Establishing a Nomogram for Stage IA-IIB Cervical Cancer Patients after Complete Resection

  • Zhou, Hang ;
  • Li, Xiong ;
  • Zhang, Yuan ;
  • Jia, Yao ;
  • Hu, Ting ;
  • Yang, Ru ;
  • Huang, Ke-Cheng ;
  • Chen, Zhi-Lan ;
  • Wang, Shao-Shuai ;
  • Tang, Fang-Xu ;
  • Zhou, Jin ;
  • Chen, Yi-Le ;
  • Wu, Li ;
  • Han, Xiao-Bing ;
  • Lin, Zhong-Qiu ;
  • Lu, Xiao-Mei ;
  • Xing, Hui ;
  • Qu, Peng-Peng ;
  • Cai, Hong-Bing ;
  • Song, Xiao-Jie ;
  • Tian, Xiao-Yu ;
  • Zhang, Qing-Hua ;
  • Shen, Jian ;
  • Liu, Dan ;
  • Wang, Ze-Hua ;
  • Xu, Hong-Bing ;
  • Wang, Chang-Yu ;
  • Xi, Ling ;
  • Deng, Dong-Rui ;
  • Wang, Hui ;
  • Lv, Wei-Guo ;
  • Shen, Keng ;
  • Wang, Shi-Xuan ;
  • Xie, Xing ;
  • Cheng, Xiao-Dong ;
  • Ma, Ding ;
  • Li, Shuang
  • Published : 2015.05.18


Background: This study aimed to establish a nomogram by combining clinicopathologic factors with overall survival of stage IA-IIB cervical cancer patients after complete resection with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Materials and Methods: This nomogram was based on a retrospective study on 1,563 stage IA-IIB cervical cancer patients who underwent complete resection and lymphadenectomy from 2002 to 2008. The nomogram was constructed based on multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression. The accuracy and discriminative ability of the nomogram were measured by concordance index (C-index) and calibration curve. Results: Multivariate analysis identified lymph node metastasis (LNM), lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI), stromal invasion, parametrial invasion, tumor diameter and histology as independent prognostic factors associated with cervical cancer survival. These factors were selected for construction of the nomogram. The C-index of the nomogram was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.77), and calibration of the nomogram showed good agreement between the 5-year predicted survival and the actual observation. Conclusions: We developed a nomogram predicting 5-year overall survival of surgically treated stage IA-IIB cervical cancer patients. More comprehensive information that is provided by this nomogram could provide further insight into personalized therapy selection.


Cervical cancer;nomogram;clinicopathologic factor


  1. Bochner BH, Kattan MW, Vora KC (2006). Postoperative nomogram predicting risk of recurrence after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol, 24, 3967-72.
  2. Chang SJ, Kim WY, Yoo SC, et al (2009). A validation study of new risk grouping criteria for postoperative treatment in stage IB cervical cancers without high-risk factors: rethinking the gynecologic oncology group criteria. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 147, 91-6.
  3. Creasman WT, Kohler MF (2004). Is lymph vascular space involvement an independent prognostic factor in early cervical cancer? Gynecol Oncol, 92, 525-9.
  4. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al (2010). Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer, 127, 2893-917.
  5. Grochola LF, Greither T, Taubert H, et al (2008). The stem cell-associated Hiwi gene in human adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: expression and risk of tumour-related death. Br J Cancer, 99, 1083-8.
  6. Han DS, Suh YS, Kong SH, et al (2012). Nomogram predicting long-term survival after d2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol, 30, 3834-40.
  7. Harrell FE, Jr., Lee KL, Mark DB (1996). Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med, 15, 361-87.<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4
  8. Harrell FE Jr (2001). Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models LR, and survival analysis, volume 19. New York, NY, Springer-Verlag.
  9. Ho CM, Chien TY, Huang SH, et al (2004). Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors and outcomes in early cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol, 93, 458-64.
  10. Hricak H, Gatsonis C, Chi DS, et al (2005). Role of imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early invasive cervical cancer: results of the intergroup study American college of radiology imaging network 6651-gynecologic oncology group 183. J Clin Oncol, 23, 9329-37.
  11. Hu T, Li S, Chen Y, et al (2012). Matched-case comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with FIGO stage IB1-IIB cervical cancer to establish selection criteria. Eur J Cancer, 48, 2353-60.
  12. Hu T, Wu L, Xing H, et al (2013). Development of criteria for ovarian preservation in cervical cancer patients treated with radical surgery with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter retrospective study and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol, 20, 881-90.
  13. Huitzil-Melendez FD, Capanu M, O'Reilly EM, et al (2010). Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: which staging systems best predict prognosis? J Clin Oncol, 28, 2889-95.
  14. Iasonos A, Schrag D, Raj GV, et al (2008). How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol, 26, 1364-70.
  15. Kamura T, Tsukamoto N, Tsuruchi N, et al (1992). Multivariate analysis of the histopathologic prognostic factors of cervical cancer in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Cancer, 69, 181-6.<181::AID-CNCR2820690130>3.0.CO;2-B
  16. Kang S, Nam BH, Park JY, et al (2012). Risk assessment tool for distant recurrence after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: a Korean gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol, 30, 2369-74.
  17. Landoni F, Maneo A, Colombo A, et al (1997). Randomised study of radical surgery versus radiotherapy for stage Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Lancet, 350, 535-40.
  18. Nguyen TL, Nguyen DC, Nguyen TH, et al (2011). Survey-based cancer mortality in the Lao PDR, 2007-08. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 2495-8.
  19. Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F (2009). Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 105, 107-8.
  20. Singh P, Tripcony L, Nicklin J (2012). Analysis of prognostic variables, development of predictive models, and stratification of risk groups in surgically treated FIGO early-stage (IA-IIA) carcinoma cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 22, 115-22.
  21. Small W, Jr., Strauss JB, Jhingran A, et al (2012). ACR appropriateness criteria(R) definitive therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Am J Clin Oncol, 35, 399-405.
  22. Sternberg CN (2006). Are nomograms better than currently available stage groupings for bladder cancer? J Clin Oncol, 24, 3819-20.
  23. Tseng JY, Yen MS, Twu NF, et al (2010). Prognostic nomogram for overall survival in stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 202, 174 e1-7.
  24. Waggoner SE (2003). Cervical cancer. Lancet, 361, 2217-25.
  25. Walz J, Gallina A, Saad F, et al (2007). A nomogram predicting 10-year life expectancy in candidates for radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol, 25, 3576-81.
  26. Wang Y, Li J, Xia Y, et al (2013). Prognostic nomogram for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after partial hepatectomy. J Clin Oncol, 31, 1188-95.
  27. Williams NL, Werner TL, Jarboe EA, et al (2015). Adenocarcinoma of the cervix: should we treat it differently? Curr Oncol Rep, 17, 440.
  28. Yuan CC, Wang PH, Lai CR, et al (1998). Prognosis-predicting system based on factors related to survival of cervical carcinoma. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 63, 163-7.

Cited by

  1. Prediction of 5–year overall survival in cervical cancer patients treated with radical hysterectomy using computational intelligence methods vol.17, pp.1, 2017,
  2. Nomogram Predicting Overall Survival in Operable Cervical Cancer Patients vol.27, pp.5, 2017,