Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 1761–1768 | Cite as

Preoperative CT-based nomogram for predicting overall survival in women with non-endometrioid carcinomas of the uterine corpus

  • Yulia LakhmanEmail author
  • Derya Yakar
  • Debra A. Goldman
  • Seth S. Katz
  • Hebert A. Vargas
  • Maura Miccò
  • Junting Zheng
  • Chaya S. Moskowitz
  • Robert A. Soslow
  • Hedvig Hricak
  • Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum
  • Evis Sala



To develop a preoperative CT-based nomogram for predicting overall survival (OS) in patients with non-endometrioid carcinomas of the uterine corpus.


Waiving informed consent, the institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study of 193 women with histopathologically proven uterine papillary serous carcinomas (UPSC), uterine clear cell carcinomas (UCCC), and uterine carcinosarcomas (UCS) who underwent primary surgical resection between May 1998 and December 2011, and had a preoperative CT ≤ 6 weeks before surgery. All CT scans were reviewed for local or/and regional tumor extent, presence of pelvic or/and para-aortic adenopathy, and presence of distant metastases. Univariate survival analysis was performed using log-rank test and Cox regression. Variables shown significant by the univariate analysis were evaluated with the multivariable Cox regression analysis and the results were used to create a nomogram for predicting OS. The predictive accuracy of the nomogram was assessed with the concordance probability index (c-index) and a 3-year calibration plot.


Mean patient age was 67.2 years (range 49.0–85.9); histologies included UPSC (n = 116), UCCC (n = 27), and UCS (n = 50). Median follow-up was 38.1 months (0.9–168.5 months). At multivariate analysis, patient age, ascites, and omental implants on CT were significant adverse predictors of OS and were used to build the nomogram. Concordance index for the nomogram was 0.640 ± 0.028.


We developed a nomogram with a good concordance probability at predicting OS based on readily available pretreatment clinical and imaging characteristics. This preoperative nomogram has the potential to improve initial treatment planning and patient counseling.


Nomogram CT Non-endometrioid carcinoma Uterus 


Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Iasonos A, Schrag D, Raj GV, Panageas KS (2008) How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 26:1364–1370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kattan MW (2003) Nomograms are superior to staging and risk grouping systems for identifying high risk patients: preoperative application in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 13:111–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mariani L, Miceli R, Kattan MW, et al. (2005) Validation and adaptation of a nomogram for predicting the survival of patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma using a three-grade system. Cancer 103:402–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, et al. (2006) Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 238:597–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wong SL, Kattan MW, McMasters KM, Coit DG (2005) A nomogram that predicts the presence of sentinel node metastasis in melanoma with better discrimination than the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. Ann Surg Oncol 12:282–288.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al. (2004) Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 171:1844–1849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Cancer Society. (2011) Global cancer facts and figures, 2nd edn. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doll A, Abal M, Rigau M, et al. (2008) Novel molecular profiles of endometrial cancer—new light through old windows. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 108:221–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tejerizo-Garcia A, Jimenez-Lopez JS, Munoz-Gonzalez JL, et al. (2013) Overall survival and disease-free survival in endometrial cancer: prognostic factors in 276 patients. OncoTargets Ther 9:1305–1313.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hendrickson M, Ross J, Eifel PJ, et al. (1982) Adenocarcinoma of the endometrium: analysis of 256 cases with carcinoma limited to the uterine corpus—pathology review and analysis of prognostic factors. Gynecol Oncol 13:373–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amant F, Moerman P, Neven P, et al. (2005) Endometrial cancer. Lancet 366:491–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abu-Rustum NR, Zhou Q, Gomez JD, et al. (2010) A nomogram for predicting overall survival of women with endometrial cancer following primary therapy: toward improving individualized cancer care. Gynecol Oncol 116:399–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polterauer S, Zhou Q, Grimm C, et al. (2012) External validation of a nomogram predicting overall survival of patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 125:526–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koskas M, Bendifallah S, Luton D, Darai E, Rouzier R (2011) Independent external validation of radiotherapy and its impact on the accuracy of a nomogram for predicting survival of women with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 123:214–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gonen M, Heller G (2005) Concordance probability and discriminatory power in proportional hazards regression. Biometrika 92:965–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vance S, Yechieli R, Cogan C, et al. (2012) The prognostic significance of age in surgically staged patients with type II endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 126:16–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fader AN, Starks D, Gehrig PA, et al. (2009) An updated clinicopathologic study of early-stage uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC). Gynecol Oncol 115:244–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sala E, Wakely S, Senior E, Lomas D (2007) MRI of malignant neoplasms of the uterine corpus and cervix. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1577–1587.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yulia Lakhman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Derya Yakar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Debra A. Goldman
    • 3
  • Seth S. Katz
    • 1
  • Hebert A. Vargas
    • 1
  • Maura Miccò
    • 1
    • 4
  • Junting Zheng
    • 3
  • Chaya S. Moskowitz
    • 3
  • Robert A. Soslow
    • 5
  • Hedvig Hricak
    • 1
  • Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum
    • 6
  • Evis Sala
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CenterNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Bioimaging and Radiological ScienceCatholic University “A. Gemelli” HospitalRomeItaly
  5. 5.Department of PathologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Gynecologic Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations