收藏切换
Efficacy evaluation and prognostic factors analysis of elderly rectal cancer based on propensity score overlapping weighting method
收藏切换
Xian-zhu CONG, Shuang LI, Jia-yu GE, Ai-min WANG, Yu-jia KONG, Fu-yan SHI, Su-zhen WANG
Modern Preventive Medicine | 2025, 52(8) : 1502 - 1508
Less
收藏切换
Modern Preventive Medicine | 2025, 52(8): 1502-1508
• Clinical Medicine and Prevention •
Efficacy evaluation and prognostic factors analysis of elderly rectal cancer based on propensity score overlapping weighting method
Full
Xian-zhu CONG, Shuang LI, Jia-yu GE, Ai-min WANG, Yu-jia KONG, Fu-yan SHI, Su-zhen WANG
Affiliations
  • Department of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang 261053, China
Published: 2025-04-25 doi: 10.20043/j.cnki.MPM.202412208
Outline
收藏切换
Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of three treatment modalities, preoperative, postoperative, and combined preoperative and postoperative systemic therapy, in elderly patients with rectal cancer (RC), and to analyze the prognostic factors for elderly RC patients.

Methods

Data from 4612 RC patients aged 60 and above were used, sourced from the SEER database between 2011 and 2015. The Overlap Weighting (OW) method based on XGBoost was employed to balance covariate differences between treatment groups and assess the impact of different treatment regimens on the survival prognosis of RC patients. Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Log-rank tests were conducted. Cox regression analysis was utilized to evaluate independent risk factors affecting the survival of RC patients.

Results

After OW weighting, the three treatment groups achieved balance across all covariates. The survival rates among different treatment groups were statistically significant (P<0.001). The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates were 94.6%, 82.2%, and 71.6% for the preoperative systemic therapy group, 95.0%, 79.0%, and 67.8% for the postoperative systemic therapy group, and 97.3%, 85.5%, and 73.4% for the combined preoperative and postoperative systemic therapy group, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that, compared to the preoperative systemic therapy group, the specific death hazard ratio for the postoperative systemic therapy group was 1.216(95% CI: 1.072-1.381). Patients with liver metastasis had a specific death hazard ratio of 1.719(95% CI: 1.253-2.358) compared to those without liver metastasis.

Conclusion

The sequence of systematic treatment has a significant impact on the survival prognosis of elderly RC patients. After controlling for factors such as age and gender, preoperative systemic treatment had a better survival prognosis among the three treatment methods; Liver metastasis may be an independent factor affecting the prognosis of RC patients.

XGBoost  /  Overlap weighting  /  Rectal cancer  /  Systemic treatment  /  Influence factor
丛显铸, 李爽, 葛佳瑜, 王爱民, 孔雨佳, 石福艳, 王素珍. 基于倾向性评分重叠加权法的老年直肠癌疗效评价及其预后影响因素分析. 现代预防医学, 2025 , 52 (8) : 1502 -1508 . DOI: 10.20043/j.cnki.MPM.202412208
Xian-zhu CONG, Shuang LI, Jia-yu GE, Ai-min WANG, Yu-jia KONG, Fu-yan SHI, Su-zhen WANG. Efficacy evaluation and prognostic factors analysis of elderly rectal cancer based on propensity score overlapping weighting method[J]. Modern Preventive Medicine, 2025 , 52 (8) : 1502 -1508 . DOI: 10.20043/j.cnki.MPM.202412208
Year 2025 volume 52 Issue 8
489
248
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.20043/j.cnki.MPM.202412208
  • Receive Date:2024-12-12
  • Online Date:2026-03-17
  • Published:2025-04-25
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received:2024-12-12
Funding
Affiliations
    Department of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang 261053, China
References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/xdyfyx/EN/10.20043/j.cnki.MPM.202412208
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family
属数
Number of
genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)
属
Genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT