Predicting the Survival Probability of Neuroendocrine Tumor Populations: Developing and Evaluating a New Predictive Nomogram.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop and initially validate a nomogram model in order to predict the 3-year and 5-year survival rates of neuroendocrine tumor patients. METHODS: Accordingly, 348 neuroendocrine tumor patients were enrolled as study objects, of which 244 (70%) patients were included in the training set to establish the nomogram model, while 104 (30%) patients were included in the validation set to verify the robustness of the model. First, the variables related to the survival rate were determined by univariable analysis. In addition, variables that were sufficiently significant were selected for constructing the nomogram model. Furthermore, the concordance index (C-index), receiver operating characteristic (ROC), and calibration curve analysis were used to evaluate the performance of the proposed nomogram model. The survival analysis was then used to evaluate the return to survival probability as well as the indicators of constructing the nomogram model. RESULTS: According to the multivariable analysis, lymphatic metastasis, international normalized ratio (INR), prothrombin time (PT), tumor differentiation, and the number of tumor metastases were found to be independent predictors of survival rate. Moreover, the C-index results demonstrated that the model was robust in both the training set (0.891) and validation set (0.804). In addition, the ROC results further verified the robustness of the model either in the training set (AUC = 0.823) or training set (AUC = 0.768). Furthermore, the calibration curve results showed that the model can be used to predict the 3-year and 5-year survival probability of neuroendocrine tumor patients. Meaningfully, five variables were found: lymphatic metastasis (p = 0.0095), international standardized ratio (p = 0.024), prothrombin time (p = 0.0036), tumor differentiation (p = 0.0026), and the number of tumor metastases (p = 0.00096), which were all significantly related to the 3-year and 5-year survival probability of neuroendocrine tumor patients. CONCLUSION: In summary, a nomogram model was constructed in this study based on five variables (lymphatic metastasis, international normalized ratio (INR), prothrombin time (PT), tumor differentiation, and number of tumor metastases), which was shown to predict the survival probability of patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Additionally, the proposed nomogram exhibited good ability in predicting survival probability, which may be easily adopted for clinical use.

Comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy alone vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy combined with chemotherapy in elderly nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients (aged >65 years).

PURPOSE: The efficacy and tolerability of adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy in the era of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) remain controversial among older patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The present study compared IMRT alone with IMRT in combination with chemotherapy in elderly NPC patients. METHODS: Between January 2011 and December 2014, 102 patients aged >65 years with NPC who received IMRT alone (IMRT group) or IMRT in combination with chemotherapy (IMRT/CT group) were enrolled. Patients from both treatment arms were pair-matched (1:1 ratio) based on six clinical factors. Differences in overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models, whereas the toxicity profile was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in OS (72.1% vs. 72.5%, p = 0.799), DFS (65.9% vs. 70.1%, p = 0.733), LRRFS (76.4% vs. 71.6%, p = 0.184), and DMFS (90.8% vs. 98.0%, p = 0.610) between the IMRT and IMRT/CT groups. Multivariate analyses showed that chemotherapy was not an independent factor for OS, DFS, LRRFS, and DMFS. However, the incidences of grade 3 vomiting/nausea (p = 0.000), leukopenia/neutropenia (p = 0.000), thrombocytopenia (p = 0.041), and anemia (p = 0.040) were significantly higher in the IMRT/CT group compared with the IMRT group. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: IMRT alone was similar to IMRT/CT in treating elderly NPC patients (age >65 years), with comparable survival outcomes and less grade 3 toxicities.