Development and validation of a prognostic prediction model for elderly gastric cancer patients based on oxidative stress biochemical markers

被引:0
|
作者
Zhang, Xing-Qi [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Huang, Ze-Ning [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Wu, Ju [1 ,4 ]
Zheng, Chang-Yue [1 ,5 ]
Liu, Xiao-Dong [6 ]
Huang, Ying-Qi [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chen, Qi-Yue [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Li, Ping [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Xie, Jian-Wei [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zheng, Chao-Hui [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lin, Jian-Xian [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zhou, Yan-Bing [6 ]
Huang, Chang-Ming [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Fujian Med Univ, Union Hosp, Dept Gastr Surg, 29 Xinquan Rd, Fuzhou 350001, Fujian, Peoples R China
[2] Fujian Med Univ, Dept Gen Surg, Union Hosp, Fuzhou, Fujian, Peoples R China
[3] Fujian Med Univ, Key Lab, Minist Educ Gastrointestinal Canc, Fuzhou 350108, Fujian, Peoples R China
[4] Dalian Univ, Dept Gen Surg, Affiliated Zhongshan Hosp, Dalian, Liaoning, Peoples R China
[5] Putian Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Dept Gastrointestinal Surg, Putian, Fujian, Peoples R China
[6] Qingdao Univ, Dept Gen Surg, Affiliated Hosp, 16 Jiangsu Rd, Qingdao 266000, Shandong, Peoples R China
关键词
Elderly; Gastric cancer; Oxidative stress; Machine learning; Overall survival; URIC-ACID; SURVIVAL; GASTRECTOMY; BILIRUBIN; ALBUMIN; INDEX; RISK;
D O I
10.1186/s12885-025-13545-x
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BackgroundThe potential of the application of artificial intelligence and biochemical markers of oxidative stress to predict the prognosis of older patients with gastric cancer (GC) remains unclear.MethodsThis retrospective multicenter study included consecutive patients with GC aged >= 65 years treated between January 2012 and April 2018. The patients were allocated into three cohorts (training, internal, and external validation). The GC-Integrated Oxidative Stress Score (GIOSS) was developed using Cox regression to correlate biochemical markers with patient prognosis. Predictive models for five-year overall survival (OS) were constructed using random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), and support vector machine (SVM) methods, and validated using area under the curve (AUC) and calibration plots. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method was used for model interpretation.ResultsThis study included a total of 1,859 older patients. The results demonstrated that a low GIOSS was a predictor of poor prognosis. RF was the most efficient method, with AUCs of 0.999, 0.869, and 0.796 in the training, internal validation, and external validation sets, respectively. The DT and SVM models showed low AUC values. Calibration and decision curve analyses demonstrated the considerable clinical usefulness of the RF model. The SHAP results identified pN, pT, perineural invasion, tumor size, and GIOSS as key predictive features. An online web calculator was constructed based on the best model.ConclusionsIncorporating the GIOSS, the RF model effectively predicts postoperative OS in older patients with GC and is a robust prognostic tool. Our findings emphasize the importance of oxidative stress in cancer prognosis and provide a pathway for improved management of GC.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (trial registration number: NCT06208046, date of registration: 2024-05-01).
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Development and Validation of Prognostic Nomograms for Elderly Patients with Osteosarcoma
    Liu, Xiaoqiang
    He, Shaoya
    Yao, Xi
    Hu, Tianyang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE, 2021, 14 : 5581 - 5591
  • [22] The prognostic significance of inflammation-based markers in patients with recurrent gastric cancer
    Kazuhiro Migita
    Sohei Matsumoto
    Kohei Wakatsuki
    Masahiro Ito
    Tomohiro Kunishige
    Hiroshi Nakade
    Mutsuko Kitano
    Mitsuhiro Nakatani
    Masayuki Sho
    Surgery Today, 2018, 48 : 282 - 291
  • [23] The prognostic significance of inflammation-based markers in patients with recurrent gastric cancer
    Migita, Kazuhiro
    Matsumoto, Sohei
    Wakatsuki, Kohei
    Ito, Masahiro
    Kunishige, Tomohiro
    Nakade, Hiroshi
    Kitano, Mutsuko
    Nakatani, Mitsuhiro
    Sho, Masayuki
    SURGERY TODAY, 2018, 48 (03) : 282 - 291
  • [24] Prognostic factors in elderly patients with advanced gastric cancer
    Matsumoto, Toshihiko
    Nishina, Tomohiro
    Nakasya, Akio
    Kajiwara, Takeshi
    Hino, Kaori
    Asagi, Akinori
    Hori, Shinichiro
    Nadano, Seijin
    Yamashita, Natsumi
    Iguchi, Haruo
    ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2015, 26 : 104 - 104
  • [25] Prognostic factors for gastrectomy in elderly patients with gastric cancer
    Daisuke Ueno
    Hideo Matsumoto
    Hisako Kubota
    Masaharu Higashida
    Takashi Akiyama
    Akiko Shiotani
    Toshihiro Hirai
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 15
  • [26] Development and Validation of a Personalized Prognostic Prediction Model for Patients With Spinal Cord Astrocytoma
    Yang, Sheng
    Yang, Xun
    Wang, Huiwen
    Gu, Yuelin
    Feng, Jingjing
    Qin, Xianfeng
    Feng, Chaobo
    Li, Yufeng
    Liu, Lijun
    Fan, Guoxin
    Liao, Xiang
    He, Shisheng
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2022, 8
  • [27] Prognostic factors for gastrectomy in elderly patients with gastric cancer
    Ueno, Daisuke
    Matsumoto, Hideo
    Kubota, Hisako
    Higashida, Masaharu
    Akiyama, Takashi
    Shiotani, Akiko
    Hirai, Toshihiro
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 15
  • [28] Development and validation of a prediction model for loss of physical function in elderly hemodialysis patients
    Fukuma, Shingo
    Shimizu, Sayaka
    Shintani, Ayumi
    Kamitani, Tsukasa
    Akizawa, Tadao
    Fukuhara, Shunichi
    NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2018, 33 (08) : 1452 - 1458
  • [29] Prognostic prediction model of colorectal cancer based on preoperative serum tumor markers
    Diao, Yu-Hang
    Rao, Si-Qi
    Shu, Xin-Peng
    Cheng, Yong
    Tan, Can
    Wang, Li-Juan
    Peng, Dong
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2024, 16 (05):
  • [30] Development and validation of a nomogram prognostic model for esophageal cancer patients with oligometastases
    Butuo Li
    Ruiqing Wang
    Ting Zhang
    Xiubin Sun
    Chao Jiang
    Wanlong Li
    Bing Zou
    Peng Xie
    Xue Meng
    Xindong Sun
    Linlin Wang
    Jinming Yu
    Scientific Reports, 10