• Medicine · Nov 2023

    The impact of indirect notification of a cancer diagnosis and a risk model based on it to predict the prognosis of postoperative stage T3 esophageal cancer patients.

    • Yalin Cheng, Minhao Yu, Qian Yao, Tong He, Renfei Zhang, and Zhiquan Long.
    • Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Third Hospital of Mianyang (Sichuan Mental Health Center), Mianyang, China.
    • Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Nov 3; 102 (44): e35895e35895.

    AbstractChinese doctors are required to inform patients' direct relatives of a cancer diagnosis rather than the patients themselves. The disease may be hidden from patients by their family members, which could result in severe outcomes. We selected postoperative T3 esophageal cancer (EsC) patients hospitalized from June 2015 to December 2019 as research subjects. The patients were divided into a direct-notification group and an indirect-notification group. Several variables were used to evaluate both groups' 36-month progress-free survival (PFS). A risk prediction model of prognosis based on the risk score was established, which was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. One hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled in the training group and forty-eight in the validation group. Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed that males, late stage, poor pathological differentiation, and indirect notification were independent worse risk factors for postoperative T3 stage EsC patients at 36-month PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.454, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.254-0.812, P = .008; HR = 1.560, 95% CI: 1.006-2.420, P = .047; HR = 0.595, 95% CI: 0.378-0.936, P = .025; HR = 2.686, 95% CI: 1.679-4.297, P < 0.001, respectively). The type of notification was the best correlation factor. The risk score was calculated as follows: risk score = 0.988 × cancer notification (indirect = 1, direct = 0)-0.790 × sex (female = 1, Male = 0) + 0.445 × stage (IIIB = 1, IIA + IIB = 0)-0.519 × pathological differentiation (moderately + well = 1, poorly = 0). The model had a sensitivity of 64.8% and specificity of 81.8%, with the AUC at 0.717 (95% CI: 0.614-0.810) in internal verification, and a sensitivity of 56.8% and specificity of 100%, with the AUC at 0.705 (95% CI: 0.651-0.849) in external validation. The model had good internal and external stability. The model showed a Brier score of 0.18. Indirect notification of a cancer diagnosis was an important negative predictor of postoperative EsC patients' PFS. The model displayed good accuracy and stability in the prediction of risk for cancer progression.Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.