Cargando…

Construction and Verification of Risk Predicting Models to Evaluate the Possibility of Venous Thromboembolism After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause for death of radical prostatectomy. We aimed to establish new nomogram to predict the VTE risk after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Patients receiving RARP in our center from November 2015 to June 2021, were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheng, Xu, Zhou, Lizhi, Liu, Wentao, Li, Yijian, Peng, Mou, Wang, Yinhuai
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9246795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11574-5
_version_ 1784739032956141568
author Cheng, Xu
Zhou, Lizhi
Liu, Wentao
Li, Yijian
Peng, Mou
Wang, Yinhuai
author_facet Cheng, Xu
Zhou, Lizhi
Liu, Wentao
Li, Yijian
Peng, Mou
Wang, Yinhuai
author_sort Cheng, Xu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause for death of radical prostatectomy. We aimed to establish new nomogram to predict the VTE risk after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Patients receiving RARP in our center from November 2015 to June 2021, were enrolled in study. They were randomly divided into training and testing cohorts by 8:2. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression (model A) and stepwise logistic regression (model B) were used to fit two models. The net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used to compare predictive abilities of two new models with widely used Caprini risk assessment (CRA) model. Then, two nomograms were constructed and received internal validation. RESULTS: Totally, 351 patients were included. The area under ROC of model A and model B were 0.967 (95% confidence interval: 0.945–0.990) and 0.978 (95% confidence interval: 0.960–0.996), which also were assayed in the testing cohorts. Both the prediction and classification abilities of the two new models were superior to CRA model (NRI > 0, IDI > 0, p < 0.05). The C-index of Model A and Model B were 0.968 and 0.978, respectively. For clinical usefulness, the two new models offered a net benefit with threshold probability between 0.08 and 1 in decision curve analysis, suggesting the two new models predict VTE events more accurately. CONCLUSIONS: Both two new models have good prediction accuracy and are superior to CRA model. Model A has an advantage of less variable. This easy-to-use model enables rapid clinical decision-making and early intervention in high-risk groups, which ultimately benefit patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-022-11574-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9246795
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92467952022-07-02 Construction and Verification of Risk Predicting Models to Evaluate the Possibility of Venous Thromboembolism After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Cheng, Xu Zhou, Lizhi Liu, Wentao Li, Yijian Peng, Mou Wang, Yinhuai Ann Surg Oncol Urologic Oncology BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause for death of radical prostatectomy. We aimed to establish new nomogram to predict the VTE risk after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Patients receiving RARP in our center from November 2015 to June 2021, were enrolled in study. They were randomly divided into training and testing cohorts by 8:2. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression (model A) and stepwise logistic regression (model B) were used to fit two models. The net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used to compare predictive abilities of two new models with widely used Caprini risk assessment (CRA) model. Then, two nomograms were constructed and received internal validation. RESULTS: Totally, 351 patients were included. The area under ROC of model A and model B were 0.967 (95% confidence interval: 0.945–0.990) and 0.978 (95% confidence interval: 0.960–0.996), which also were assayed in the testing cohorts. Both the prediction and classification abilities of the two new models were superior to CRA model (NRI > 0, IDI > 0, p < 0.05). The C-index of Model A and Model B were 0.968 and 0.978, respectively. For clinical usefulness, the two new models offered a net benefit with threshold probability between 0.08 and 1 in decision curve analysis, suggesting the two new models predict VTE events more accurately. CONCLUSIONS: Both two new models have good prediction accuracy and are superior to CRA model. Model A has an advantage of less variable. This easy-to-use model enables rapid clinical decision-making and early intervention in high-risk groups, which ultimately benefit patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-022-11574-5. Springer International Publishing 2022-03-22 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9246795/ /pubmed/35316433 http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11574-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Urologic Oncology
Cheng, Xu
Zhou, Lizhi
Liu, Wentao
Li, Yijian
Peng, Mou
Wang, Yinhuai
Construction and Verification of Risk Predicting Models to Evaluate the Possibility of Venous Thromboembolism After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
title Construction and Verification of Risk Predicting Models to Evaluate the Possibility of Venous Thromboembolism After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
title_full Construction and Verification of Risk Predicting Models to Evaluate the Possibility of Venous Thromboembolism After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
title_fullStr Construction and Verification of Risk Predicting Models to Evaluate the Possibility of Venous Thromboembolism After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
title_full_unstemmed Construction and Verification of Risk Predicting Models to Evaluate the Possibility of Venous Thromboembolism After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
title_short Construction and Verification of Risk Predicting Models to Evaluate the Possibility of Venous Thromboembolism After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
title_sort construction and verification of risk predicting models to evaluate the possibility of venous thromboembolism after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
topic Urologic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9246795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316433
http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11574-5
work_keys_str_mv AT chengxu constructionandverificationofriskpredictingmodelstoevaluatethepossibilityofvenousthromboembolismafterrobotassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT zhoulizhi constructionandverificationofriskpredictingmodelstoevaluatethepossibilityofvenousthromboembolismafterrobotassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT liuwentao constructionandverificationofriskpredictingmodelstoevaluatethepossibilityofvenousthromboembolismafterrobotassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT liyijian constructionandverificationofriskpredictingmodelstoevaluatethepossibilityofvenousthromboembolismafterrobotassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT pengmou constructionandverificationofriskpredictingmodelstoevaluatethepossibilityofvenousthromboembolismafterrobotassistedradicalprostatectomy
AT wangyinhuai constructionandverificationofriskpredictingmodelstoevaluatethepossibilityofvenousthromboembolismafterrobotassistedradicalprostatectomy