Developing and validating a nomogram for penile cancer survival: A comprehensive study based on SEER and Chinese data

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe primary aim of this study was to create a nomogram for predicting survival outcomes in penile cancer patients, utilizing data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and a Chinese organization.MethodsOur study involved a cohort of 5744 patients diagnosed with penile cancer from the SEER database, spanning from 2004 to 2019. In addition, 103 patients with penile cancer from Sun Yat‐sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat‐sen University were included during the same period. Based on the results of regression analysis, a nomogram is constructed and validated internally and externally. The predictive performance of the model was evaluated by concordance index (c‐index), area under the curve, decision curve analysis, and calibration curve, in internal and external datasets. Finally, the prediction efficiency is compared with the TNM staging model.ResultsA total of 3154 penile patients were randomly divided into the training group and the internal validation group at a ratio of 2:1. Nine independent risk factors were identified, including age, race, marital status, tumor grade, histology, TNM stage, and the surgical approach. Based on these factors, a nomogram was constructed to predict OS. The nomogram demonstrated relatively better consistency, predictive accuracy, and clinical relevance, with a c‐index over 0.73 (in the training cohort, the validation cohort, and externally validation cohort.) These evaluation indexes are far better than the TNM staging system.ConclusionPenile cancer, often overlooked in research, has lacked detailed investigative focus and guidelines. This study stands as the first to validate penile cancer prognosis using extensive data from the SEER database, supplemented by data from our own institution. Our findings equip surgeons with an essential tool to predict the prognosis of penile cancer better suited than TNM, thereby enhancing clinical decision‐making processes.