RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To establish nomogram models for predicting the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) patients. METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for 5,451 GCLM patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 were analyzed. The cohort was divided into a training set (3,815 cases) and an internal validation set (1,636 cases). External validation included 193 patients from the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University and 171 patients from the People's Hospital of Shijiazhuang City, spanning 2016-2018. Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified eight independent prognostic factors for OS and CSS in GCLM patients, including age, histological type, grade, tumor size, surgery, chemotherapy, bone metastasis, and lung metastasis. Two nomogram models were developed based on these factors and evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Internal validation showed that the nomogram models outperformed the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system in predicting 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year OS and CSS in GCLM patients (1-year OS: 0.801 vs. 0.593, P < 0.001; 1-year CSS: 0.807 vs. 0.598, P < 0.001; 2-year OS: 0.803 vs. 0.630, P < 0.001; 2-year CSS: 0.802 vs. 0.633, P < 0.001; 3-year OS: 0.824 vs. 0.691, P < 0.001; 3-year CSS: 0.839 vs. 0.692, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study developed and validated nomogram models using SEER database data to predict OS and CSS in GCLM patients. These models offer improved prognostic accuracy over traditional staging systems, aiding in clinical decision-making.
RESUMO
To develop nomogram models for predicting the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) patients. A total of 1077 EOGC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were included, and an additional 512 EOGC patients were recruited from the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, serving as an external test set. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors. Based on these factors, two nomogram models were established, and web-based calculators were developed. These models were validated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Multivariate analysis identified gender, histological type, stage, N stage, tumor size, surgery, primary site, and lung metastasis as independent prognostic factors for OS and CSS in EOGC patients. Calibration curves and DCA curves demonstrated that the two constructed nomogram models exhibited good performance. These nomogram models demonstrated superior performance compared to the 7th edition of the AJCC tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification (internal validation set: 1-year OS: 0.831 vs 0.793, P = 0.072; 1-year CSS: 0.842 vs 0.816, P = 0.190; 3-year OS: 0.892 vs 0.857, P = 0.039; 3-year CSS: 0.887 vs 0.848, P = 0.018; 5-year OS: 0.906 vs 0.880, P = 0.133; 5-year CSS: 0.900 vs 0.876, P = 0.109). In conclusion, this study developed two nomogram models: one for predicting OS and the other for CSS of EOGC patients, offering valuable assistance to clinicians.
RESUMO
Red fluorescent proteins are useful as morphological markers in neurons, often complementing green fluorescent protein-based probes of neuronal activity. However, commonly used red fluorescent proteins show aggregation and toxicity in neurons or are dim. We report the engineering of a bright red fluorescent protein, Crimson, that enables long-term morphological labeling of neurons without aggregation or toxicity. Crimson is similar to mCherry and mKate2 in fluorescence spectra but is 100 and 28% greater in molecular brightness, respectively. We used a membrane-localized Crimson-CAAX to label thin neurites, dendritic spines and filopodia, enhancing detection of these small structures compared to cytosolic markers.
