Prognostic Factors for Urachal Cancer: A Bayesian Model-Averaging Approach

被引:22
|
作者
Kim, In Kyong [1 ]
Lee, Joo Yong [1 ]
Kwon, Jong Kyou [1 ]
Park, Jae Joon [1 ]
Cho, Kang Su [2 ]
Ham, Won Sik [1 ]
Hong, Sung Joon [1 ]
Yang, Seung Choul [1 ]
Choi, Young Deuk [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Urol Sci Inst, Dept Urol,Severance Hosp, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Urol Sci Inst, Dept Urol,Gangnam Severance Hosp, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Severance Hosp, Robot & Minimal Invas Surg Ctr, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Follow-up studies; Survival; Urachal cancer;
D O I
10.4111/kju.2014.55.9.574
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate prognostic factors and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in a cohort of 41 patients with urachal carcinoma by use of a Bayesian model-averaging approach. Materials and Methods: Our cohort included 41 patients with urachal carcinoma who underwent extended partial cystectomy, total cystectomy, transurethral resection, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy at a single institute. All patients were classified by both the Sheldon and the Mayo staging systems according to histopathologic reports and preoperative radiologic findings. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional- hazards regression models were carried out to investigate prognostic factors, and a Bayesian model-averaging approach was performed to confirm the significance of each variable by using posterior probabilities. Results: The mean age of the patients was 49.88 +/- 13.80 years and the male-to-female ratio was 24:17. The median follow-up was 5.42 years (interquartile range, 2.8-8.4 years). Five-and 10-year CSS rates were 55.9% and 43.4%, respectively. Lower Sheldon (p=0.004) and Mayo (p<0.001) stage, mucinous adenocarcinoma (p=0.005), and larger tumor size (p=0.023) were significant predictors of high survival probability on the basis of a log-rank test. By use of the Bayesian model-averaging approach, higher Mayo stage and larger tumor size were significant predictors of cancer-specific mortality in urachal carcinoma. Conclusions: The Mayo staging system might be more effective than the Sheldon staging system. In addition, the multivariate analyses suggested that tumor size may be a prognostic factor for urachal carcinoma.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:574 / 580
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Turning Bayesian Model Averaging Into Bayesian Model Combination
    Monteith, Kristine
    Carroll, James L.
    Seppi, Kevin
    Martinez, Tony
    2011 INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON NEURAL NETWORKS (IJCNN), 2011, : 2657 - 2663
  • [42] An Approach to Addressing Multiple Imputation Model Uncertainty Using Bayesian Model Averaging
    Kaplan, David
    Yavuz, Sinan
    MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2020, 55 (04) : 553 - 567
  • [43] Bayesian model selection and model averaging
    Wasserman, L
    JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 44 (01) : 92 - 107
  • [44] Clustered Bayesian Model Averaging
    Yu, Qingzhao
    MacEachern, Steven N.
    Peruggia, Mario
    BAYESIAN ANALYSIS, 2013, 8 (04): : 883 - 907
  • [45] A MODEL-AVERAGING METHOD FOR HIGH-DIMENSIONAL REGRESSION WITH MISSING RESPONSES AT RANDOM
    Xie, Jinhan
    Yan, Xiaodong
    Tang, Niansheng
    STATISTICA SINICA, 2021, 31 (02) : 1005 - 1026
  • [46] Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial
    Hoeting, JA
    Madigan, D
    Raftery, AE
    Volinsky, CT
    STATISTICAL SCIENCE, 1999, 14 (04) : 382 - 401
  • [47] A Review of Bayesian Model Averaging
    Hua Peng
    Zhao Xuemin
    DATA PROCESSING AND QUANTITATIVE ECONOMY MODELING, 2010, : 32 - +
  • [49] Unraveling the fortunes of the fortunate: An iterative Bayesian model averaging (IBMA) approach
    Eicher, Theo S.
    Papageorgiou, Chris
    Roehn, Oliver
    JOURNAL OF MACROECONOMICS, 2007, 29 (03) : 494 - 514
  • [50] Robust determinants of companies' capacity to innovate: a Bayesian model averaging approach
    Santa, Mijalche
    Stojkoski, Viktor
    Josimovski, Marko
    Trpevski, Igor
    Kocarev, Ljupco
    TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, 2019, 31 (11) : 1283 - 1296