Nomograms Predict PFS and OS for SCLC Patients After Standardized Treatment: A Real-World Study.

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the process of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients from achieving optimal efficacy to experiencing disease progression until death. It examines the predictive value of the treatment response on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of SCLC patients.
Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on 136 SCLC patients diagnosed from 1992 to 2018. Important prognostic factors were identified to construct nomogram models. The predictive performance of the models was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration curves. Survival differences between groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Subsequently, an independent cohort consisting of 106 SCLC patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2021 was used for validation.
Results: We constructed two nomograms to predict first-line PFS (PFS1) and OS of SCLC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the PFS1 nomogram predicting PFS at 3-, 6-, and 12-months were 0.919 (95% CI: 0.867-0.970), 0.908 (95% CI: 0.860-0.956) and 0.878 (95% CI: 0.798-0.958), and for the OS nomogram predicting OS at 6-, 12-, and 24-months were 0.814 (95% CI: 0.736-0.892), 0.819 (95% CI: 0.749-0.889) and 0.809 (95% CI: 0.678-0.941), indicating those two models with a high discriminative ability. The calibration curves demonstrated the models had a high degree of consistency between predicted and observed values. According to the risk scores, patients were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups, showing a significant difference in survival rate. And these findings were validated in another independent validation cohort.
Conclusion: Based on the patients' treatment response after standardized treatment, we developed and validated two nomogram models to predict PFS1 and OS of SCLC. The models demonstrated good accuracy, reliability and clinical applicability by validating in an independent cohort.
Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
(© 2024 Li et al.)