially surgically treated before 2013, this rate has increased to 34.6% after 2013, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.096). However, performing surgery as the initial treatment approach increased significantly in both moderate and high risk groups (p=0.000 and p=0.0001, respectively) after 2013. Overall success rates of endoscopic and UNC operations were 65% and 92.9% before 2013, 60% and 78.5% after 2013, respectively. Thus the overall success rate for surgery was 72.6%. There was significant difference between success rates of UNC operations before and after 2013(p=0.000), while the difference was not significant in the STING group (p=0.076). Conclusion: Current trends in management of reflux in our country do not yet follow the EAU guidelines on VUR in low and moderate risk groups.

4970Validation of ESC/ERS 2015 guidelines risk score in patients with scleroderma associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH)

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Fayed ◽  
M Ahmad ◽  
R Abdelkhalek ◽  
T Kotecha ◽  
J Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Risk Profile ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Swedish Model ◽  
French Group ◽  
One Year

Abstract Background The ESC/ERS 2015 guidelines presented a comprehensive risk assessment model with three risk categories based on different clinical and biomarkers data. Low, intermediate and high risk were defined with one-year mortality of <5%, 5–10% and >10%. Different groups suggested different methods of risk assessment based on this model. Purpose We applied three different methods to validate the ESC/ERS risk prediction model for one-year survival in SSc-PAH. Methods 309 patients with SSc-PAH have been diagnosed and managed in our institution from 2006 to 2017. We used three different risk assessment models that have been previously suggested. 1. Suggested by the Swedish group 1: Having a score of 1 (low risk), 2 (intermediate risk) or 3 (high risk) resulting from the average of the sum obtained after grading each of the variables (whichever available) from 1 to 3 according to ESC/ERS guidelines cut-offs for WHO-functional class (FC), 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), NT-Pro BNP, right atrial pressure (RAP) and cardiac index (CI). 2. Suggested by the French group 2: Having none, 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the following low-risk criteria of; FC, 6MWD, RAP and CI. 3. Instead of the invasive data, The French group also suggested the use of a non-invasive model including NT-Pro BNP. Patients were divided into different risk groups according to data obtained at baseline and at their 6-month follow-up. Survival analysis over a 5-year period was performed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results Overall median follow-up was 33.3 months. One year survival was significantly different between the risk groups (p<0.001) using either baseline or follow-up data. Applying the French group non-invasive model, almost two thirds of the population ended up in the higher risk group. Whilst applying the Swedish model, two thirds of the population ended up in the intermediate risk group. In all the models used, there were significantly less number of patients in the lower risk groups at onset with improvement of risk profile at follow up. An important advantage of the Swedish model, that it can be calculated even in the presence of missing data, a problem commonly encountered. The French models are easier to calculate but they cannot be applied when there is missing data. 5-year survival with different models Conclusion All models used were valuable in risk prediction of SSc-PAH both at onset and at follow up. However, each model has some caveats which should be considered. In all the methods used, the prevalence of high risk criteria is higher amongst the SSc-PAH population which indicates the higher risk profile at the time of diagnosis in comparison to other PAH populations, which could explain the poorer outcome.

scholarly journals A Peri-Implant Disease Risk Score for Patients with Dental Implants: Validation and the Influence of the Interval between Maintenance Appointments

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel de Araújo Nobre ◽  
Francisco Salvado ◽  
Paulo Nogueira ◽  
Evangelista Rocha ◽  
Peter Ilg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Risk Profile ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
C Statistic ◽  
Disease Risk Score ◽  
Very High

Background: There is a need for tools that provide prediction of peri-implant disease. The purpose of this study was to validate a risk score for peri-implant disease and to assess the influence of the recall regimen in disease incidence based on a five-year retrospective cohort. Methods: Three hundred and fifty-three patients with 1238 implants were observed. A risk score was calculated from eight predictors and risk groups were established. Relative risk (RR) was estimated using logistic regression, and the c-statistic was calculated. The effect/impact of the recall regimen (≤ six months; > six months) on the incidence of peri-implant disease was evaluated for a subset of cases and matched controls. The RR and the proportional attributable risk (PAR) were estimated. Results: At baseline, patients fell into the following risk profiles: low-risk (n = 102, 28.9%), moderate-risk (n = 68, 19.3%), high-risk (n = 77, 21.8%), and very high-risk (n = 106, 30%). The incidence of peri-implant disease over five years was 24.1% (n = 85 patients). The RR for the risk groups was 5.52 (c-statistic = 0.858). The RR for a longer recall regimen was 1.06, corresponding to a PAR of 5.87%. Conclusions: The risk score for estimating peri-implant disease was validated and showed very good performance. Maintenance appointments of < six months or > six months did not influence the incidence of peri-implant disease when considering the matching of cases and controls by risk profile.

Short-term risk stratification using CADILLAC risk score in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Satou ◽  
H Kitahara ◽  
K Ishikawa ◽  
T Nakayama ◽  
Y Fujimoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Recurrent Myocardial Infarction ◽  
St Elevation

Abstract Background The recent reperfusion therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has made the length of hospital stay shorter without adverse events. CADILLAC risk score is reportedly one of the risk scores predicting the long-term prognosis in STEMI patients. Purpose To invenstigate the usefulness of CADILLAC risk score for predicting short-term outcomes in STEMI patients. Methods Consecutive patients admitted to our university hospital and our medical center with STEMI (excluding shock, arrest case) who underwent primary PCI between January 2012 and April 2018 (n=387) were enrolled in this study. The patients were classified into 3 groups according to the CADILLAC risk score: low risk (n=176), intermediate risk (n=87), and high risk (n=124). Data on adverse events within 30 days after hospitalization, including in-hospital death, sustained ventricular arrhythmia, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure requiring intravenous treatment, stroke, or clinical hemorrhage, were collected. Results In the low risk group, adverse events within 30 days were significantly less observed, compared to the intermediate and high risk groups (n=13, 7.4% vs. n=13, 14.9% vs. n=58, 46.8%, p&lt;0.001). In particular, all adverse events occurred within 3 days in the low risk group, although adverse events, such as heart failure (n=4), recurrent myocardial infarction (n=1), stroke (n=1), and gastrointestinal bleeding (n=1), were substantially observed after day 4 of hospitalization in the intermediate and high risk groups. Conclusions In STEMI patients with low CADILLAC risk score, better short-term prognosis was observed compared to the intermediate and high risk groups, and all adverse events occurred within 3 days of hospitalization, suggesting that discharge at day 4 might be safe in this study population. CADILLAC risk score may help stratify patient risk for short-term prognosis and adjust management of STEMI patients. Initial event occurrence timing Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Chen ◽  
Dongru Chen ◽  
Huancai Lin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Caries Risk ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Caries Lesions

Abstract Background Infiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; however, their efficacies under different conditions remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of infiltration and sealing and to further analyse their efficacies across different dentition types and caries risk levels. Methods Six electronic databases were searched for published literature, and references were manually searched. Split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness between infiltration/sealing and non-invasive treatments in proximal lesions were included. The primary outcome was obtained from radiographical readings. Results In total, 1033 citations were identified, and 17 RCTs (22 articles) were included. Infiltration and sealing reduced the odds of lesion progression (infiltration vs. non-invasive: OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.15–0.30; sealing vs. placebo: OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.18–0.42). For both the primary and permanent dentitions, infiltration and sealing were more effective than non-invasive treatments (primary dentition: OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20–0.45; permanent dentition: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). The overall effects of infiltration and sealing were significantly different from the control effects based on different caries risk levels (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), there were significant differences between micro-invasive and non-invasive treatments (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.10–0.29; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.07–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), infiltration was superior (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.10–0.39; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.05–0.37). Conclusion Infiltration and sealing were more efficacious than non-invasive treatments for halting non-cavitated proximal lesions.

scholarly journals Immune‐related Long Noncoding RNA Signature for Patients with Cervical Cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianfeng Zheng ◽  
Jinyi Tong ◽  
Benben Cao ◽  
Xia Zhang ◽  
Zheng Niu
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Immune Cell ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Gene Set Enrichment Analysis ◽  
Training Set ◽  
Score Model

Abstract Background: Cervical cancer (CC) is a common gynecological malignancy for which prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers are urgently needed. The signature based on immune‐related lncRNAs(IRLs) of CC has never been reported. This study aimed to establish an IRL signature for patients with CC.Methods: The RNA-seq dataset was obtained from the TCGA, GEO, and GTEx database. The immune scores（IS）based on single-sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) were calculated to identify the IRLs, which were then analyzed using univariate Cox regression analysis to identify significant prognostic IRLs. A risk score model was established to divide patients into low-risk and high-risk groups based on the median risk score of these IRLs. This was then validated by splitting TCGA dataset(n=304) into a training-set(n=152) and a valid-set(n=152). The fraction of 22 immune cell subpopulations was evaluated in each sample to identify the differences between low-risk and high-risk groups. Additionally, a ceRNA network associated with the IRLs was constructed.Results: A cohort of 326 CC and 21 normal tissue samples with corresponding clinical information was included in this study. Twenty-eight IRLs were collected according to the Pearson’s correlation analysis between immune score and lncRNA expression (P < 0.01). Four IRLs (BZRAP1-AS1, EMX2OS, ZNF667-AS1, and CTC-429P9.1) with the most significant prognostic values (P < 0.05) were identified which demonstrated an ability to stratify patients into low-risk and high-risk groups by developing a risk score model. It was observed that patients in the low‐risk group showed longer overall survival (OS) than those in the high‐risk group in the training-set, valid-set, and total-set. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) for the four IRLs signature in predicting the one-, two-, and three-year survival rates were larger than 0.65. In addition, the low-risk and high-risk groups displayed different immune statuses in GSEA. These IRLs were also significantly correlated with immune cell infiltration. Conclusions: Our results showed that the IRL signature had a prognostic value for CC. Meanwhile, the specific mechanisms of the four-IRLs in the development of CC were ascertained preliminarily.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document