Table 3 Analysis for prognostic performance of different node classifications and different models for Siewert type II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma.

From: Prognostic performance of three lymph node staging schemes for patients with Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction

 

Harrell’s C-index (95% CI)

P-value1

P-value2

Validation*

Schemper’s PEV

AIC

LNM

0.653(0.634–0.672)

Ref

 

0.654

8.20%

1617.305

LNR

0.670(0.651–0.689)

0.045

Ref

0.670

13.90%

1533.824

LODDS

0.673(0.654–0.692)

0.025

0.405

0.672

15.90%

1502.119

T-stage + LNM

0.661(0.642–0.680)

Ref

 

0.660

16.10%

1488.420

T-stage + LNR

0.678(0.659–0.697)

0.015

Ref

0.677

19.00%

1444.705

T-stage + LODDS

0.683(0.664–0.702)

0.005

0.354

0.681

20.30%

1424.362

Model 1 (LNM)a

0.686(0.667–0.705)

Ref

 

0.684

20.70%

1389.390

Model 2 (LNR)b

0.702(0.684–0.720)

0.046

Ref

0.700

23.70%

1342.987

Model 3 (LODDS)c

0.707(0.689–0.725)

0.017

0.338

0.704

24.90%

1323.464

  1. *By bootstrap method (B = 1000).
  2. AIC: Akaike information criterion.
  3. aA model with combined variables including age, marital status, T stage and LNM.
  4. bA model with combined variables including age, marital status, T stage and LNR.
  5. cA model with combined variables including age, marital status, T stage and LODDS.
  6. LNM: lymph node metastasis.
  7. LNR: positive lymph node ratio.
  8. LODDS: log odds of positive lymph node.
  9. Ref: reference category.
  10. Continuous LNM, LNR and LODDS were included for evaluation.
  11. P-value1 and P-value2: C-index comparisons by R language (P value = 1-pnorm(abs(r[“C × 1”] − r[“C × 2”])/(r[“S.D.”]/2))).
Back to article page