构建用于预测脊柱转移手术治疗后骨水泥渗漏的风险模型并进行临床验证。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY American journal of cancer research Pub Date : 2024-10-15 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.62347/JAIR5009
Yanrong Liu, Ziyan Zhang, Jianzhong Huo
{"title":"构建用于预测脊柱转移手术治疗后骨水泥渗漏的风险模型并进行临床验证。","authors":"Yanrong Liu, Ziyan Zhang, Jianzhong Huo","doi":"10.62347/JAIR5009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to comprehensively analyze the risk factors associated with bone cement leakage (LCK) during the surgical management of spinal metastases, construct a joint risk model for predictive assessment, and validate the clinical applicability of the risk model in an independent patient cohort. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent surgery for spinal metastases between February 2022 and June 2023. Patients were divided into a non-LCK group (n=134) and an LCK group (n=86) based on the presence or absence of bone cement leakage after surgery. Additionally, a validation group was established, consisting of 21 patients with LCK and 65 patients without. Analysis focused on patient demographics, intraoperative parameters, LCK location, complications, pain management, and improvements in activities of daily living (ADL). Logistic regression, calibration curve, clinical impact curve (CIC) analysis, decision curve analysis (DCA) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to assess the risk factors and construct a joint risk model. There were significant differences between the two groups in pathologic fracture, Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injected laterality, injected bone cement volume, radicular pain, pulmonary embolism, and medullary compression. Pathologic fracture, radicular pain, pulmonary embolism, and medullary compression were positively correlated with the occurrence of LCK, while Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injection laterality, and injected bone cement volume were negatively correlated with the occurrence of LCK. Pathological fracture, Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injected laterality, injected bone cement volume, and specific postoperative complications were identified as significant risk factors associated with LCK. The constructed joint risk model, incorporating these risk factors, demonstrated substantial predictive value, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.885. Clinical validation in an independent patient cohort further confirmed the predictive power of the joint risk model, with an AUC of 0.846. This study underscores the multifactorial nature of LCK in surgical management of spinal metastases, providing valuable insights for risk assessment and management.</p>","PeriodicalId":7437,"journal":{"name":"American journal of cancer research","volume":"14 10","pages":"4841-4854"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11560829/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Construction and clinical validation of risk model for predicting bone cement leakage after the surgical management of spinal metastases.\",\"authors\":\"Yanrong Liu, Ziyan Zhang, Jianzhong Huo\",\"doi\":\"10.62347/JAIR5009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to comprehensively analyze the risk factors associated with bone cement leakage (LCK) during the surgical management of spinal metastases, construct a joint risk model for predictive assessment, and validate the clinical applicability of the risk model in an independent patient cohort. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent surgery for spinal metastases between February 2022 and June 2023. Patients were divided into a non-LCK group (n=134) and an LCK group (n=86) based on the presence or absence of bone cement leakage after surgery. Additionally, a validation group was established, consisting of 21 patients with LCK and 65 patients without. Analysis focused on patient demographics, intraoperative parameters, LCK location, complications, pain management, and improvements in activities of daily living (ADL). Logistic regression, calibration curve, clinical impact curve (CIC) analysis, decision curve analysis (DCA) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to assess the risk factors and construct a joint risk model. There were significant differences between the two groups in pathologic fracture, Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injected laterality, injected bone cement volume, radicular pain, pulmonary embolism, and medullary compression. Pathologic fracture, radicular pain, pulmonary embolism, and medullary compression were positively correlated with the occurrence of LCK, while Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injection laterality, and injected bone cement volume were negatively correlated with the occurrence of LCK. Pathological fracture, Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injected laterality, injected bone cement volume, and specific postoperative complications were identified as significant risk factors associated with LCK. The constructed joint risk model, incorporating these risk factors, demonstrated substantial predictive value, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.885. Clinical validation in an independent patient cohort further confirmed the predictive power of the joint risk model, with an AUC of 0.846. This study underscores the multifactorial nature of LCK in surgical management of spinal metastases, providing valuable insights for risk assessment and management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of cancer research\",\"volume\":\"14 10\",\"pages\":\"4841-4854\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11560829/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of cancer research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.62347/JAIR5009\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of cancer research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62347/JAIR5009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在全面分析脊柱转移瘤手术治疗过程中与骨水泥渗漏(LCK)相关的风险因素,构建用于预测评估的联合风险模型,并在独立患者队列中验证该风险模型的临床适用性。我们对 2022 年 2 月至 2023 年 6 月间接受脊柱转移手术的患者进行了回顾性分析。根据术后有无骨水泥渗漏,将患者分为非LCK组(134人)和LCK组(86人)。此外,还成立了一个验证组,包括 21 名 LCK 患者和 65 名未 LCK 患者。分析的重点是患者的人口统计学特征、术中参数、LCK 位置、并发症、疼痛管理和日常生活活动(ADL)的改善情况。采用逻辑回归、校准曲线、临床影响曲线(CIC)分析、决策曲线分析(DCA)和接收器操作特征(ROC)分析来评估风险因素并构建联合风险模型。两组患者在病理骨折、Tomita分类、后壁破坏、注射侧位、骨水泥注射量、根性疼痛、肺栓塞和髓质压迫等方面存在明显差异。病理骨折、根性疼痛、肺栓塞和髓质压迫与 LCK 的发生呈正相关,而 Tomita 分级、后壁破坏、注射侧位和骨水泥注射量与 LCK 的发生呈负相关。病理骨折、Tomita分类、后壁破坏、注射侧位、注射骨水泥量和特定的术后并发症被确定为与LCK相关的重要风险因素。结合这些风险因素构建的联合风险模型具有很高的预测价值,其曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.885。在一个独立患者队列中进行的临床验证进一步证实了联合风险模型的预测能力,其 AUC 为 0.846。这项研究强调了LCK在脊柱转移瘤手术治疗中的多因素性质,为风险评估和管理提供了宝贵的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Construction and clinical validation of risk model for predicting bone cement leakage after the surgical management of spinal metastases.

This study aimed to comprehensively analyze the risk factors associated with bone cement leakage (LCK) during the surgical management of spinal metastases, construct a joint risk model for predictive assessment, and validate the clinical applicability of the risk model in an independent patient cohort. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent surgery for spinal metastases between February 2022 and June 2023. Patients were divided into a non-LCK group (n=134) and an LCK group (n=86) based on the presence or absence of bone cement leakage after surgery. Additionally, a validation group was established, consisting of 21 patients with LCK and 65 patients without. Analysis focused on patient demographics, intraoperative parameters, LCK location, complications, pain management, and improvements in activities of daily living (ADL). Logistic regression, calibration curve, clinical impact curve (CIC) analysis, decision curve analysis (DCA) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used to assess the risk factors and construct a joint risk model. There were significant differences between the two groups in pathologic fracture, Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injected laterality, injected bone cement volume, radicular pain, pulmonary embolism, and medullary compression. Pathologic fracture, radicular pain, pulmonary embolism, and medullary compression were positively correlated with the occurrence of LCK, while Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injection laterality, and injected bone cement volume were negatively correlated with the occurrence of LCK. Pathological fracture, Tomita classification, posterior wall destruction, injected laterality, injected bone cement volume, and specific postoperative complications were identified as significant risk factors associated with LCK. The constructed joint risk model, incorporating these risk factors, demonstrated substantial predictive value, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.885. Clinical validation in an independent patient cohort further confirmed the predictive power of the joint risk model, with an AUC of 0.846. This study underscores the multifactorial nature of LCK in surgical management of spinal metastases, providing valuable insights for risk assessment and management.

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
自引率
3.80%
发文量
263
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Cancer Research (AJCR) (ISSN 2156-6976), is an independent open access, online only journal to facilitate rapid dissemination of novel discoveries in basic science and treatment of cancer. It was founded by a group of scientists for cancer research and clinical academic oncologists from around the world, who are devoted to the promotion and advancement of our understanding of the cancer and its treatment. The scope of AJCR is intended to encompass that of multi-disciplinary researchers from any scientific discipline where the primary focus of the research is to increase and integrate knowledge about etiology and molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis with the ultimate aim of advancing the cure and prevention of this increasingly devastating disease. To achieve these aims AJCR will publish review articles, original articles and new techniques in cancer research and therapy. It will also publish hypothesis, case reports and letter to the editor. Unlike most other open access online journals, AJCR will keep most of the traditional features of paper print that we are all familiar with, such as continuous volume, issue numbers, as well as continuous page numbers to retain our comfortable familiarity towards an academic journal.
期刊最新文献
Analysis of risk factors affecting the prognosis of angiosarcoma patients: a retrospective study. AMP-dependent protein kinase alpha 1 predicts cancer prognosis and immunotherapy response: from pan-cancer analysis to experimental validation. Erratum: Targeting NF-κB/AP-2β signaling to enhance antitumor activity of cisplatin by melatonin in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Evodiamine exerts anti-cancer activity including growth inhibition, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis induction in human follicular thyroid cancers. Generation and banking of patient-derived glioblastoma organoid and its application in cancer neuroscience.
×
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