External validation and comparison of five prediction models for lymph node metastasis after noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Ayaka Takasu, Waku Hatta, Takuji Gotoda, Yohei Ogata, Yuichiro Kemmoto, Hiroto Noda, Souya Nunobe, João Santos-Antunes, Hiroshi Kawachi
{"title":"External validation and comparison of five prediction models for lymph node metastasis after noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer.","authors":"Ayaka Takasu, Waku Hatta, Takuji Gotoda, Yohei Ogata, Yuichiro Kemmoto, Hiroto Noda, Souya Nunobe, João Santos-Antunes, Hiroshi Kawachi","doi":"10.1007/s10120-026-01798-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Additional gastrectomy is recommended after noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) despite the low incidence of lymph node metastasis (LNM). The eCura system, W-eCura score, and 11-point score reportedly predict LNM risk; however, their comparative performance remains unclear. We aimed to externally validate and directly compare five risk stratification approaches in patients with noncurative ESD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively evaluated 634 consecutive patients with EGC who underwent noncurative ESD at a single high-volume center. Five prediction models were evaluated: the eCura system (7-point score and three-risk classification), W-eCura score (7-point score and three-risk classification), and 11-point score. All pathological findings were re-evaluated by an outcome-blinded expert pathologist. Model performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and decision-curve analysis (DCA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LNM was identified in 26 (4.9%) patients. All models showed comparable discrimination (c-statistics, 0.71 to 0.72). However, calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope were poorer in the W-eCura score and 11-point score (- 1.43 to - 0.96 and 0.26 to 0.64) than in the eCura system (- 0.43 to - 0.40 and 0.83 to 0.84). Using DCA, the eCura system and W-eCura score consistently showed higher net benefits than did the 11-point score across clinically relevant threshold probabilities. Recalibration improved both calibration and net benefits across all models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite similar discriminative performance, the eCura system demonstrated relatively favorable calibration and potential clinical utility in this Japanese cohort. Given their simplicity and structural similarity, three-risk classifications of the eCura system and W-eCura score, when appropriately calibrated, may support decision-making regarding additional gastrectomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12684,"journal":{"name":"Gastric Cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastric Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-026-01798-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Additional gastrectomy is recommended after noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) despite the low incidence of lymph node metastasis (LNM). The eCura system, W-eCura score, and 11-point score reportedly predict LNM risk; however, their comparative performance remains unclear. We aimed to externally validate and directly compare five risk stratification approaches in patients with noncurative ESD.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 634 consecutive patients with EGC who underwent noncurative ESD at a single high-volume center. Five prediction models were evaluated: the eCura system (7-point score and three-risk classification), W-eCura score (7-point score and three-risk classification), and 11-point score. All pathological findings were re-evaluated by an outcome-blinded expert pathologist. Model performance was assessed by discrimination, calibration, and decision-curve analysis (DCA).

Results: LNM was identified in 26 (4.9%) patients. All models showed comparable discrimination (c-statistics, 0.71 to 0.72). However, calibration-in-the-large and calibration slope were poorer in the W-eCura score and 11-point score (- 1.43 to - 0.96 and 0.26 to 0.64) than in the eCura system (- 0.43 to - 0.40 and 0.83 to 0.84). Using DCA, the eCura system and W-eCura score consistently showed higher net benefits than did the 11-point score across clinically relevant threshold probabilities. Recalibration improved both calibration and net benefits across all models.

Conclusions: Despite similar discriminative performance, the eCura system demonstrated relatively favorable calibration and potential clinical utility in this Japanese cohort. Given their simplicity and structural similarity, three-risk classifications of the eCura system and W-eCura score, when appropriately calibrated, may support decision-making regarding additional gastrectomy.

早期胃癌内镜下黏膜下非治愈性剥离术后淋巴结转移的5种预测模型的外部验证与比较。
背景:尽管早期胃癌(EGC)的淋巴结转移(LNM)发生率较低,但内镜下粘膜下剥离(ESD)后仍建议进行额外的胃切除术。据报道,eCura系统、W-eCura评分和11分评分可以预测LNM风险;然而,它们的比较表现仍不清楚。我们的目的是外部验证并直接比较五种风险分层方法在不可治愈的ESD患者中的应用。方法:我们回顾性评估了634例连续的EGC患者,这些患者在一个大容量中心接受了不可治愈的ESD。评估5种预测模型:eCura系统(7分评分和三风险分类)、W-eCura评分(7分评分和三风险分类)和11分评分。所有病理结果由结果盲法病理学专家重新评估。通过判别、校准和决策曲线分析(DCA)来评估模型的性能。结果:26例(4.9%)患者确诊为LNM。所有模型均显示可比性歧视(c-statistics, 0.71 ~ 0.72)。然而,W-eCura评分和11分评分(- 1.43至- 0.96和0.26至0.64)的校准和校准斜率比eCura系统(- 0.43至- 0.40和0.83至0.84)差。使用DCA, eCura系统和W-eCura评分始终比临床相关阈值概率的11分评分显示更高的净收益。重新校准改善了所有模型的校准和净收益。结论:尽管有类似的判别性能,eCura系统在日本队列中显示出相对有利的校准和潜在的临床应用。考虑到eCura系统和W-eCura评分的简单性和结构相似性,三风险分类和W-eCura评分经过适当校准后,可以支持是否进行额外胃切除术的决策。
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
Gastric Cancer
Gastric Cancer 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
14.70
自引率
2.70%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Gastric Cancer is an esteemed global forum that focuses on various aspects of gastric cancer research, treatment, and biology worldwide. The journal promotes a diverse range of content, including original articles, case reports, short communications, and technical notes. It also welcomes Letters to the Editor discussing published articles or sharing viewpoints on gastric cancer topics. Review articles are predominantly sought after by the Editor, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the field. With a dedicated and knowledgeable editorial team, the journal is committed to providing exceptional support and ensuring high levels of author satisfaction. In fact, over 90% of published authors have expressed their intent to publish again in our esteemed journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书