Prognostic Differences and Survival Predictive Models for Mucinous Versus Usual-Type Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix

IF 2.9 2区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Cancer Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-02 DOI:10.1002/cam4.70927

Yaxin Kang, Lele Chang, Jing Liu, Haizhou Ji, Qin Xu

{"title":"Prognostic Differences and Survival Predictive Models for Mucinous Versus Usual-Type Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix","authors":"Yaxin Kang, Lele Chang, Jing Liu, Haizhou Ji, Qin Xu","doi":"10.1002/cam4.70927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>There is significant histological heterogeneity between the endocervical adenocarcinoma (EA) subtypes. Usual-type carcinoma (adenocarcinoma) and mucinous carcinoma (mucinous adenocarcinoma, MA) are the most common types of EA.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Demographic and clinical variables were collected from the SEER database for selected patients between 2004 and 2021. The effect of confounding variables was reduced by propensity score matching (PSM). Survival data were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression models. A risk prediction model nomogram for MA was developed and validated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The median age for MA patients was 46 years compared to 45 years for adenocarcinoma (<i>p</i> = 0.021). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for MA were 88.2%, 74.5%, and 68.4%, respectively, significantly lower than those for adenocarcinoma (89.0%, 79.0%, and 74.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) showed a similar trend (<i>p</i> < 0.0001). Seven variables, including age, primary site, T, N, combined stage, surgery, and chemotherapy, were selected to create the nomograms for predicting OS, while age, primary site, tumor size, T, N, combined stage, and surgery were selected for CSS. The validations of all predictive models were satisfactory.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study revealed MA's poorer prognosis compared to adenocarcinoma using the SEER database. It developed predictive models for OS and CSS of MA, offering a more accurate prognosis assessment tool for clinical practice.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":139,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Medicine","volume":"14 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.70927","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70927","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is significant histological heterogeneity between the endocervical adenocarcinoma (EA) subtypes. Usual-type carcinoma (adenocarcinoma) and mucinous carcinoma (mucinous adenocarcinoma, MA) are the most common types of EA.

Methods

Demographic and clinical variables were collected from the SEER database for selected patients between 2004 and 2021. The effect of confounding variables was reduced by propensity score matching (PSM). Survival data were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression models. A risk prediction model nomogram for MA was developed and validated.

Results

The median age for MA patients was 46 years compared to 45 years for adenocarcinoma (p = 0.021). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates for MA were 88.2%, 74.5%, and 68.4%, respectively, significantly lower than those for adenocarcinoma (89.0%, 79.0%, and 74.9%, p < 0.0001). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) showed a similar trend (p < 0.0001). Seven variables, including age, primary site, T, N, combined stage, surgery, and chemotherapy, were selected to create the nomograms for predicting OS, while age, primary site, tumor size, T, N, combined stage, and surgery were selected for CSS. The validations of all predictive models were satisfactory.

Conclusion

This study revealed MA's poorer prognosis compared to adenocarcinoma using the SEER database. It developed predictive models for OS and CSS of MA, offering a more accurate prognosis assessment tool for clinical practice.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

宫颈黏液型与普通型腺癌的预后差异及生存预测模型

背景宫颈内腺癌（EA）亚型之间存在明显的组织学异质性。常见性癌（腺癌）和黏液性癌（粘液腺癌，MA）是最常见的EA类型。方法从2004年至2021年间选定的SEER数据库中收集患者的人口学和临床变量。通过倾向得分匹配（PSM）降低混杂变量的影响。生存数据采用Kaplan-Meier法和Cox回归模型进行分析。建立并验证了MA的风险预测模型nomogram。结果MA患者的中位年龄为46岁，腺癌患者的中位年龄为45岁（p = 0.021）。MA的1年、3年和5年总生存率（OS）分别为88.2%、74.5%和68.4%，显著低于腺癌（89.0%、79.0%和74.9%,p < 0.0001）。癌症特异性生存率（CSS）也有类似的趋势（p < 0.0001）。选择年龄、原发部位、T、N、联合分期、手术和化疗7个变量来创建预测OS的nomogram，而选择年龄、原发部位、肿瘤大小、T、N、联合分期和手术来预测CSS。所有预测模型的验证都令人满意。结论：本研究通过SEER数据库显示，与腺癌相比，MA的预后较差。建立MA的OS和CSS预测模型，为临床提供更准确的预后评估工具。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Cancer Medicine ONCOLOGY-

CiteScore

5.50

自引率

2.50%

发文量

907

审稿时长

19 weeks

期刊介绍： Cancer Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access, interdisciplinary journal providing rapid publication of research from global biomedical researchers across the cancer sciences. The journal will consider submissions from all oncologic specialties, including, but not limited to, the following areas: Clinical Cancer Research Translational research ∙ clinical trials ∙ chemotherapy ∙ radiation therapy ∙ surgical therapy ∙ clinical observations ∙ clinical guidelines ∙ genetic consultation ∙ ethical considerations Cancer Biology: Molecular biology ∙ cellular biology ∙ molecular genetics ∙ genomics ∙ immunology ∙ epigenetics ∙ metabolic studies ∙ proteomics ∙ cytopathology ∙ carcinogenesis ∙ drug discovery and delivery. Cancer Prevention: Behavioral science ∙ psychosocial studies ∙ screening ∙ nutrition ∙ epidemiology and prevention ∙ community outreach. Bioinformatics: Gene expressions profiles ∙ gene regulation networks ∙ genome bioinformatics ∙ pathwayanalysis ∙ prognostic biomarkers. Cancer Medicine publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and research methods papers, along with invited editorials and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.