Development and Validation of Risk and Prognostic Nomograms for Bone Metastases in Chinese Advanced Colorectal Cancer Patients
Nan Wang,Fangqi Liu,Wenqi Xi,Jinling Jiang,Yun Xu,Bingjie Guan,Junwei Wu,Chenfei Zhou,Min Shi,Zhenggang Zhu,Ye Xu,Jing Liu,Jun Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.112
IF: 3.616
2021-01-01
Annals of Translational Medicine
Abstract:Background Bone metastases (BM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) are often accompanied by extraosseous metastases, resulting in a dismal prognosis. The present study aimed to determine the risk factors for BM in metastatic CRC (mCRC) and the prognostic factors for CRC patients with BM. Methods The study was based on a training cohort of 214 mCRC patients (of which, 101 patients had BM) from our center, and a validation cohort of 511 mCRC patients (of which, 173 patients had BM) from another institute. Risk and prognostic nomograms for BM were developed using univariate and multivariate analyses. The goodness of fit, discrimination, and calibration performance of the nomograms were assessed by R2, concordance statistics (C-statistics), and the calibration curve. The results were internally validated using bootstrap resampling in the training cohort, and externally validated in the validation cohort. Results The novel BM risk nomogram comprised seven variables [degree of tumor differentiation, N-stage, serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), liver metastasis, and lung metastasis]. It showed good performance, with an R2 of 0.447 and a C-statistic of 0.846 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.793 to 0.898] in the training cohort, and an R2 of 0.325 and a C-statistic of 0.792 (95% CI, 0.750 to 0.834) in the validation cohort. The optimal cutoff value to identify individuals at low or high risk was 56% probability, with a sensitivity of 71.3% and a specificity of 89.4%. The prognostic nomogram included five factors (tumor differentiation, number of extra-BM organs, number of BM lesions, ALP, and LDH), and had an R2 of 0.284 and a C-statistic of 0.723 (95% CI, 0.657 to 0.789) in the training set. This nomogram was externally validated in the validation cohort, with an R2 of 0.182 and a C-statistic of 0.682 (95% CI, 0.638 to 0.726). Conclusions The developed and validated risk and prognostic nomograms showed good performance for predicting the occurrence of BM in mCRC as well as the prognosis of CRC patients with BM. The risk nomogram can be used as a cost-effective preliminary screening tool prior to bone scanning.