在对接受肺叶切除术或全肺叶切除术的 NSCLC 患者进行预后建模时,阳性淋巴结的对数几率与阳性淋巴结比率和阳性淋巴结数目的对数几率进行比较:一项基于人群的研究,采用 Cox 回归和 XGBoost 与 SHAP 分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-20 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2024.1530250
Qiming Huang, Shai Chen, Zhenjie Li, Longren Wu, Dongliang Yu, Linmin Xiong
{"title":"在对接受肺叶切除术或全肺叶切除术的 NSCLC 患者进行预后建模时,阳性淋巴结的对数几率与阳性淋巴结比率和阳性淋巴结数目的对数几率进行比较:一项基于人群的研究,采用 Cox 回归和 XGBoost 与 SHAP 分析。","authors":"Qiming Huang, Shai Chen, Zhenjie Li, Longren Wu, Dongliang Yu, Linmin Xiong","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1530250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods such as the number of positive lymph nodes (nPLN), lymph node ratio (LNR), and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) are used to predict prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that LODDS could be a superior independent predictor of prognosis and aimed to compare its effectiveness with nPLN and LNR in predicting survival outcomes in stage I-IIIA NSCLC patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 17 registry (2010-2019) to study NSCLC patients, focusing on those who underwent surgery with confirmed lymph node involvement (N1 or N2 disease). We aimed to compare overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) based on nPLN, LNR, and LODDS. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were employed to evaluate survival, with thresholds determined using X-tile software. An XGBoost model was constructed to predict overall survival in patients using three features: LODDS, LNR, and PLN. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was applied to assess feature importance and provide interpretable insights into the model's predictions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study analyzed 3,132 eligible NSCLC patients from the SEER database, predominantly male (53.07%) with adenocarcinoma (43.65%) or squamous cell carcinoma (29.76%). Survival outcomes were assessed using nPLN, LNR, and LODDS. LODDS showed superior predictive value for both OS and CSS compared to nPLN and LNR, as indicated by a larger Log Likelihood Ratio (LLR) and smaller Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Higher scores on npLN, LNR, and LODDS were strongly related with a poorer prognosis, according to Kaplan-Meier analyses (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis of the XGBoost model demonstrated that the LODDS exhibited the highest SHAP values (0.25) for predicting overall survival in patients, consistently outperforming the LNR and the number of nPLN across both training and validation datasets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to the nPLN and LNR staging systems, LODDS demonstrates superior prognostic power for patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy. By integrating both positive and negative lymph node information, LODDS offers a refined risk stratification that is particularly valuable in cases with high lymph node heterogeneity.</p>","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"11 ","pages":"1530250"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11788378/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Log odds of positive lymph nodes compared to positive lymph node ratio and number of positive lymph nodes in prognostic modeling for patients with NSCLC undergoing lobectomy or total pneumonectomy: a population-based study using Cox regression and XGBoost with SHAP analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Qiming Huang, Shai Chen, Zhenjie Li, Longren Wu, Dongliang Yu, Linmin Xiong\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1530250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods such as the number of positive lymph nodes (nPLN), lymph node ratio (LNR), and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) are used to predict prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that LODDS could be a superior independent predictor of prognosis and aimed to compare its effectiveness with nPLN and LNR in predicting survival outcomes in stage I-IIIA NSCLC patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 17 registry (2010-2019) to study NSCLC patients, focusing on those who underwent surgery with confirmed lymph node involvement (N1 or N2 disease). We aimed to compare overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) based on nPLN, LNR, and LODDS. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were employed to evaluate survival, with thresholds determined using X-tile software. An XGBoost model was constructed to predict overall survival in patients using three features: LODDS, LNR, and PLN. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was applied to assess feature importance and provide interpretable insights into the model's predictions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study analyzed 3,132 eligible NSCLC patients from the SEER database, predominantly male (53.07%) with adenocarcinoma (43.65%) or squamous cell carcinoma (29.76%). Survival outcomes were assessed using nPLN, LNR, and LODDS. LODDS showed superior predictive value for both OS and CSS compared to nPLN and LNR, as indicated by a larger Log Likelihood Ratio (LLR) and smaller Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Higher scores on npLN, LNR, and LODDS were strongly related with a poorer prognosis, according to Kaplan-Meier analyses (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis of the XGBoost model demonstrated that the LODDS exhibited the highest SHAP values (0.25) for predicting overall survival in patients, consistently outperforming the LNR and the number of nPLN across both training and validation datasets.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to the nPLN and LNR staging systems, LODDS demonstrates superior prognostic power for patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy. By integrating both positive and negative lymph node information, LODDS offers a refined risk stratification that is particularly valuable in cases with high lymph node heterogeneity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"1530250\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11788378/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1530250\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1530250","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Log odds of positive lymph nodes compared to positive lymph node ratio and number of positive lymph nodes in prognostic modeling for patients with NSCLC undergoing lobectomy or total pneumonectomy: a population-based study using Cox regression and XGBoost with SHAP analysis.

Background: Methods such as the number of positive lymph nodes (nPLN), lymph node ratio (LNR), and log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) are used to predict prognosis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that LODDS could be a superior independent predictor of prognosis and aimed to compare its effectiveness with nPLN and LNR in predicting survival outcomes in stage I-IIIA NSCLC patients.

Methods: We utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 17 registry (2010-2019) to study NSCLC patients, focusing on those who underwent surgery with confirmed lymph node involvement (N1 or N2 disease). We aimed to compare overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) based on nPLN, LNR, and LODDS. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were employed to evaluate survival, with thresholds determined using X-tile software. An XGBoost model was constructed to predict overall survival in patients using three features: LODDS, LNR, and PLN. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis was applied to assess feature importance and provide interpretable insights into the model's predictions.

Results: The study analyzed 3,132 eligible NSCLC patients from the SEER database, predominantly male (53.07%) with adenocarcinoma (43.65%) or squamous cell carcinoma (29.76%). Survival outcomes were assessed using nPLN, LNR, and LODDS. LODDS showed superior predictive value for both OS and CSS compared to nPLN and LNR, as indicated by a larger Log Likelihood Ratio (LLR) and smaller Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Higher scores on npLN, LNR, and LODDS were strongly related with a poorer prognosis, according to Kaplan-Meier analyses (P < 0.001). The SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) analysis of the XGBoost model demonstrated that the LODDS exhibited the highest SHAP values (0.25) for predicting overall survival in patients, consistently outperforming the LNR and the number of nPLN across both training and validation datasets.

Conclusions: Compared to the nPLN and LNR staging systems, LODDS demonstrates superior prognostic power for patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy. By integrating both positive and negative lymph node information, LODDS offers a refined risk stratification that is particularly valuable in cases with high lymph node heterogeneity.

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
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.
×
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