scholarly journals Oncologic Nomogram for Stage I Rectal Cancer to Assist Patient Selection for Adjuvant (Chemo)Radiotherapy Following Local Excision

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shutao Zhao ◽  
Xin Chen ◽  
Dacheng Wen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Xudong Wang
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
High Survival ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Background: Because of the low rate of lymph node metastasis in stage I rectal cancer (RC), local resection (LR) can achieve high survival benefits and quality of life. However, the indications for postoperative adjuvant therapy (AT) remain controversial.Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 6,486 patients with RC (pT1/T2) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were initially diagnosed from 2004 to 2016; following LR, 967 received AT and 5,519 did not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the confounding factors of the two groups; the Kaplan–Meier method and the log-rank test were used for survival analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to screen independent prognostic factors and build a nomogram on this basis. X-tile software was used to divide the patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups based on the nomogram risk score.Results: Multivariate analysis found that age, sex, race, marital status, tumor size, T stage, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the non-AT group were independent prognostic factors for stage I RC and were included in the nomogram prediction model. The C-index of the model was 0.726 (95% CI, 0.689–0.763). We divided the patients into three risk groups according to the nomogram prediction score and found that patients with low and moderate risks did not show an improved prognosis after AT. However, high-risk patients did benefit from AT.Conclusion: The nomogram of this study can effectively predict the prognosis of patients with stage I RC undergoing LR. Our results indicate that high-risk patients should receive AT after LR; AT is not recommended for low-risk patients.

scholarly journals Prognostic factors in stage I gastric cancer: A retrospective analysis

Open Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 754-762
Author(s):  
Dingcheng Zheng ◽  
Bangsheng Chen ◽  
Zefeng Shen ◽  
Lihu Gu ◽  
Xianfa Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Stage I ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this research is to investigate the prognostic factors of patients with stage I gastric cancer (GC) and to determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy improves the prognosis for high-risk patients.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, and HwaMei Hospital, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences from January 2001 to December 2015. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier were used to evaluate the relationship between the patients’ clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis.ResultsA total of 1,550 patients were eligible for the study. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of all enrolled patients was 96.5%. The pT and pN stages were significantly associated with the prognosis. The 5-year DFS rates of the three subgroups (T1N0, T2N0, and T1N1) were 97.8%, 95.7%, and 90.5%, respectively (p < 0.001). In the T1N1 subgroup, patients not undergoing chemotherapy showed a lower 5-year DFS rate compared to those undergoing chemotherapy, although the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionsBoth the pT and pN stages were closely associated with the prognosis of patients with stage I GC. We also found that the danger coefficient of the pN stage was higher than that of the pT stage, and that postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy might be a reasonable approach to improve outcomes of high-risk patients, particularly in the T1N1 group.

Stage I Rectal Cancer: Identification of High-Risk Patients

1998 ◽  
Vol 186 (5) ◽  
pp. 574-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Blumberg ◽  
Philip B Paty ◽  
Antonio I Picon ◽  
Jose G Guillem ◽  
David S Klimstra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Stage I ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract P275: Demographic and Clinical Profile of Patients with Risk Factors for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) Defined by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III Guidelines

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 129 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David M Kern ◽  
Sanjeev Balu ◽  
Ozgur Tunceli ◽  
Swetha Raparla ◽  
Deborah Anzalone
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Low Hdl ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Very High ◽  
Statin Use

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with different risk factors for CHD as defined by NCEP ATP III guidelines. Methods: Dyslipidemia patients (≥1 medical claim for dyslipidemia, ≥1 pharmacy claim for a statin, or ≥1 LDL-C value ≥100 mg/dL [index date]) aged ≥18 y were identified from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment from 1/1/2007-7/31/2012. Patients were classified as low risk (0 or 1 risk factor): hypertension, age ≥45 y [men] or ≥55 y [women], or low HDL-C), moderate/moderately high risk (≥2 risk factors), high risk (having CHD or CHD risk equivalent), or very high risk (having ACS or other established cardiovascular disease plus diabetes or metabolic syndrome). Demographics, comorbidities, medication use and lipid levels during the 12 months prior, and statin use during the 6 months post-index date were compared across risk groups (very high vs each other risk group). Results: There were 1,524,351 low-risk (mean age: 47 y; 45% men), 242,357 moderate-risk (mean age: 58 y; 59% men), 188,222 high-risk (mean age: 57 y; 52% men), and 57,469 very-high-risk (mean age: 63 y; 61% men) patients identified. Mean Deyo-Charlson comorbidity score differed greatly across risk strata: 0.20, 0.33, 1.26, and 2.22 from low to very high risk (p<.0001 for each). Compared with high-risk patients, very-high-risk patients had a higher rate of ischemic stroke: 5.4% vs 4.1%; peripheral artery disease: 17.1% vs 11.6%; coronary artery disease: 8.5% vs 8.2%; and abdominal aortic aneurysm: 2.3% vs 2.0% (p<.05 for each). Less than 1% of the total population had a prior prescription for each non-statin lipid-lowering medication (bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, ezetimibe, niacin, and omega-3). Very-high-risk patients had lower total cholesterol (very-high-risk mean: 194 mg/dL vs 207, 205, and 198 mg/dL for low-, moderate-/moderately-high-, and high-risk patients, respectively) and LDL-C (very-high-risk mean: 110 mg/dL vs 126, 126, and 116 mg/dL for the other risk groups; p<.0001 for each); higher triglycerides (TG) (very-high-risk mean: 206 mg/dL vs 123, 177, and 167 mg/dL for the other groups; p<.0001 for each); and lower HDL-C (very-high-risk mean: 45 mg/dL vs 57 [p<.0001], 45 [p=.006], and 51 mg/dL [p<.0001]). Statin use was low overall (15%), but higher in the very-high-risk group (45%) vs the high- (29%), moderate-/moderately-high- (18%), and low- (12%) risk groups (p<.0001 for each). Conclusions: Despite a large proportion of patients having high lipid levels, statin use after a dyslipidemia diagnosis was low: ≥80% of all patients (and more than half at very high risk) failed to receive a statin, indicating a potentially large population of patients who could benefit from statin treatment. Prior use of non-statin lipid-lowering medications was also low considering the high TG and low HDL-C levels among high-risk patients.

Outcome of Adult AML at First Relapse Following a Risk-Oriented Strategy: An Update of the Northern Italy Leukemia Group (NILG) Experience

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 4385-4385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Cavattoni ◽  
Enrico Morello ◽  
Elena Oldani ◽  
Tamara Intermesoli ◽  
Ernesta Audisio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
High Dose ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
First Relapse ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Standard Risk ◽  
Group 1

Abstract INTRODUCTION The impact on post-relapse survival of selected prognostic factors and salvage therapy (finalized to perform an allo-SCT) was retrospectively analyzed in 172 patients (patients) with relapsed non-APL AML, who had been initially treated with standard induction and risk-adapatiented consolidation. The aim was to identify factors associated with a better outcome at first relapse. METHODS All 172 patients were at first recurrence following consolidation of CR1 with high-dose Ara-C (HiDAC) multicycle therapy supported by blood stem cells (standard risk, as defined by mixed clinical-cytogenetic criteria) or allo-SCT in case of high-risk prognostic profile. Median age at relapse was 55 y (range 21–70). CR1 duration was &lt;6 months in 50 patients (29%), ranging from 0.6 to 52,7 mo (median 9,1). High risk patients were 128/172 (74%) and 43/172 patients (25%) had an unfavourable cytogenetics (CG). One hundred-eleven patients (64%) received HiDAC and 24 (14%) an allo-SCT according to study design. RESULTS 140 patients (81%) received salvage treatment. The remaining 32 patients (19%) received palliation and all of them died. The median OS was 17.1 mo, with a 2yOS of 34%. Favorable prognostic factors identified by univariate analisys were: favourable or intermediate CG (p=0,007), standard risk category according to first line protocol (p=0.004), availibility of a HLA matched donor (p= 0.048), achievement of an early CR1(p=0,000), HiDAC as first line therapy(p=0,000), alloHSCT perfomed at relapse (p=0,000) and a DFS from CR1&gt;12 mo (p=0,000). In multivariate analysis favourable or intermediate CG and DFS &gt;12 mo were confirmed as independent prognostic factors (p=0,036 and p=0,001 respectively). Among the 140 patients, 50 received an allo-SCT following relapse (36%, group 1), and the remaining 90 (64%, group 2) received high dose chemotherapy alone (85), autologous SCT (2), or DLI (3, in case of previous alloSCT). Both groups were comparable regarding age &gt;55 y, prior allo-SCT and risk class at diagnosis. After salvage therapy, 44 patients(88%) in the group 1 achieved CR2, compared to 26 patients (29%) in the group 2. The median duration of CR2 was 9 mo (range 2–64) and 3 mo (range 1–34) in group 1 and 2 respectively. NRM was 17/140: 12 patients (24%) in the allo-SCT group and 5 (6%) in group 2. The 2yOS was 57% and 23% respectively (p=0,000). Moreover, among 50 alloSCT patients, survival was affected by risk category at diagnosis: 2yOS of 19 (38%) standard risk patients was 83% compared to 42% in 31 high risk patients (62%) (p=0.01). This risk stratification has no impact on OS in the group 2. CONCLUSIONS DFS &gt; 12 mo and standard risk category at diagnosis, according to NILG protocol, are the most important independent positive prognostic factors impacting OS of AML relapsed patients. The availibility of a HLA matched donor and a subsequent intensification with alloSCT may offer substantial salvage rates and its outcome is affected by the risk stratification at diagnosis. Nevertheless, high risk patients could benefit from alloSCT, reaching an 2yOS of 42%.

Survival in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Undergoing Therapy with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone: Impact of High-Risk Cytogenetic Risk Status on Outcome

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 95-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant Kapoor ◽  
Shaji Kumar ◽  
Rafael Fonseca ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
Thomas E Witzig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Plasma Cell ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Standard Risk

Abstract Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a heterogeneous disease with very divergent outcomes that are dictated in a large part by specific cytogenetic abnormalities, as well as other prognostic factors such as the proliferative rate of marrow plasma cells. Prognostic systems incorporating these factors have shown clinical utility in identifying high-risk patients, and are increasingly being utilized for treatment decision-making. However, the prognostic relevance of these factors may change with the application of novel therapies. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of risk-stratification (incorporating plasma cell metaphase cytogenetics, interphase fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) and the slide-based plasma cell labeling index (PCLI)) in a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed MM treated initially with lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Rev-Dex). Methods: From March 2004 to November 2007, 100 consecutive patients treated with Rev (25mg/day) on days 1 through 21 of a 4-week cycle in combination with dexamethasone as initial therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma, were identified. High-risk MM was defined as presence of any one or more of the following: hypodiploidy, monoallelic loss of chromosome 13 or its long arm (by metaphase cytogenetics only), deletion of p53 (locus 17p13) or PCLI ≥ 3% or immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH) translocations, t(4;14) (p16.3;q32) or t(14;16)(q32;q23) on FISH. PFS and OS survival estimates were created using the Kaplan Meier method, and compared by log-rank tests. Results: The median estimated follow-up of the entire cohort (N=100) was 36 months. The median PFS was 31 months; the median OS has not been reached. The 2- and 3-year OS estimates were 93% and 83%, respectively. 16% patients were deemed high-risk by at least one of the 3 tests (cytogenetics, FISH or PCLI). Response rates (PR or better) were 81% versus 89% in the high-risk and standard risk groups, respectively, P=NS; corresponding values for CR plus VGPR rates were 38% and 45% respectively. The median PFS was 18.5 months in high-risk patients compared to 37 months in the standard-risk patients (n=84), P<0.001(Figure). Corresponding values for TTP were 18.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, P=<0.001. OS was not statistically significant between the two groups; 92% 2-year OS was noted in both the groups. Overall, 95 patients had at least one of the 3 tests to determine risk, while 55 patients could be adequately stratified based on the availability of all the 3 tests, or at least one test result that led to their inclusion in the high-risk category. The significant difference in PFS persisted even when the analysis was restricted to the 55 patients classified using this stringent criterion; 18.5 months vs. 36.5 months in the high-risk and standard- risk groups respectively; P<0.001. In a separate analysis, patients who underwent SCT before the disease progression were censored on the date of SCT to negate its effect, and PFS was still inferior in the high-risk group (p=0.002). Conclusion: The TTP and PFS of high-risk MM patients are inferior to that of the standard-risk patients treated with Rev-Dex, indicating that the current genetic and proliferation-based risk-stratification model remains prognostic with novel therapy. However, the TTP, PFS, and OS obtained in high-risk patients treated with Rev-Dex in this study is comparable to overall results in all myeloma patients reported in recent phase III trials. In addition, no significant impact of high-risk features on OS is apparent so far. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the impact of risk stratification on the OS of patients treated with Rev-Dex. Figure Figure

Prognostic factors for extubation failure in high risk patients using high-flow nasal cannula

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulina Ezcurra ◽  
María Sofia Venuti ◽  
Emiliano Gogniat ◽  
Marcela Ducrey ◽  
Jose Dianti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Extubation Failure ◽  
High Flow ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
High Flow Nasal Cannula ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

A validation/evaluation of five postoperative prognostic tools for prostate cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5117-5117
Author(s):  
B. A. Inman ◽  
B. C. Leibovich ◽  
S. A. Siddiqui ◽  
I. Frank
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Psa Failure ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Risk Patients

5117 Background: Prognostic nomograms, scoring tools, and risk tables are rapidly accumulating in the prostate cancer (PCa) literature. It is not always clear to whom these tools should apply and how well they predict the outcomes they were designed to forecast. There is need for independent evaluation of these tools. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic Radical Prostatectomy Registry, a prospective database of radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes, to assess tools designed to predict RP outcomes. The validation set included 13,313 RP patients from 1990–2005. There were 3,256 PSA failures, 566 metastases, and 1,599 deaths (301 were due to PCa). We assessed the discrimination, calibration and overall accuracy of prediction tools identified through a structured Pubmed search. Results: Tools varied greatly in terms of complexity, width of prediction interval, and method of presentation. Several tools included non-standard variables and were therefore unevaluable, despite an extensive dataset, leaving the 1999 and 2005 Kattan nomograms, the 1998 and 2001 CDPR scores, and the 2001 GPSM score for analysis. Discrimination (quantitated by the c index) was better for PCa-specific survival and metastases than for PSA failure ( Table ). Kaplan-Meier plots demonstrated clustering of risk groups in most tools, most severely in the higher risk groups of the Kattan nomograms. The calibration plots of most tools (excepting GPSM) had a serious discordance between observed and predicted outcomes in the lower probability ranges. This meant that most tools gravely overestimated the probability of RP failure in high-risk patients, by up to 4- fold. Conclusions: The tools showed moderate discriminatory ability for PSA failure but performed much better for non-surrogate outcomes. Most tools (excepting GPSM) were miscalibrated in high risk patients and dramatically underestimated the efficacy of surgery in this cohort. Prognostic tools may not be as accurate as previously reported. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document