[Clinical value of nomogram model in evaluating the prognosis of cholangiocarcinoma after interventional therapy].

Objective: To investigate the clinical value and efficacy of the nomogram model in evaluating the prognosis of cholangiocarcinoma after interventional therapy. Methods: The clinical data of 259 patients with cholangiocarcinoma who received interventional therapy at the First Affiliated Hospital of zhengzhou University from January 2014 to June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, including 148 males and 111 females, aged from 26 to 91 (65±12) years. They were randomly divided into a training group (181 cases) and a validation group (78 cases) in a ratio of 7∶3. Cox regression analysis was performed in the training group, independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients were screened, and a nomogram for 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year survival was constructed. The performance of the nomogram was analyzed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value, calibration curve, and decision curve, and the predictive efficacy of the model was evaluated in the validation group. Results: There was no significant difference in baseline data between the training group and the validation group, which was comparable. Regression analysis showed that T stage (T2: HR=0.147,95%CI: 0.077-0.281;T3: HR=0.207,95%CI: 0.122-0.351;T4: HR=0.864,95%CI: 0.537-1.393), tumor diameter (17-33 mm: HR=0.201,95%CI: 0.119-0.341;≥33 mm: HR=0.795,95%CI: 0.521-1.211) and differentiation degree(middle differentiation: HR=3.318,95%CI: 2.082-5.289;highly differentiation: HR=1.842,95%CI: 1.184-2.867) were risk factors affecting the prognosis of interventional therapy for cholangiocarcinoma. The AUC values of the survival curve prediction models were generally consistent between the training and validation groups, and the AUC values of the training group at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 0.925 (95%CI: 0.888-0.963), 0.921 (95%CI: 0.877-0.964) and 0.974 (95%CI: 0.957-0.993), respectively. In the validation group, the 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year AUC values were 0.951 (95%CI: 0.911-0.991), 0.917 (95%CI: 0.857-0.977) and 0.848 (95%CI: 0.737-0.959), respectively, and the AUC values were all greater than 0.8, suggesting that the nomogram had better discrimination ability. The calibration curves of the prediction models of the two groups were basically consistent, and the shape of the calibration curves at 6 months and 1 year fitted the ideal curve, while the fitting degree of the calibration curves at 2 years was relatively poor. The decision curve showed the high clinical utility of this nomogram in predicting the 6-month, 1-year survival of patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Conclusions: T stage, tumor diameter, and differentiation are independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients with interventional cholangiocarcinoma, and the nomogram model proposed in this study has good distinguishing ability and exact clinical value for prognosis evaluation.

Results after change of treatment policy for rectal cancer--report from a single hospital in China.

BACKGROUND: Great changes have occurred in the management of rectal cancer. This study presents the outcome of total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer in a single Chinese institution and evaluates TME's role in the comprehensive management of rectal cancer. METHODS: We reviewed the data of rectal cancer patients surgically treated by three colorectal surgeons from January 2000 to August 2004. Patients who received surgical resection for rectal cancer from January 1996 to December 1999, before the introduction of TME, were chosen as controls. Data regarding characteristics of patients and tumors, surgical procedures, postoperative complications, and results of follow-up were collected for analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-seven patients with rectal cancer were enrolled in our study, with 175 patients in the TME group and 202 as controls. Mortality and morbidity rates were 1% and 14% in TME patients and 1% and 31% in controls, respectively. The TME group had a shorter operation time and hospital stay, and less bleeding, wound and urinary complications. The local recurrence (LR) rate was 6% and 12% in the TME and the control groups, respectively (P<0.05). With a median follow-up of 35 months, the actuarial 5-year survival rate was 66%. Consistent with the univariate analysis result, multivariate analysis demonstrated that TNM stage, tumor grade, age, and surgeons were independent prognostic factors. TME was not an independent prognostic factor for patients' survival. CONCLUSIONS: TME is a safe and efficient option in reducing LR. However, it is not an independent predictor for patients' survival. In addition to the standardized usage of TME, further knowledge on the molecular mechanism of cancer is needed.