Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Journal of Medical Research 1/2023

Open Access 01.12.2023 | Research

A model for predicting overall survival in bladder cancer patients with signet ring cell carcinoma: a population-based study

verfasst von: Liang Liu, Chuangui Li, Qiang Wang, Haibo Yuan, Yuanyuan Wang

Erschienen in: European Journal of Medical Research | Ausgabe 1/2023

Abstract

Introduction

This study is to examine the predictors of survival and to construct a nomogram for predicting the overall survival (OS) of primary bladder signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) patients based on the analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

Methods

A total of 219 eligible patients diagnosed with SRCC were analyzed using the 2004–2015 data from SEER database. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to determine independent prognostic factors, followed by development of a nomogram based on the multivariate Cox regression models. The consistency index (C-index), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and calibration curve were used to validate the prognostic nomogram.

Results

The nomograms indicated appreciable accuracy in predicting the OS, with C-index of 0.771 and 0.715, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of the nomogram was 0.713 for 1 year, 0.742 for 3 years, and 0.776 for 5 years in the training set, while was 0.730 for 1 year, 0.727 for 3 years, and 0.697 for 5 years in the validation set. The calibration curves revealed satisfactory consistency between the prediction of deviation correction and ideal reference line.

Conclusions

The prognostic nomogram developed in the analytical data of SEER it provided high accuracy and reliability in predicting the survival outcomes of primary bladder SRCC patients and could be used to comprehensively assess the risk of SRCC. Moreover, they could enable clinicians to make more precise treatment decisions for primary bladder SRCC patients.
Hinweise
Liang Liu and Chuangui Li contributed equally to this work. Liang Liu and Chuangui Li are the co-first authors.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
SRCC
Signet ring cell carcinoma
C-index
Consistency index
AUC
Area under the curve
OS
Overall survival
CSS
Cancer-specific survival
BCa
Bladder cancer
US
United States
ROC
Receiver operating characteristic
TRUB
Transurethral resection of the bladder
SEER
Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results
AJCC
The American joint committee on cancer
HR
Hazard ratio
CI
Confdence interval
SDW
Divorced + Separated + Widowed + Unmarried or Domestic Partner
PE
Pelvic exenteration

Introduction

Bladder cancer (BCa) is the second most diagnosed malignant carcinoma of the genitourinary tract, being the 10th tumor for incidence when considering both sexes, and the 7th considering only the men population [1]. The most common type of BCa is urothelial carcinoma, which occurs in 90% of all cases. Most BCas can be diagnosed at an early stage. Although 75% are non-muscle-invasive tumors at first diagnosis, approximately 78% of patients relapse within 5 years. Patients with the same pathologic type of BCa and clinical stage could have different prognoses.
Signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC), classified as subtypes of adenocarcinoma, most commonly occurs in the stomach and colon. Primary bladder SRCC is a rare type of bladder cancer, accounting for approximately <1% of cases, with a high mortality rate [2, 3]. Because of its rarity, it is impossible to fully comprehensively its clinicopathological features, prognosis and histogenesis [4, 5].
In this regard, although numerous steps in the past have been taken in the management of this pathology, still little knowledge we have of the characteristics that influence its prognosis. Continuing to investigate them is the first step to do to develop new strategies for a more efficacy BCa treatment and management.
A standardized treatment for primary bladder SRCC has not been established and surgery is generally considered the most predominant treatment method, but the optimal surgical approach and whether radiotherapy or chemotherapy cannot be determined by consensus. Primary bladder SRCC may often overlooked by patients and clinicians as its low frequency.
TNM staging system is used by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) to predict prognosis and guide treatment in BCa; however, it is not specially designed for SRCC. Ferro et al. [6] found that neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio could predict both overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). They indicated that patients, treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical cystectomy, with high neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio had a longer OS and CSS than low neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio. However, many individualized characteristics, such as histologic grade, tumor size, lymph node metastasis, surgery, lymph nodes removed, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, that may be predictive are not involved [5, 7]. Nomograms can present simple statistical analysis and visualization results, which can help physicians make better clinical decisions and to promote personalized medical therapy. Unfortunately, there is no consensus prognostic model for primary bladder SRCC.
Prognostic nomograms are currently used widely in oncologic medicine as prognostic devices. Because the knowledge of the prognosis of primary bladder SRCC is essential for pretherapeutic assessment the aim of the current study was to describe the frequency of occurrence based on the SEER database. Another aim of the study was to construct a nomogram to predict OS in de novo diagnosed primary bladder SRCC patients. The study may also help to choose suitable management strategies by increasing the understanding of prognosis in newly diagnosed primary bladder SRCC patients.

Methods

Patients and variables

Around 28% of the US population has cancer incidence in the SEER database that includes 18 cancer registries. The SEER * Stat software (version 8.4.0.1) was used to identify all primary SRCC of the bladder cases reported in the SEER database from 2004 to 2015. We collected the following data: (1) primary bladder SRCC patients; (2) the diagnosis of SRCC was based on the ICD-O-3; coded as 8490/3; (3) confirmed by positive histology and diagnosed by first or only cancer. Those who did not have a histological diagnosis or lacked survival information were excluded.
Patient demographics analyzed included sex, age, race, marital status, and year of diagnosis. Tumor characteristics studied included tumor size, primary site, AJCC T stage, N stage, M stage, and histologic grade. Information on distant metastasis sites only became available after 2010, so the metastasis information was included from 2010 to 2015. Treatment characteristics included surgery, lymph nodes removed, radiation, chemotherapy, and the sequence of surgery between radiation. OS was the main endpoint. A patient‘s OS is defined as the period from the time of first diagnosis to his death or last follow-up.

Statistical analyses

In the ratio of 1:1, all included samples were randomly split into the training and validation sets. The categorical data were presented as frequency (percentage), and the chi-square test was used to compare groups.
Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, we constructed nomograms using the factors with P < 0.05. Multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model enabled the identification of baseline and clinical variables associated with OS time. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves were plotted and compared by log-rank test.
Last but not least, we considered variables with a P value of less than 0.05 as independent predictors in the multivariate Cox model and incorporated them into the nomogram model. In addition, both the training and validation sets were validated using the consistency index (C-index), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and calibration curve. And also to calibrate the prediction capacity of the nomogram for 1-, 3- and 5-year OS. Those who had a C-index and an area under the curve (AUC) of > 0.65 were considered as having an acceptable fit. R software (www.​rproject.​org) and SPSS software program (version 25.0) were used for statistical analysis. Statistical significance was determined by P values < 0.05 (P < 0.05).
The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration (revised in 2013). Because cancer is a reportable disease in every state of the US, it is not required that informed patient consent be obtained for the release of data from the SEER database.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the overall, training and validation sets

Table 1 presents the demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of 219 patients.
Table 1
Baseline demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics for primary bladder SRCC (n, %)
Variable
Overall set
Training set
Validation set
Age, years
  < 60
79(36.1%)
40(36.0%)
39(36.1%)
  ≥ 60
140(63.9%)
71(64.0%)
69(63.9%)
Race
 White
180(82.2%)
92(82.9%)
88(81.5%)
 Black
26(11.9%)
14(12.6%)
12(11.1%)
 Others
12(5.5%)
4(3.6%)
8(7.4%)
Unknown
1(0.5%)
1(0.9%)
0(0.0%)
Sex
 Female
60(27.4%)
32(28.8%)
28(25.9%)
 Male
159(72.6%)
79(71.2%)
80(74.1%)
Marital status
 Single
37(16.9%)
18(16.2%)
19(17.6%)
 Married
129(58.9%)
68(61.3%)
61(56.5%)
 SDW
43(19.6%)
20(18.0%)
23(21.3%)
 Unknown
10(4.6%)
5(4.5%)
5(4.6%)
Year of diagnosis
 2004–2009
113(51.6%)
54(48.6%)
59(54.6%)
 2010–2015
106(48.4%)
57(51.4%)
49(45.4%)
Tumor size, cm
  < 4.0
45(20.5%)
27(24.3%)
18(16.7%)
  ≥ 4.0
60(27.4%)
27(24.3%)
33(30.6%)
 Unknown
114(52.1%)
57(51.4%)
57(52.8%)
Primary site
 Trigone of bladder
16(7.3%)
9(8.1%)
7(6.5%)
 Dome of bladder
18(8.2%)
10(9.0%)
8(7.4%)
 Lateral wall of bladder
26(11.9%)
12(10.8%)
14(13.0%)
 Anterior wall of bladder
5(2.3%)
2(1.8%)
3(2.8%)
 Posterior wall of bladder
13(5.9%)
7(6.3%)
6(5.6%)
 Bladder neck
5(2.3%)
3(2.7%)
2(1.9%)
 Ureteric orifice
2(0.9%)
2(1.8%)
0(0.0%)
 Urachus
8(3.7%)
5(4.5%)
3(2.8%)
 Overlapping lesion of bladder
32(14.6%)
19(17.1%)
13(12.0%)
 Bladder, NOS
94(42.9%)
42(37.8%)
52(48.1%)
T Stage
 T1
28(12.8%)
15(13.5%)
13(12.0%)
 T2
50(22.8%)
31(27.9%)
19(17.6%)
 T3
42(19.2%)
21(18.9%)
21(19.4%)
 T4
81(37.0%)
38(34.2%)
43(39.8%)
 Tis
1(0.5%)
0(0.0%)
1(0.9%)
 TX
17(7.8%)
6(5.4%)
11(10.2%)
N stage
 N0
127(58.0%)
72(64.9%)
55(50.9%)
 N1
33(15.1%)
14(12.6%)
19(17.6%)
 N2
42(19.2%)
20(18.0%)
22(20.4%)
 N3
2(0.9%)
1(0.9%)
1(0.9%)
 NX
15(6.8%)
4(3.6%)
11(10.2%)
M stage
 M0
160(73.1%)
82(73.9%)
78(72.2%)
 M1
52(23.7%)
24(21.6%)
28(25.9%)
 MX
7(3.2%)
5(4.5%)
2(1.9%)
Grade
 II
4(1.8%)
2(1.8%)
2(1.9%)
 III
120(54.8%)
52(46.8%)
68(63.0%)
 IV
52(23.7%)
35(31.5%)
17(15.7%)
 Unknown
43(19.6%)
22(19.8%)
21(19.4%)
Bone metastasis
 No
101(96.2%)
55(98.2%)
46(93.9%)
 Yes
4(3.8%)
1(1.8%)
3(6.1%)
Brain metastasis
 No
103(98.1%)
55(98.2%)
48(98.0%)
 Yes
2(1.9%)
1(1.8%)
1(2.0%)
Liver metastasis
 No
103(98.1%)
55(98.2%)
48(98.0%)
 Yes
2(1.9%)
1(1.8%)
1(2.0%)
Lung metastasis
 No
99(94.3%)
52(92.9%)
47(95.9%)
 Yes
6(5.7%)
4(7.1%)
2(4.1%)
Surgery
 None
31(14.2%)
13(11.7%)
18(16.7%)
 TURB
62(28.3%)
35(31.5%)
27(25.0%)
 Complete cystectomy + reconstruction
49(22.4%)
24(21.6%)
25(23.1%)
 Pelvic exenteration
42(19.2%)
23(20.7%)
19(17.6%)
 Others
35(16.0%)
16(14.4%)
19(17.6%)
Lymph nodes removed
 None
121(55.3%)
61(55.0%)
60(55.6%)
 1 to 3 regional
8(3.7%)
7(6.3%)
1(0.9%)
 4 or more regional
82(37.4%)
39(35.1%)
43(39.8%)
 Unknown
8(3.7%)
4(3.6%)
4(3.7%)
Radiation
 None/Unknown
172(78.5%)
94(84.7%)
78(72.2%)
 Yes
47(21.5%)
17(15.3%)
30(27.8%)
Chemotherapy
 None/Unknown
119(54.3%)
65(58.6%)
54(50.0%)
 Yes
100(45.7%)
46(41.4%)
54(50.0%)
Surgery/Radiation sequence
 No radiation and/or surgery
180(82.2%)
98(88.3%)
82(75.9%)
 Radiation after surgery
36(16.4%)
12(10.8%)
24(22.2%)
 Radiation before and after surgery
3(1.4%)
1(0.9%)
2(1.9%)
Vital status
 Alive
27(12.3%)
14(12.6%)
13(12.0%)
 Dead
192(87.7%)
97(87.4%)
95(88.0%)
Survival month
13(6,39)
14(6,41)
12(5.25, 35.75)
SDW Divorced + Separated + Widowed + Unmarried or Domestic Partner, TURB transurethral resection of the bladder

Prognostic factor analysis

In this study, univariate analyses confirmed that risk factors of bladder SRCC include sex, race, marital status, tumor size, T stage, N stage, M stage, surgery, lymph node removed, and radiation. However, multivariate analyses showed independent risk factors only include race (Unknown vs. White, HR = 59.085, 95% CI = 2.638 ~ 913.422, P = 0.009), marital status(SDW vs. Single, HR = 2.878, 95% CI = 1.296 ~ 6.391, P = 0.009), T stage (T2 vs. T1, HR = 2.710, 95% CI = 1.127 ~ 6.518, P = 0.026; T3 vs. T1, HR = 6.124, 95% CI = 1.881 ~ 19.924, P = 0.003; and T4 vs. T1, HR = 4.141, 95% CI = 1.534 ~ 11.252, P = 0.005), N stage (N2 vs. N0, HR = 4.461, 95% CI = 2.016 ~ 9.873, P < 0.001), M stage (M1 vs. M0, HR = 2.400, 95% CI = 1.156 ~ 4.983, P = 0.019), surgery (Pelvic exenteration vs. None, HR = 0.223, 95% CI = 0.069 ~ 0.726, P < 0.012; and Others vs. None, HR = 0.194, 95% CI = 0.064 ~ 0.591, P = 0.004), and lymph node removed (4 or more regional vs. None, HR = 0.299, 95% CI = 0.127 ~ 0.703, P = 0.006; and Unknown vs. None, HR = 0.120, 95% CI = 0.023 ~ 0.627, P = 0.012) (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier survival curves shown in Fig. 1 show the OS of the training set patient population by subgroups of sex, tumor size, surgery, lymph nodes removed, and radiation (Fig. 1a–e). The median OS was only 14 months. The median OS, respectively, were 4, 10, 24, 17, and 22 months for none, transurethral resection of the bladder (TURB), complete cystectomy with reconstruction, pelvic exenteration and others surgery (P < 0.001). The none lymph nodes removed, 1 to 3 regional, 4 or more regional, and unknown were 10, 26, 21 and 12 months, respectively (P = 0.004). Figure 1f shows that, compared with high-risk patients, low-risk patients tended to have a better OS (P < 0.001).
Table 2
Univariate and multivariable analyses of prognostic factors for primary bladder SRCC
Variables
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
HR
95% CI
P value
HR
95% CI
P value
Sex
 Female
Reference
  
Reference
  
 Male
0.536
0.348 ~ 0.825
0.005a
0.586
0.329 ~ 1.041
0.068
Age, year
  < 60
Reference
     
  ≥ 60
1.138
0.749 ~ 1.728
0.545
   
Race
 White
Reference
  
Reference
  
 Black
1.292
0.717 ~ 2.327
0.394
1.775
0.839 ~ 3.753
0.133
 Others
2.157
0.781 ~ 5.956
0.138
2.265
0.558 ~ 9.183
0.252
 Unknown
66.305
6.556 ~ 670.578
 < 0.001b
59.085
2.638 ~ 913.422
0.009a
Marital status
 Single
Reference
  
Reference
  
 Married
0.837
0.472 ~ 1.478
0.540
1.264
0.629 ~ 2.540
0.511
 SDW
3.416
1.709 ~ 6.830
 < 0.001b
2.878
1.296 ~ 6.391
0.009a
 Others
0.632
0.209 ~ 1.909
0.415
1.758
0.485 ~ 6.372
0.390
Primary site
 Trigone of bladder
Reference
     
 Dome of bladder
0.890
0.317 ~ 2.494
0.825
   
 Lateral wall of bladder
1.346
0.520 ~ 3.487
0.540
   
 Anterior wall of bladder
1.487
0.308 ~ 7.175
0.621
   
 Posterior wall of bladder
1.127
0.377 ~ 3.367
0.830
   
 Bladder neck
1.252
0.322 ~ 4.853
0.745
   
 Ureteric orifice
0.386
0.046 ~ 3.207
0.378
   
 Urachus
0.646
0.188 ~ 2.217
0.487
   
 Overlapping lesion of bladder
1.464
0.603 ~ 3.556
0.400
   
 Bladder, NOS
1.443
0.643 ~ 3.239
0.374
   
Tumor size, cm
  < 4.0
Reference
  
Reference
  
  ≥ 4.0
2.437
1.326 ~ 4.478
0.004a
1.969
0.978 ~ 3.962
0.058
 Unknown
2.058
1.215 ~ 3.486
0.007a
1.937
0.997 ~ 3.764
0.051
Grade
 II
Reference
     
 III
3.246
0.446 ~ 23.650
0.245
   
 IV
2.734
0.372 ~ 20.090
0.323
   
 Unknown
2.083
0.278 ~ 15.610
0.475
   
T stage
 T1
Reference
  
Reference
  
 T2
1.555
0.782 ~ 3.093
0.208
2.710
1.127 ~ 6.518
0.026a
 T3
2.486
1.186 ~ 5.212
0.015a
6.124
1.881 ~ 19.924
0.003a
 T4
2.569
1.307 ~ 5.049
0.006a
4.141
1.534 ~ 11.252
0.005a
 TX
3.263
1.209 ~ 8.805
0.020a
1.455
0.394 ~ 5.365
0.574
N stage
 N0
Reference
  
Reference
  
 N1
1.688
0.915 ~ 3.115
0.094
2.242
0.900 ~ 5.604
0.085
 N2
2.247
1.309 ~ 3.859
0.003a
4.461
2.016 ~ 9.873
 < 0.001b
 N3
2.116
0.289 ~ 15.484
0.461
6.957
0.739 ~ 65.460
0.090
 NX
2.214
0.780 ~ 6.139
0.127
0.954
0.190 ~ 4.790
0.954
M stage
 M0
Reference
  
Reference
  
 M1
3.898
2.355 ~ 6.452
 < 0.001b
2.400
1.156 ~ 4.983
0.019a
 MX
1.317
0.528 ~ 3.287
0.554
0.982
0.235 ~ 4.095
0.980
Surgery
 None
Reference
  
Reference
  
 TURB
0.498
0.256 ~ 0.972
0.040a
0.539
0.203 ~ 1.431
0.215
 Complete cystectomy + reconstruction
0.275
0.131 ~ 0.579
 < 0.001b
0.362
0.116 ~ 1.131
0.080
 Pelvic exenteration
0.371
0.178 ~ 0.777
0.008a
0.223
0.069 ~ 0.726
0.012a
 Others
0.349
0.160 ~ 0.762
0.008a
0.194
0.064 ~ 0.591
0.004a
Lymph nodes removed
 None
Reference
  
Reference
  
 1 to 3 regional
0.522
0.207 ~ 1.315
0.168
0.367
0.090 ~ 1.498
0.163
 4 or more regional
0.540
0.345 ~ 0.867
0.007a
0.299
0.127 ~ 0.703
0.006a
 Unknown
0.852
0.309 ~ 2.350
0.756
0.120
0.023 ~ 0.627
0.012a
Surgery/Radiation sequence
 No radiation and/or surgery
Reference
     
 Radiation after surgery
1.773
0.958 ~ 3.283
0.068
   
 Radiation before and after surgery
1.046
1.145 ~ 7.554
0.965
   
Radiation
 None/Unknown
Reference
  
Reference
  
 Yes
1.773
1.024 ~ 3.070
0.041a
0.552
0.227 ~ 1.343
0.190
Chemotherapy
 None/Unknown
Reference
     
 Yes
1.078
0.713 ~ 1.630
0.722
   
SDW Divorced + Separated + Widowed + Unmarried or Domestic Partner, TURB transurethral resection of the bladder
aP < 0.05
bP < 0.001

Development and validations of predicting nomograms for OS

Based on the significant risk factors, the nomogram for predicting 1-, 2- and 3-year OS was developed using Cox multivariate analysis (Fig. 2). The C-index and ROC curves were compared to determine, whether the survival months predicted by the nomograms were in accordance with the actual survival times. The C-index of the nomogram OS was 0.771 and 0.715 in the training and validation sets, respectively. The ROC curve estimation of the nomogram in the training set also showed acceptable accuracy, with a 1-, 3-, and 5-year AUC of 0.713, 0.742 and 0.776, respectively (Fig. 3a–c). In addition, the validation set were 0.730, 0.727 and 0.697, respectively (Fig. 4a–c). These results indicated that the model we constructed was relatively accurate.
More importantly, we calibrated the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS nomogram in both the training and validation sets. The calibration plots showed that the nomogram had a favorable predictive accuracy in both the training set (Fig. 5a–c) and validation set (Fig. 6a–c). This result indicated good agreement between the nomogram predictions and the observed results in the training and validation sets.

Discussion

The primary bladder SRCC is a rare form of bladder cancer, with an incidence rate of less than 0.6% [8, 9]. It was less commonly reported, since the first patient was reported by Saphir [10]. Due to the rarity of bladder SRCC, most reports were case reports or reviews of previous cases [4, 11, 12].
The present study showed that lymph node metastasis did not occur in 58.0% overall patients and distant metastasis did not occur in 73.1% overall patients. The bladder SRCC had a lower rate of lymph node metastases and distant metastases, but their prognoses were worse. As previously described, SRCC presents a higher histological grade rate and advanced stage disease, which could induce a poor prognosis [5, 13, 14]. According to the literature reported, the survival rate of bladder SRCC was lower than urothelial carcinoma, and the natural duration of the disease was 3.5 months [4]. A Japanese study, reported by Dadhania et al. [15] also demonstrated that almost half of the bladder SRCC patients were already at AJCC stage IV at the time of diagnosis, and the median survival time was approximately 8 months. Besides, the surviving period of time did not exceed 2 years. In the analytical data of SEER it showed, the median survival was 13, 14, and 12 months, respectively, for oveall, training and validation sets.
As for the prognostic factors of bladder SRCC, clinical study results were inconsistent.
Multiple studies, compared with bladder SRCC and urothelial carcinoma, have shown that histological type, cystectomy, marital status, histological grade, year of diagnosis and sex have been identified as prognostic factors. In addition, SRCC, histological type, is an independent risk factor for Bca. [4, 14]. Wang et al. [13] suggested that patient characteristics such as age, marital status, AJCC stage, and cystectomy were independent predictors of survival for bladder SRCC patients. In this study, univariate analyses confirmed that risk factors of bladder SRCC include sex (Male vs. Female, HR = 0.536, 95% CI = 0.348 ~ 0.825, P = 0.005), race (Unknown vs. White, HR = 66.305, 95% CI = 6.556 ~ 670.578, P < 0.001), marital status (SDW vs. Single, HR = 3.416, 95% CI = 1.709 ~ 6.830, P < 0.001), tumor size (≥ 4.0 cm vs. < 4.0 cm, HR = 2.437, 95% CI = 1.326 ~ 4.478, P = 0.004; and Unknown vs. < 4.0 cm, HR = 2.058, 95% CI = 1.215 ~ 3.486, P = 0.007), T stage (T3 vs. T1, HR = 2.486, 95% CI = 1.186 ~ 5.212, P = 0.015; T4 vs. T1, HR = 2.569, 95% CI = 1.307 ~ 5.049, P = 0.006; and TX vs. T1, HR = 3.263, 95% CI = 1.209 ~ 8.805, P = 0.020), N stage (N2 vs. N0, HR = 2.247, 95% CI = 1.309 ~ 3.859, P = 0.003), M stage (M1 vs. M0, HR = 3.898, 95% CI = 2.355 ~ 6.452, P < 0.001), surgery (TURB vs. None, HR = 0.498, 95% CI = 0.256 ~ 0.972, P = 0.040; Complete cystectomy + reconstruction vs. None, HR = 0.275, 95% CI = 0.131 ~ 0.579, P < 0.001; Pelvic exenteration vs. None, HR = 0.371, 95% CI = 0.178 ~ 0.777, P = 0.008; and Others vs. None, HR = 0.349, 95% CI = 0.160 ~ 0.762, P = 0.008), lymph nodes removed (4 or more regional vs. None, HR = 0.540, 95% CI = 0.345 ~ 0.867, P = 0.007), and radiation (Yes vs. None/Unknown, HR = 1.773, 95% CI = 1.024 ~ 3.070, P = 0.041). However, multivariate analyses showed independent risk factors only include race (Unknown vs. White, HR = 59.085, 95% CI = 2.638 ~ 913.422, P = 0.009), marital status(SDW vs. Single, HR = 2.878, 95% CI = 1.296 ~ 6.391, P = 0.009), T stage (T2 vs. T1, HR = 2.710, 95% CI = 1.127 ~ 6.518, P = 0.026; T3 vs. T1, HR = 6.124, 95% CI = 1.881 ~ 19.924, P = 0.003; and T4 vs. T1, HR = 4.141, 95% CI = 1.534 ~ 11.252, P = 0.005), N stage (N2 vs. N0, HR = 4.461, 95% CI = 2.016 ~ 9.873, P < 0.001), M stage (M1 vs. M0, HR = 2.400, 95% CI = 1.156 ~ 4.983, P = 0.019), surgery (Pelvic exenteration vs. None, HR = 0.223, 95% CI = 0.069 ~ 0.726, P < 0.012; and Others vs. None, HR = 0.194, 95% CI = 0.064 ~ 0.591, P = 0.004), and lymph node removed (4 or more regional vs. None, HR = 0.299, 95% CI = 0.127 ~ 0.703, P = 0.006; and Unknown vs. None, HR = 0.120, 95% CI = 0.023 ~ 0.627, P = 0.012) (Table 2). Data from our study and a previous studies proved that marital status and surgery were independent risk factors for bladder SRCC. However, our study did not show age, sex, and histological grade et. are prognostic factors.
Our study suggests that race, marital status, T stage, N stage, M stage, surgery, and lymph node removed were independent prognostic factors for OS in bladder SRCC patients. Using the nomogram we developed and validated, we were able to predict the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS for bladder SRCC patients with good discrimination and high accuracy. Notably, radiation and chemotherapy were not significantly associated with the OS and were not present in the nomograms.
However, due to the rarity of the bladder SRCC and the lack of randomized clinical trials, there are no accepted guidelines for treating it. The most common surgery for bladder SRCC was TURB (62, 28.3%), and followed by radical cystectomy with reconstruction (49, 22.4%) in overall set. Due to infiltrative pattern of growth and early propensity of metastasis, nevertheless, certain scholars [16, 17] reported that TURB and partial cystectomy carry the risk of tumor recurrence. Therefore, radical cystectomy appears to be the treatment of first choice [1820]. A recent systematic review concluded that all muscle invasive BCa patients, which accompanied with histological variants, including SRCC, should perform radical cystectomy [7]. Meanwhile, Guo et al. found that radical cystectomy with lymphadenectomy was associated with improved OS in SRCC patients when compared with radical cystectomy alone [21]. Recently, 70% patients were reportedly treated with surgery [22]. The number of patients with surgery (188, 85.8%) in the overall set was higher than the above values, suggesting that clinicians already have more knowledge of this disease and have attracted increasing attention for surgery. Some Scholars have suggested that bladder SRCC patients would benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy [23, 24]. However, our result shows that bladder SRCC can not benefit from postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The neoadjuvant nature of chemotherapy has some benefits: delivering effective systemic therapy for micrometastases; improvement of direct drug delivery into the bladder and to surrounding lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes; and improves the performance status of naive patients undergoing major surgery [25]. It can be downgrade of disease and an overall improved prognosis. However, a high-grade toxicity in more than one patient out of three, without a significant OS improvement in this patients. Therefore, the selection of patients that could benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy avoiding toxicity is a challenge for the future [26]. Recently, immunity checkpoint inhibitors have been introduced as an alternative treatment option for bladder SRCC patients [27]. The molecular biology represents the key to reveal the possible Achilles’ heel in BC as well as identifying novel targets. A consensus, identified 6 consensus muscle invasive bladder cancer: Luminal-papillary (LumP), Luminal-Unstable (LumU), Luminal-non-Specified (LumNS), Basal/Squamous (Ba/Sq), Stromarich, and Neuroendocrine-like (NE-like), was published in 2020 in the European Urology Journal [28]. In several phase II trials, immunotherapy was shown to be a valuable strategy for neoadjuvant therapy, especially for patients who were unable to receive cisplatin [29].
In summary, further multicenter clinical trial should be conducted to treatment bladder SRCC. Most importantly, our clinical prognostic model was innovative, rational and clinically feasible, which could be an accessible prognosis tool in clinical practice.
Several limitations are noteworthy. The first was that it was retrospective. In addition, there is little detailed information on chemotherapy drugs. Finally, The predictive accuracy of the nomogram for OS needed to be validated by external cohorts.

Conclusions

Our study shows that race, marital status, T stage, N stage, M stage, surgery and lymph node removed were independent predictive factors of OS in bladder SRCC patients. We established a nomogram based on the above parametric, and identified the high accuracy and reliability in estimating the survival of individual patients. Thus, the nomogram could be an accessible prognosis tool in clinical practice and provide personalized treatment plans.

Acknowledgements

We thank the National Cancer Institute, which supports and oversees the SEER database.

Declarations

Since SEER is a publicly available database and all records have been deidentifed, no additional ethical approval or informed consent was required after the SEER Research Data Agreement was signed for accessing data. The study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Veskimäe E, Espinos EL, Bruins HM, Yuan Y, Sylvester R, Kamat AM, et al. What is the prognostic and clinical importance of urothelial and nonurothelial histological variants of bladder cancer in predicting oncological outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer? a European association of urology muscle invasive and metastatic bladder cancer guidelines panel systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(6):625–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.09.003.CrossRef Veskimäe E, Espinos EL, Bruins HM, Yuan Y, Sylvester R, Kamat AM, et al. What is the prognostic and clinical importance of urothelial and nonurothelial histological variants of bladder cancer in predicting oncological outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer? a European association of urology muscle invasive and metastatic bladder cancer guidelines panel systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(6):625–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​euo.​2019.​09.​003.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Saphir O. Signet-ring cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder [J]. Am J Pathol. 1955;31(2):223–31. Saphir O. Signet-ring cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder [J]. Am J Pathol. 1955;31(2):223–31.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Bouhajja L, Farah F, Garbouj N, Rammeh S. Primary signet-ring cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a report of two cases. Tunis Med. 2019;97:167–9. Bouhajja L, Farah F, Garbouj N, Rammeh S. Primary signet-ring cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a report of two cases. Tunis Med. 2019;97:167–9.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Dadhania V, Czerniak B, Guo CC. Adenocarcinoma of the urinary bladder [J]. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2015;3(2):51–63. Dadhania V, Czerniak B, Guo CC. Adenocarcinoma of the urinary bladder [J]. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2015;3(2):51–63.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Romics I, Székely E, Szendroi A. Signet-ring cell carcinoma arising from the urinary bladder [J]. Can J Urol. 2008;15(5):4266–8. Romics I, Székely E, Szendroi A. Signet-ring cell carcinoma arising from the urinary bladder [J]. Can J Urol. 2008;15(5):4266–8.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Hamakawa T, Kojima Y, Naiki T, Kubota Y, Yasui T, Tozawa K, et al. Long-term survival of a patient with invasive signet-ring cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder managed by combined s-1 and cisplatin adjuvant chemotherapy [J]. Case Rep Urol. 2013;2013:915874. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/915874.CrossRef Hamakawa T, Kojima Y, Naiki T, Kubota Y, Yasui T, Tozawa K, et al. Long-term survival of a patient with invasive signet-ring cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder managed by combined s-1 and cisplatin adjuvant chemotherapy [J]. Case Rep Urol. 2013;2013:915874. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2013/​915874.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
A model for predicting overall survival in bladder cancer patients with signet ring cell carcinoma: a population-based study
verfasst von
Liang Liu
Chuangui Li
Qiang Wang
Haibo Yuan
Yuanyuan Wang
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2023
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
European Journal of Medical Research / Ausgabe 1/2023
Elektronische ISSN: 2047-783X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00970-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

European Journal of Medical Research 1/2023 Zur Ausgabe