Assessment of prognostic factors in patients with primary ocular adnexal lymphoma when considering competing risk elements.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1111/ceo.14427
Jing Zeng, Xian-Fen Cao, Jian Chen, Zhi-Ping Liu, Jun Lyu, Qing Zhou
{"title":"Assessment of prognostic factors in patients with primary ocular adnexal lymphoma when considering competing risk elements.","authors":"Jing Zeng, Xian-Fen Cao, Jian Chen, Zhi-Ping Liu, Jun Lyu, Qing Zhou","doi":"10.1111/ceo.14427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate prognostic factors for primary ocular adnexal lymphoma (POAL) are scarce. Survival models and prognostic factors derived without considering competing risk factors suffer from major statistical errors. This study aimed to accurately assess prognostic factors in POAL patients using competing risk models, and compare this to the traditional COX proportional hazards model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study utilised data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program 2010-2015 and included patients with B-cell POAL. The cumulative incidence function and Gray's test for cause-specific survival were calculated as univariate analysis. The competing risk models were a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model and a cause-specific model, and a traditional COX model was employed as a multivariate analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study enrolled 846 eligible patients with POAL: 60 patients (7.09%) died from POAL and 123 patients (14.54%) died from other causes. Multivariate competing risk models indicated that age, laterality, histology subtype, the 7th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer stage T, and radiotherapy were independent predictors for cause-specific survival of patients with POAL. There was high consistency between the two competing risk models. The COX model made several misestimations on the statistical significance and hazard ratios of prognostic factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study established competing risk models as a method to assess POAL prognostic factors, which was more accurate than traditional methods that do not consider competing risk elements.</p>","PeriodicalId":55253,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14427","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate prognostic factors for primary ocular adnexal lymphoma (POAL) are scarce. Survival models and prognostic factors derived without considering competing risk factors suffer from major statistical errors. This study aimed to accurately assess prognostic factors in POAL patients using competing risk models, and compare this to the traditional COX proportional hazards model.

Methods: This retrospective study utilised data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program 2010-2015 and included patients with B-cell POAL. The cumulative incidence function and Gray's test for cause-specific survival were calculated as univariate analysis. The competing risk models were a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model and a cause-specific model, and a traditional COX model was employed as a multivariate analysis.

Results: This study enrolled 846 eligible patients with POAL: 60 patients (7.09%) died from POAL and 123 patients (14.54%) died from other causes. Multivariate competing risk models indicated that age, laterality, histology subtype, the 7th edition of American Joint Committee on Cancer stage T, and radiotherapy were independent predictors for cause-specific survival of patients with POAL. There was high consistency between the two competing risk models. The COX model made several misestimations on the statistical significance and hazard ratios of prognostic factors.

Conclusions: This study established competing risk models as a method to assess POAL prognostic factors, which was more accurate than traditional methods that do not consider competing risk elements.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在考虑竞争风险因素时评估原发性眼附件淋巴瘤患者的预后因素。
背景:原发性眼附件淋巴瘤(POAL)的准确预后因素很少。不考虑竞争风险因素而得出的生存模型和预后因素存在很大的统计误差。本研究旨在利用竞争风险模型准确评估POAL患者的预后因素,并将其与传统的COX比例危险模型进行比较:这项回顾性研究利用了2010-2015年监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)项目的数据,纳入了B细胞POAL患者。在单变量分析中计算了累积发病率函数和病因特异性生存的格雷氏检验。竞争风险模型为Fine-Gray亚分布危险模型和病因特异性模型,多变量分析则采用传统的COX模型:这项研究共纳入了 846 名符合条件的 POAL 患者:60 名患者(7.09%)死于 POAL,123 名患者(14.54%)死于其他原因。多变量竞争风险模型显示,年龄、侧位、组织学亚型、美国癌症联合委员会第 7 版 T 期和放疗是预测 POAL 患者病因特异性生存率的独立因素。两种竞争风险模型的一致性很高。COX模型对预后因素的统计意义和危险比进行了多次错误估计:本研究将竞争风险模型确立为评估 POAL 预后因素的一种方法,它比不考虑竞争风险因素的传统方法更为准确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original research and reviews dealing with all aspects of clinical practice and research which are international in scope and application. CEO recognises the importance of collaborative research and welcomes papers that have a direct influence on ophthalmic practice but are not unique to ophthalmology.
期刊最新文献
MFRP, PRSS56, and MYRF account for 60.5% of a Chinese cohort with nanophthalmos. Association of obesity and metabolic syndrome with incident primary open angle glaucoma in the UK Biobank. Eye diseases in chronic kidney disease: A nationwide longitudinal case-control study in Sweden. Issue Information Bringing Mohammad to the mountain: New strategies for intravitreal therapy service delivery
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1