...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Surgical Oncology >Assessing tools for management of noncolorectal nonneuroendocrine liver metastases: External validation of a prognostic model
【24h】

Assessing tools for management of noncolorectal nonneuroendocrine liver metastases: External validation of a prognostic model

机译:评估非耐药性非胸腺内分泌肝转移的工具:预后模型的外部验证

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Introduction Selection criteria and benefits for resection of noncolorectal, nonneuroendocrine liver metastases (NCNNELM) remain debated. A prognostic score was developed by the Association Fran?aise de Chirurgie (AFC) for patient selection, but not validated. We performed a geographic external validation of this score. Methods Patients with resected NCNNELM from six institutions (2000–2014) were assigned risk groups based on the AFC score. Discrimination was evaluated by visually inspecting separation of overall survival (OS) curves among risk categories. The slope of the continuous score on OS and hazard ratios for risk categories were examined. Results Of 165 patients, 53 (32.1%) were low‐risk, 85 (51.5%) intermediate‐risk, and 27 (16.4%) high‐risk. The OS curves did not separate among risk groups: 5‐year OS were 60.1% (low), 57.1% (intermediate), and 55.6% (high). The parameter estimate (0.02) indicated lower discrimination than in the AFC cohort. Hazard ratios of 1.05 (0.63 to 1.70) for low vs intermediate, 0.87 (0.46 to 1.64) for low vs high, and 0.83 (0.46 to 1.49) for intermediate vs. high, demonstrated lack of discrimination in OS among risk groups. Conclusion While long‐term survival is achievable, discrimination of the AFC score is not maintained in a geographic external cohort of resected NCNNELM. It is not generalizable to this external population.
机译:引言非直肠、非神经内分泌肝转移瘤(NCNNELM)切除的选择标准和益处仍存在争议。预后评分由Fran?aise de Chirurgie(AFC)用于患者选择,但未经验证。我们对该分数进行了地理外部验证。方法根据AFC评分,将2000-2014年6家机构切除的NCNNELM患者分为危险组。通过目视检查各风险类别之间总生存率(OS)曲线的分离来评估辨别能力。对OS和风险类别的风险比的连续评分斜率进行了检查。结果165例患者中,53例(32.1%)为低风险,85例(51.5%)为中风险,27例(16.4%)为高风险。各风险组的OS曲线没有分开:5年OS分别为60.1%(低)、57.1%(中)和55.6%(高)。参数估计值(0.02)表明,与AFC队列相比,歧视程度较低。低风险组与中风险组的风险比为1.05(0.63至1.70),低风险组与高风险组的风险比为0.87(0.46至1.64),中风险组与高风险组的风险比为0.83(0.46至1.49),表明风险组之间在OS方面缺乏区分。结论虽然长期生存是可以实现的,但在切除的NCNNELM的地理外部队列中,AFC评分的区分并不存在。它不能推广到这种外来人口。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号