AB077.对318名接受过手术治疗的转移性脊柱肿瘤患者的生存预后评分系统进行评估。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Si Jian Hui, Naresh Kumar, Eugene Chua, Cherie Lin Hui Tan, Xinyi Lim, James Hallinan, Yiong Huak Chan, Jiong Hao Tan
{"title":"AB077.对318名接受过手术治疗的转移性脊柱肿瘤患者的生存预后评分系统进行评估。","authors":"Si Jian Hui, Naresh Kumar, Eugene Chua, Cherie Lin Hui Tan, Xinyi Lim, James Hallinan, Yiong Huak Chan, Jiong Hao Tan","doi":"10.21037/cco-24-ab077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Survival prognostication plays a key role in the decision-making process for the surgical treatment of patients with spinal metastases. In the past traditional scoring systems such as the modified Tokuhashi and Tomita scoring systems have been used extensively, however in recent years their accuracy has been called into question. This has led to the development of machine learning algorithms to predict survival. In this study, we aim to compare the accuracy of prognostic scoring systems in a surgically treated cohort of patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective review of 318 surgically treated spinal metastases patients between 2009 and 2021. The primary outcome measured was survival from the time of diagnosis. Predicted survival at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year based on the prognostic scoring system was compared to actual survival. Predictive values of each scoring system were measured via area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). The following scoring systems were compared, Modified Tokuhashi (MT), Tomita (T), Modified Bauer (MB), Van Den Linden (VDL), Oswestry (O), New England Spinal Metastases score (NESMS), Global Spine Study Tumor Group (GSTSG) and Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) scoring systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For predicting 3 months survival, the GSTSG 0.980 (0.949-1.0) and NESM 0.980 (0.949-1.0) had outstanding predictive value, while the SORG 0.837 (0.751-0.923) and O 0.837 (0.775-0.900) had excellent predictive value. While for 6 months survival, only the O 0.819 (0.758-0.880) had excellent predictive value and the GSTSG 0.791(0.725-0.857) had acceptable predictive value. For 1 year survival, the NESM 0.871 (0.822-0.919) had excellent predictive value and the O 0.722 (0.657-0.786) had acceptable predictive value. The MT, T and MB scores had an area under the curve (AUC) of <0.5 for 3-month, 6-month and 1-year survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increasingly, traditional scoring systems such as the MT, T and MB scoring systems have become less predictive. While newer scoring systems such as the GSTSG, NESM and SORG have outstanding to excellent predictive value, there is no one survival scoring system that is able to accurately prognosticate survival at all 3 time points. A multidisciplinary, personalised approach to survival prognostication is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":9945,"journal":{"name":"Chinese clinical oncology","volume":"13 Suppl 1","pages":"AB077"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AB077. An evaluation of prognostic scoring systems for survival in a surgically treated cohort of 318 metastatic spine tumour surgery patients.\",\"authors\":\"Si Jian Hui, Naresh Kumar, Eugene Chua, Cherie Lin Hui Tan, Xinyi Lim, James Hallinan, Yiong Huak Chan, Jiong Hao Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/cco-24-ab077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Survival prognostication plays a key role in the decision-making process for the surgical treatment of patients with spinal metastases. In the past traditional scoring systems such as the modified Tokuhashi and Tomita scoring systems have been used extensively, however in recent years their accuracy has been called into question. This has led to the development of machine learning algorithms to predict survival. In this study, we aim to compare the accuracy of prognostic scoring systems in a surgically treated cohort of patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective review of 318 surgically treated spinal metastases patients between 2009 and 2021. The primary outcome measured was survival from the time of diagnosis. Predicted survival at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year based on the prognostic scoring system was compared to actual survival. Predictive values of each scoring system were measured via area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). The following scoring systems were compared, Modified Tokuhashi (MT), Tomita (T), Modified Bauer (MB), Van Den Linden (VDL), Oswestry (O), New England Spinal Metastases score (NESMS), Global Spine Study Tumor Group (GSTSG) and Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) scoring systems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For predicting 3 months survival, the GSTSG 0.980 (0.949-1.0) and NESM 0.980 (0.949-1.0) had outstanding predictive value, while the SORG 0.837 (0.751-0.923) and O 0.837 (0.775-0.900) had excellent predictive value. While for 6 months survival, only the O 0.819 (0.758-0.880) had excellent predictive value and the GSTSG 0.791(0.725-0.857) had acceptable predictive value. For 1 year survival, the NESM 0.871 (0.822-0.919) had excellent predictive value and the O 0.722 (0.657-0.786) had acceptable predictive value. The MT, T and MB scores had an area under the curve (AUC) of <0.5 for 3-month, 6-month and 1-year survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increasingly, traditional scoring systems such as the MT, T and MB scoring systems have become less predictive. While newer scoring systems such as the GSTSG, NESM and SORG have outstanding to excellent predictive value, there is no one survival scoring system that is able to accurately prognosticate survival at all 3 time points. A multidisciplinary, personalised approach to survival prognostication is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese clinical oncology\",\"volume\":\"13 Suppl 1\",\"pages\":\"AB077\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese clinical oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/cco-24-ab077\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/cco-24-ab077","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:生存预后在脊柱转移患者手术治疗的决策过程中起着关键作用。过去,改良德桥评分系统和富田评分系统等传统评分系统被广泛使用,但近年来其准确性受到质疑。因此,人们开发了机器学习算法来预测生存率。在本研究中,我们旨在比较预后评分系统在手术治疗患者群中的准确性:这是一项回顾性研究,研究对象是 2009 年至 2021 年间接受过手术治疗的 318 例脊柱转移瘤患者。测量的主要结果是确诊后的存活率。根据预后评分系统预测的3个月、6个月和1年生存率与实际生存率进行了比较。每个评分系统的预测值通过接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)进行测量。比较的评分系统包括:改良德桥评分系统(MT)、富田评分系统(T)、改良鲍尔评分系统(MB)、范登林登评分系统(VDL)、奥斯韦斯特里评分系统(O)、新英格兰脊柱转移评分系统(NESMS)、全球脊柱研究肿瘤小组评分系统(GSTSG)和骨骼肿瘤研究小组评分系统(SORG):在预测 3 个月生存率方面,GSTSG 0.980(0.949-1.0)和 NESM 0.980(0.949-1.0)具有突出的预测价值,而 SORG 0.837(0.751-0.923)和 O 0.837(0.775-0.900)具有极佳的预测价值。而对于 6 个月的存活率,只有 O 0.819(0.758-0.880)具有极好的预测价值,GSTSG 0.791(0.725-0.857)具有可接受的预测价值。对于 1 年生存率,NESM 0.871(0.822-0.919)具有极好的预测价值,O 0.722(0.657-0.786)具有可接受的预测价值。MT、T 和 MB 评分的曲线下面积(AUC)为结论:MT、T 和 MB 等传统评分系统的预测性越来越差。虽然较新的评分系统,如 GSTSG、NESM 和 SORG 具有出色到卓越的预测价值,但目前还没有一种生存评分系统能够准确预测所有 3 个时间点的生存率。我们需要一种多学科、个性化的生存预后方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AB077. An evaluation of prognostic scoring systems for survival in a surgically treated cohort of 318 metastatic spine tumour surgery patients.

Background: Survival prognostication plays a key role in the decision-making process for the surgical treatment of patients with spinal metastases. In the past traditional scoring systems such as the modified Tokuhashi and Tomita scoring systems have been used extensively, however in recent years their accuracy has been called into question. This has led to the development of machine learning algorithms to predict survival. In this study, we aim to compare the accuracy of prognostic scoring systems in a surgically treated cohort of patients.

Methods: This is a retrospective review of 318 surgically treated spinal metastases patients between 2009 and 2021. The primary outcome measured was survival from the time of diagnosis. Predicted survival at 3 months, 6 months and 1 year based on the prognostic scoring system was compared to actual survival. Predictive values of each scoring system were measured via area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). The following scoring systems were compared, Modified Tokuhashi (MT), Tomita (T), Modified Bauer (MB), Van Den Linden (VDL), Oswestry (O), New England Spinal Metastases score (NESMS), Global Spine Study Tumor Group (GSTSG) and Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) scoring systems.

Results: For predicting 3 months survival, the GSTSG 0.980 (0.949-1.0) and NESM 0.980 (0.949-1.0) had outstanding predictive value, while the SORG 0.837 (0.751-0.923) and O 0.837 (0.775-0.900) had excellent predictive value. While for 6 months survival, only the O 0.819 (0.758-0.880) had excellent predictive value and the GSTSG 0.791(0.725-0.857) had acceptable predictive value. For 1 year survival, the NESM 0.871 (0.822-0.919) had excellent predictive value and the O 0.722 (0.657-0.786) had acceptable predictive value. The MT, T and MB scores had an area under the curve (AUC) of <0.5 for 3-month, 6-month and 1-year survival.

Conclusions: Increasingly, traditional scoring systems such as the MT, T and MB scoring systems have become less predictive. While newer scoring systems such as the GSTSG, NESM and SORG have outstanding to excellent predictive value, there is no one survival scoring system that is able to accurately prognosticate survival at all 3 time points. A multidisciplinary, personalised approach to survival prognostication is needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Chinese Clinical Oncology (Print ISSN 2304-3865; Online ISSN 2304-3873; Chin Clin Oncol; CCO) publishes articles that describe new findings in the field of oncology, and provides current and practical information on diagnosis, prevention and clinical investigations of cancer. Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to: multimodality therapy, biomarkers, imaging, tumor biology, pathology, chemoprevention, and technical advances related to cancer. The aim of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of original research articles as well as review articles in all areas related to cancer. It is an international, peer-reviewed journal with a focus on cutting-edge findings in this rapidly changing field. To that end, Chin Clin Oncol is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into best multimodality practice. The journal features a distinguished editorial board, which brings together a team of highly experienced specialists in cancer treatment and research. The diverse experience of the board members allows our editorial panel to lend their expertise to a broad spectrum of cancer subjects.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信