Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Gastroenterology 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Establishment of prognostic nomogram for elderly colorectal cancer patients: a SEER database analysis

verfasst von: Chaoran Yu, Yujie Zhang

Erschienen in: BMC Gastroenterology | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to establish nomogram models of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in elderly colorectal cancer (ECRC) patients (Age ≥ 70).

Methods

The clinical variables of patients confirmed as ECRC between 2004 and 2016 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed, followed by the construction of nomograms in OS and CSS.

Results

A total of 44,761 cases were finally included in this study. Both C-index and calibration plots indicated noticeable performance of newly established nomograms. Moreover, nomograms also showed higher outcomes of decision curve analysis (DCA) and the area under the curve (AUC) compared to American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage and SEER stage.

Conclusions

This study established nomograms of elderly colorectal cancer patients with distinct clinical values compared to AJCC TNM and SEER stages regarding both OS and CSS.
Hinweise
Chaoran Yu and Yujie Zhang contributed equally to this work.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
HR
Hazard ratio
95%CI
95% confidence intervals
OS
Overall survival
CSS
Cancer-specific survival
ECRC
Elderly colorectal cancer
SEER
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database
TNM
Tumor-Node-Metastasis stage
AJCC
American Joint Committee on Cancer
C-index
Concordance index
ROC
Receiver operating characteristics curve
DCA
Decision curve analysis
AUC
Area under receiver operating characteristics curve

Background

Colorectal cancer has been ranked as the second most common malignancy in women and third in men across the world. Annual global incidence is approximately 1.4 million with nearly 700,000 deaths [1, 2]. There are more than 50,000 death reports and over 130,000 newly occurred cases in the United States [2]. In European Union, 215,000 cases have been reported with colorectal cancer being listed as the second common cause of death [3]. In China, colorectal cancer is listed as one of the five most commonly malignancies both in men and women [4].
Genomic characterization of colorectal cancer has been well elucidated and the role of immunology is increasingly valued [57]. Therapeutically, surgical intervention and chemotherapy-based strategies have been widely accepted for colorectal cancer [8, 9]. Noteworthy, the impact of colorectal cancer surgery on the elder group, regarding long term survival, is similar to that of younger group [10].
Generally, elderly colorectal cancer patients (ECRC), defined by age surpass 70 years old, may naturally associate with increased mortality as age increased. However, no study did fully cover nor depict the quantified association of age and risks for prognosis of ECRC [11, 12]. Previously, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage system of American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) is widely used in the therapeutic and prognostic administration of colorectal cancer. Given increasing values of multiple variables, including tumor size and marital status, have been noticed [13, 14], a more comprehensive prognostic predictor is necessary for ECRC.
Of note, knowledge regarding the clinical prediction of ECRC is limited, with very few studies focusing on the nomogram implementation. In this study, a ECRC-targeting nomogram was established for prognostic prediction based on large sample size retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database in hopes of elucidating further prognostic insights [15].

Methods

Recruitment of patients from SEER database

The clinical variables of patients confirmed as ECRC between 2004 and 2016 were retrieved from the SEER database, a program established by National Cancer Institute aiming for comprehensively national-level clinical investigation [16, 17]. The reference number was 16,595-Nov2018. The inclusion criteria were: 1) colon and rectum (site recode, international classification of diseases for oncology (ICD-O-3)/WHO 2009); 2) age ≥ 70; 3) complete information on TNM stage; 4) only one primary tumor cases were selected; 5) surgery performed in each case. Next, all included cases were randomly divided into training and validation sets with equal sample size. In addition, x-tile software was used to determine and visualize the best cutoff points of age and tumor size variables in this study [18].

Clinical variables extracted for analysis

Age, sex, marital status, tumor site, histological grade, SEER stage, the AJCC TNM stage, distant metastasis (bone, brain, liver and lung) and tumor size were all selected for the establishment of nomogram modeling. Regarding the clinical outcome, overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were chosen as the primary and second endpoints.

Construction and validation of the nomogram

Statistically, chi-square test was used for all included categories between training and validation groups. Next, univariate and multivariate analysis were used to determine distinct variables, which were further output for the construction of nomogram model by R software 3.3.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, www.​r-project.​org). Then, the validation group was used for the assessment of the newly established nomogram. The comparison between the nomogram prediction and observed outcomes was assessed by the concordance index (C-index). The calibration plot was used for visualized comparison between prognosis predicted by nomogram and actual ones. Sensitivity and specificity were evaluated by receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC)-the area under the curve (AUC). Furthermore, the power of nomogram model was also compared to the TNM stage and SEER stage in both ROC and decision curve analysis (DCA). All analysis was achieved by R software 3.3.0, with p value< 0.05 considered as statistically significant.

Results

Characterization of included cases

Following inclusion criteria, a total of 44,761 cases were finally included in this study with 22,381 assigned to training set and 22,380 to validation set randomly (Fig. 1). Among all patients, 44.6% were male and 55.4% female; 47.6% were unmarried and 46.8% married; 81.9% were colon cancer and 18.1% rectal cancer; 0.3% of cases had bone metastasis, 0.1% with brain metastasis, 7.0% with liver metastasis, 1.8% with lung metastasis. The cutoff points of age and tumor size were determined by x-tile (Fig. 2). Specifically, 40.9% were < =76 years old, 44.5% between 77 and 86 years old, and 14.7% > =87 years old. 29.8% were < =3.4 cm, 36.3% between 3.5–5.9 cm and 25.4% > = 6 cm (Table 1). No significant difference was identified between training and validation cohorts regarding each included variable.
Table 1
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of elderly patients with CRC
Variables
Total
(n = 44,761)
Training cohort (n = 22,381)
Validation cohort (n = 22,380)
P#
Sex
   
0.105
 Male
19,969 (44.6)
10,070 (45.0)
9899 (44.2)
 
 Female
24,792 (55.4)
12,311 (55.0)
12,481 (55.8)
 
Age
   
0.953
  < =76
18,287 (40.9)
9148 (40.9)
9139 (40.8)
 
 77–86
19,901 (44.5)
9937 (44.4)
9964 (44.5)
 
  > =87
6573 (14.7)
3296 (14.7)
3277 (14.6)
 
Marital status
   
0.310
 Unmarried
21,287 (47.6)
10,563 (47.2)
10,724 (47.9)
 
 Married
20,927 (46.8)
10,534 (47.1)
10,393 (46.4)
 
 Unknown
2547 (5.7)
1284 (5.7)
1263 (5.6)
 
Tumor site
   
0.530
 Colon
36,652 (81.9)
18,352 (82.0)
18,300 (81.8)
 
 Rectum
8109 (18.1)
4029 (18.0)
4080 (18.2)
 
Grade
   
0.346
 I
3870 (8.6)
1919 (8.6)
1951 (8.7)
 
 II
29,426 (65.7)
14,665 (65.5)
14,761 (66.0)
 
 III
7478 (16.7)
3781 (16.9)
3697 (16.5)
 
 IV
1642 (3.7)
806 (3.6)
836 (3.7)
 
 Unknown
2345 (5.2)
1210 (5.4)
1135 (5.1)
 
SEER_stage
   
0.994
 Localized
19,923 (44.5)
9957 (44.5)
9966 (44.5)
 
 Regional
19,512 (43.6)
9758 (43.6)
9754 (43.6)
 
 Distant
5326 (11.9)
2666 (11.9)
2660 (11.9)
 
AJCC_stage
   
0.797
 I
12,173 (27.2)
6065 (27.1)
6108 (27.3)
 
 II
14,656 (32.7)
7300 (32.6)
7356 (32.9)
 
 III
13,071 (29.2)
6581 (29.4)
6490 (29.0)
 
 IV
4861 (10.9)
2435 (10.9)
2426 (10.8)
 
AJCC_T
   
0.674
 T1
7352 (16.4)
3665 (16.4)
3687 (16.5)
 
 T2
6570 (14.7)
3243 (14.5)
3327 (14.9)
 
 T3
23,269 (52.0)
11,669 (52.1)
11,600 (51.8)
 
 T4
7570 (16.9)
3804 (17.0)
3766 (16.8)
 
AJCC_N
   
0.271
 N0
27,879 (62.3)
13,893 (62.1)
13,986 (62.5)
 
 N1
10,677 (23.9)
5410 (24.2)
5267 (23.5)
 
 N2
6205 (13.9)
3078 (13.8)
3127 (14.0)
 
AJCC_M
   
0.893
 M0
39,900 (89.1)
19,946 (89.1)
19,954 (89.2)
 
 M1
4861 (10.9)
2435 (10.9)
2426 (10.8)
 
Bone metastasis
   
0.990
 No
44,314 (99.0)
22,158 (99.0)
22,156 (99.0)
 
 Yes
119 (0.3)
60 (0.3)
59 (0.3)
 
 Unknown
328 (0.7)
163 (0.7)
165 (0.7)
 
Brain metastasis
   
0.700
 No
44,375 (99.1)
22,193 (99.2)
22,182 (99.1)
 
 Yes
41 (0.1)
22 (0.1)
19 (0.1)
 
 Unknown
345 (0.8)
166 (0.7)
179 (0.8)
 
Liver metastasis
   
0.978
 No
41,350 (92.4)
20,677 (92.4)
20,673 (92.4)
 
 Yes
3138 (7.0)
1566 (7.0)
1572 (7.0)
 
 Unknown
273 (0.6)
138 (0.6)
135 (0.6)
 
Lung metastasis
   
0.586
 No
43,655 (97.5)
21,837 (97.6)
21,818 (97.5)
 
 Yes
784 (1.8)
379 (1.7)
405 (1.8)
 
 Unknown
322 (0.7)
165 (0.7)
157 (0.7)
 
Tumor size
   
0.678
  < =3.4
13,341 (29.8)
6625 (29.6)
6716 (30.0)
 
 3.5–5.9
16,250 (36.3)
8142 (36.4)
8108 (36.2)
 
  > =6
11,387 (25.4)
5736 (25.6)
5651 (25.3)
 
 Unknown
3783 (8.5)
1878 (8.4)
1905 (8.5)
 
# Chi-square test

Establishment of the nomogram

Interestingly, sex, age, marital status, tumor size, grade, SEER stage, AJCC TNM stage, bone metastasis, brain metastasis, liver metastasis, lung metastasis and tumor size were all displayed high statistically difference in univariate OS analysis (Table 2). Next, sex, age, marital status, grade, AJCC TNM, bone metastasis, brain metastasis, liver metastasis and lung metastasis and tumor size were all significantly identified in OS multivariate analysis (Table 2). Meanwhile in CSS, age, marital status, tumor site, grade, SEER stage, AJCC TNM stage, bone metastasis, brain metastasis, liver metastasis, lung metastasis and tumor size were significantly identified in univariate CSS analysis. Age, marital status, tumor site, grade, SEER stage, AJCC TNM, bone metastasis, brain metastasis, liver metastasis, lung metastasis and tumor size were significantly associated with CSS in multivariate analysis (Table 3). Thus, OS and CSS nomogram models of 1-, 3- and 5-year were established, respectively (Fig. 3a, b).
Table 2
Univariate and multivariate analysis of overall survival in the training cohort
Variables
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
P
HR (95% CI)
P
Sex
0.060
  
 Male
 
Reference
 
 Female
 
0.786(0.752–0.822)
< 0.001
Age
< 0.001
  
  < =76
 
Reference
 
 77–86
 
1.725(1.643–1.811)
< 0.001
  > =87
 
2.868(2.699–3.047)
< 0.001
Marital status
< 0.001
  
 Unmarried
 
Reference
 
 Married
 
0.762(0.727–0.798)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
0.957(0.873–1.050)
0.351
Tumor site
< 0.001
  
 Colon
 
Reference
 
 Rectum
 
0.991(0.936–1.050)
0.765
Grade
< 0.001
  
 I
 
Reference
 
 II
 
1.114(1.022–1.215)
0.014
 III
 
1.315(1.195–1.447)
< 0.001
 IV
 
1.413(1.247–1.601)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
1.146(1.005–1.307)
0.042
SEER_stage
< 0.001
  
 Localized
 
Reference
 
 Regional
 
1.047(0.973–1.126)
0.222
 Distant
 
1.181(0.975–1.431)
0.088
AJCC_stage
< 0.001
  
 I
 
 II
 
 III
 
 IV
 
AJCC_T
< 0.001
  
 T1
 
Reference
 
 T2
 
1.083(0.979–1.199)
0.123
 T3
 
1.353(1.233–1.486)
< 0.001
 T4
 
2.173(1.953–2.418)
< 0.001
AJCC_N
< 0.001
  
 N0
 
Reference
 
 N1
 
1.365(1.282–1.453)
< 0.001
 N2
 
1.975(1.845–2.113)
< 0.001
AJCC_M
< 0.001
  
 M0
 
Reference
 
 M1
 
2.017(1.662–2.448)
< 0.001
Bone metastasis
< 0.001
  
 No
 
Reference
 
 Yes
 
1.393(1.058–1.835)
0.018
 Unknown
 
1.507(0.909–2.500)
0.112
Brain metastasis
< 0.001
  
 No
 
Reference
 
 Yes
 
2.145(1.401–3.285)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
0.687(0.415–1.135)
0.142
Liver metastasis
< 0.001
  
 No
 
Reference
 
 Yes
 
1.329(1.209–1.462)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
0.962(0.684–1.352)
0.822
Lung metastasis
< 0.001
  
 No
 
Reference
 
 Yes
 
1.327(1.178–1.495)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
1.432(1.033–1.984)
0.031
Tumor size
< 0.001
  
  < =3.4
 
Reference
 
 3.5–5.9
 
1.026(0.968–1.088)
0.379
  > =6
 
1.137(1.069–1.210)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
1.272(1.156–1.398)
< 0.001
Table 3
Univariate and multivariate analysis of cancer-specific survival in the training cohort
Variables
Univariate analysis
Multivariate analysis
P
P
HR (95% CI)
Sex
0.644
  
 Male
 
 Female
 
Age
< 0.001
  
  < =76
 
Reference
 
 77–86
 
1.499(1.412–1.592)
< 0.001
  > =87
 
2.252(2.083–2.435)
< 0.001
Marital status
< 0.001
  
 Unmarried
 
Reference
 
 Married
 
0.836(0.791–0.884)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
1.011(0.896–1.140)
0.865
Tumor site
< 0.001
  
 Colon
 
Reference
 
 Rectum
 
1.088(1.011–1.171)
0.024
Grade
< 0.001
  
 I
 
Reference
 
 II
 
1.061(0.943–1.194)
0.326
 III
 
1.324(1.168–1.502)
< 0.001
 IV
 
1.417(1.212–1.657)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
1.100(0.916–1.321)
0.308
SEER_stage
< 0.001
  
 Localized
 
Reference
 
 Regional
 
1.492(1.343–1.657)
< 0.001
 Distant
 
1.883(1.507–2.354)
< 0.001
AJCC_stage
< 0.001
  
 I
 
 II
 
 III
 
 IV
 
AJCC_T
< 0.001
  
 T1
 
Reference
 
 T2
 
1.417(1.185–1.694)
< 0.001
 T3
 
2.244(1.912–2.634)
< 0.001
 T4
 
3.914(3.301–4.640)
< 0.001
AJCC_N
< 0.001
  
 N0
 
Reference
 
 N1
 
1.561(1.444–1.687)
< 0.001
 N2
 
2.426(2.237–2.631)
< 0.001
AJCC_M
< 0.001
  
 M0
 
Reference
 
 M1
 
2.160(1.743–2.677)
< 0.001
Bone metastasis
< 0.001
  
 No
 
Reference
 
 Yes
 
1.360(1.021–1.812)
0.036
 Unknown
 
1.600(0.934–2.743)
0.087
Brain metastasis
< 0.001
  
 No
 
Reference
 
 Yes
 
2.424(1.564–3.756)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
0.602(0.346–1.049)
0.073
Liver metastasis
< 0.001
  
 No
 
Reference
 
 Yes
 
1.414(1.280–1.563)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
1.047(0.724–1.514)
0.807
Lung metastasis
< 0.001
  
 No
 
Reference
 
 Yes
 
1.359(1.200–1.539)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
1.439(1.020–2.029)
0.038
Tumor size
< 0.001
  
  < =3.4
 
Reference
 
 3.5–5.9
 
1.017(0.942–1.097)
0.670
  > =6
 
1.186(1.095–1.283)
< 0.001
 Unknown
 
1.394(1.221–1.592)
< 0.001

Nomogram validation

The assessment was performed both internally and externally, measured by C-index and calibration plots. Specifically, C-index of OS nomogram was 0.726 (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.720–0.732) in training set while 0.722 (95%CI: 0.716–0.728) in validation set (Table 4. C-index of CSS was 0.791 (95%CI: 0.785–0.797) in training set while 0.789 (95%CI: 0.783–0.795) (Table 4). Meanwhile, calibration plots indicated high quality of predicted outcome of OS/CSS nomogram models (Figs. 4, 5). Next, to further compare the nomograms with other classic staging methods, including AJCC TNM stage and SEER stage, DCA and ROC were performed in both OS and CSS. In DCA, nomograms both in OS and CSS showed superior power to AJCC TNM stage and SEER stage (Fig. 6). Meanwhile, nomograms in OS and CSS also showed higher statistic power to AJCC TNM stage and SEER stage (Figs. 7, 8, Table 5).
Table 4
C-indexes for the nomograms and other stage systems in patients with CRC
Survival
 
Training set
Validation set
HR
95%CI
P
HR
95%CI
P
OS
Nomogram
0.726
0.720–0.732
Reference
0.722
0.716–0.728
Reference
SEER stage
0.649
0.643–0.655
< 0.001
0.65
0.644–0.656
< 0.001
7th edition TNM stage
0.682
0.676–0.688
< 0.001
0.681
0.675–0.687
< 0.001
CSS
Nomogram
0.791
0.785–0.797
Reference
0.789
0.783–0.795
Reference
SEER stage
0.728
0.721–0.735
< 0.001
0.727
0.720–0.734
< 0.001
7th edition TNM stage
0.77
0.763–0.777
< 0.001
0.767
0.760–0.774
< 0.001
Table 5
The area under the curve (AUC) of comparison between nomograms and AJCC TNM stage and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database stage
Survival
AUC
Training set
Validation set
1-year
3-year
5-year
1-year
3-year
5-year
OS
Nomogram
0.760
0.774
0.766
0.758
0.768
0.760
SEER stage
0.677
0.685
0.670
0.676
0.685
0.668
7th edition TNM stage
0.714
0.725
0.712
0.710
0.723
0.702
CSS
Nomogram
0.819
0.839
0.833
0.817
0.837
0.830
SEER stage
0.746
0.764
0.763
0.742
0.764
0.758
7th edition TNM stage
0.790
0.817
0.817
0.785
0.814
0.810

Discussion

Up to now, numerous studies had investigated the role of prognostic nomograms for colorectal cancer patients using SEER database for variable objects [19, 20]. In fact, increasing studies tended to focus more on the therapeutics or modified classification, with very rare highlighted the role of age in the prognostic assessment of colorectal cancer. Our previous study reported that a nomogram for early-onset colorectal cancer patients could display comparably higher C-index value and better performance than conventional variables [21]. ECRC, on the other hand, had been explored with limited studies. Li et al. reported that, with 18,937 included cases, adjuvant chemotherapy did not offer additional survival benefits to elderly patients with stage II or III [22]. Nonetheless, a general prognostic nomogram of ECRC is yet to be fully characterized. In this study, the nomograms displayed higher C-index and convinced calibration plots for OS and CSS prediction using SEER database. Moreover, they achieved higher values regarding both AUC and DCA assessment systems compared to AJCC TNM and SEER stages.
Of note, in OS, 12 variables (sex, age, marital status, grade, AJCC TNM, bone metastasis, brain metastasis, liver metastasis and lung metastasis and tumor size) out of 15 variables were determined for the construction of nomogram. Similar feature had also been noticed in CSS nomogram. It was highly possible that the prognosis of ECRC could be associated with more variables than common colorectal cancer cases. Moreover, four types of distant metastasis, for the first time, had been incorporated for nomogram of ECRC in SEER analysis.
In addition, X-tile tool was introduced for the best cutoff values of age and tumor size in this study. X-tile tool was established as a powerful graphic method to illustrate potential subsets (cutoff) with construction of a two dimensional projection [18]. It had been widely used in numerous investigations, including esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, bladder cancer and chondrosarcoma [2325]. In this study, for the first time, subsets of consecutive variables, age and tumor size, were determined by X-tile tool. In fact, the role of tumor size had been intensively studied [26]. However, the cutoff points of tumor size in colorectal cancer remain largely arbitrary. Therefore, introduction of X-tile for the classification of tumor size could be both reliable and replicated.
Generally, elderly patients may naturally associate with increased mortality as age increased. However, no study did fully cover nor depict the quantified association of age and risks for prognosis, particularly when elderly patients had surpassed 70 years old. In our study, age itself was identified as a higher risk factor in OS compared to CSS nomogram, with age ≥ 87 representing nearly 90 points in OS but less than 60 points in CSS. Interestingly, female was identified as a protective factor in OS nomogram, instead of CSS nomogram. Moreover, marriage is also identified as a protective factor in both OS and CSS nomogram. By comparing OS and CSS nomograms, insightful clues had been noticed for further external clinical investigation.

Conclusion

This study established nomograms of elderly colorectal cancer patients with distinct clinical values compared to AJCC TNM and SEER stages regarding both OS and CSS.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.
Not applicable. This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare no conflict of interest in this study.
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
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, et al. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality [J]. Gut. 2017;66(4):683–91.CrossRef Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, et al. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality [J]. Gut. 2017;66(4):683–91.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(3):177–93.CrossRef Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(3):177–93.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1374–403.CrossRef Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1374–403.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):115–32.CrossRef Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):115–32.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Network CGA. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature. 2012;487(7407):330.CrossRef Network CGA. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature. 2012;487(7407):330.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat De Roock W, De Vriendt V, Normanno N, et al. KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and PTEN mutations: implications for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer [J]. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(6):594–603.CrossRef De Roock W, De Vriendt V, Normanno N, et al. KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and PTEN mutations: implications for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer [J]. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(6):594–603.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Lazarus J, Oneka MD, Barua S, et al. Mathematical modeling of the metastatic colorectal cancer microenvironment defines the importance of cytotoxic lymphocyte infiltration and presence of PD-L1 on antigen presenting cells [J]. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(9):2821–30.CrossRef Lazarus J, Oneka MD, Barua S, et al. Mathematical modeling of the metastatic colorectal cancer microenvironment defines the importance of cytotoxic lymphocyte infiltration and presence of PD-L1 on antigen presenting cells [J]. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(9):2821–30.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Edge SB, Compton CC. The American joint committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471–4.CrossRef Edge SB, Compton CC. The American joint committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471–4.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Benson AB, Venook AP, Cederquist L, Chan E, Chen YJ, Cooper HS, Deming D, Engstrom PF, Enzinger PC, Fichera A, Grem JL. Colon cancer, version 1. 2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15(3):370–98.CrossRef Benson AB, Venook AP, Cederquist L, Chan E, Chen YJ, Cooper HS, Deming D, Engstrom PF, Enzinger PC, Fichera A, Grem JL. Colon cancer, version 1. 2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15(3):370–98.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Devon KM, Vergara-Fernandez O, Victor JC, et al. Colorectal cancer surgery in elderly patients: presentation, treatment, and outcomes [J]. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(7):1272–7.CrossRef Devon KM, Vergara-Fernandez O, Victor JC, et al. Colorectal cancer surgery in elderly patients: presentation, treatment, and outcomes [J]. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(7):1272–7.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kennedy AS, Ball DS, Cohen SJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of radioembolization in elderly (≥ 70 years) and younger patients with unresectable liver-dominant colorectal cancer [J]. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(2):141–151. e6.CrossRef Kennedy AS, Ball DS, Cohen SJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of radioembolization in elderly (≥ 70 years) and younger patients with unresectable liver-dominant colorectal cancer [J]. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(2):141–151. e6.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Feliu J, Salud A, Escudero P, et al. XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) as first-line treatment for elderly patients over 70 years of age with advanced colorectal cancer [J]. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(7):969–75.CrossRef Feliu J, Salud A, Escudero P, et al. XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) as first-line treatment for elderly patients over 70 years of age with advanced colorectal cancer [J]. Br J Cancer. 2006;94(7):969–75.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Suzuki C, Blomqvist L, Sundin A, et al. The initial change in tumor size predicts response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy [J]. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(4):948–54.CrossRef Suzuki C, Blomqvist L, Sundin A, et al. The initial change in tumor size predicts response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy [J]. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(4):948–54.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Li Q, Gan L, Liang L, et al. The influence of marital status on stage at diagnosis and survival of patients with colorectal cancer [J]. Oncotarget. 2015;6(9):7339.CrossRef Li Q, Gan L, Liang L, et al. The influence of marital status on stage at diagnosis and survival of patients with colorectal cancer [J]. Oncotarget. 2015;6(9):7339.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Hayat MJ, Howlader N, Reichman ME, et al. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program [J]. Oncologist. 2007;12(1). Hayat MJ, Howlader N, Reichman ME, et al. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program [J]. Oncologist. 2007;12(1).
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Hankey BF, Ries LA, Edwards BK. The surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program: a national resource. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers. 1999;8(12):1117–21. Hankey BF, Ries LA, Edwards BK. The surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program: a national resource. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomarkers. 1999;8(12):1117–21.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Hayat MJ, Howlader N, Reichman ME, Edwards BK. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. Oncologist. 2007;12(1):20–37.CrossRef Hayat MJ, Howlader N, Reichman ME, Edwards BK. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. Oncologist. 2007;12(1):20–37.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, Rimm DL. X-tile: a new bio-informatics tool for biomarker assessment and outcome-based cut-point optimization. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(21):7252–9.CrossRef Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, Rimm DL. X-tile: a new bio-informatics tool for biomarker assessment and outcome-based cut-point optimization. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(21):7252–9.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Kong X, Li J, Cai Y, et al. A modified TNM staging system for non-metastatic colorectal cancer based on nomogram analysis of SEER database [J]. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):50.CrossRef Kong X, Li J, Cai Y, et al. A modified TNM staging system for non-metastatic colorectal cancer based on nomogram analysis of SEER database [J]. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):50.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang Z, Luo Q, Yin X, et al. Nomograms to predict survival after colorectal cancer resection without preoperative therapy [J]. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):658.CrossRef Zhang Z, Luo Q, Yin X, et al. Nomograms to predict survival after colorectal cancer resection without preoperative therapy [J]. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):658.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu C, Zhang Y. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for early-onset colon cancer [J]. Biosci Rep. 2019;39(6). Yu C, Zhang Y. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for early-onset colon cancer [J]. Biosci Rep. 2019;39(6).
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Li D, Zhong C, Tang X, et al. Competing nomograms help in the selection of elderly patients with colon cancer for adjuvant chemotherapy [J]. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(5):909–23.CrossRef Li D, Zhong C, Tang X, et al. Competing nomograms help in the selection of elderly patients with colon cancer for adjuvant chemotherapy [J]. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(5):909–23.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Tan Z, Zhang M, Han Q, et al. A novel blood tool of cancer prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the fibrinogen/albumin ratio [J]. J Cancer. 2017;8(6):1025.CrossRef Tan Z, Zhang M, Han Q, et al. A novel blood tool of cancer prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the fibrinogen/albumin ratio [J]. J Cancer. 2017;8(6):1025.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhou H, Tang K, Xiao H, et al. A panel of eight-miRNA signature as a potential biomarker for predicting survival in bladder cancer [J]. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015;34(1):53.CrossRef Zhou H, Tang K, Xiao H, et al. A panel of eight-miRNA signature as a potential biomarker for predicting survival in bladder cancer [J]. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015;34(1):53.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Song K, Shi X, Wang H, et al. Can a nomogram help to predict the overall and cancer-specific survival of patients with chondrosarcoma?[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(5):987.CrossRef Song K, Shi X, Wang H, et al. Can a nomogram help to predict the overall and cancer-specific survival of patients with chondrosarcoma?[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(5):987.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Kornprat P, Pollheimer MJ, Lindtner RA, et al. Value of tumor size as a prognostic variable in colorectal cancer: a critical reappraisal [J]. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34(1):43–9.CrossRef Kornprat P, Pollheimer MJ, Lindtner RA, et al. Value of tumor size as a prognostic variable in colorectal cancer: a critical reappraisal [J]. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34(1):43–9.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Establishment of prognostic nomogram for elderly colorectal cancer patients: a SEER database analysis
verfasst von
Chaoran Yu
Yujie Zhang
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Gastroenterology / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-230X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01464-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Gastroenterology 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

25.04.2024 Hypertonie Nachrichten

Beginnen ältere Männer im Pflegeheim eine Antihypertensiva-Therapie, dann ist die Frakturrate in den folgenden 30 Tagen mehr als verdoppelt. Besonders häufig stürzen Demenzkranke und Männer, die erstmals Blutdrucksenker nehmen. Dafür spricht eine Analyse unter US-Veteranen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.