Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 22, 2026

Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data
Published on: October 23, 2020
Does establishing a preoperative nomogram including ultrasonographic findings help predict the likelihood of
Hongli Wang1, Jianguo Lai1, Jiao Li2
1Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Yanjiang Road. west No.107, YueXiu district, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Background:
Mammography (MG) is highly sensitive for detecting microcalcifications, but has low specificity. This study investigates whether establishing a preoperative nomogram including ultrasonographic findings can help predict the likelihood of malignancy in patients with mammographic microcalcification.
Methods:
Between May 2012 and January 2017, 475 patients with suspicious microcalcifications detected on MG underwent ultrasonography (US). The χ2 test was used to screen risk factors among the variables. Then, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of malignant microcalcifications. A mammographic nomogram (M nomogram) and mammographic-ultrasonographic nomogram (M-U nomogram) were established based on multivariate logistic regression models. The discriminatory ability and clinical utility of both nomograms were compared by the receiver operating characteristics curve and decision curve analysis. The calibration ability was evaluated using a calibration curve.
Results:
Among the cases, 68.2% (324/475) were pathologically diagnosed as breast cancer and 31.8% (151/475) were benign lesions. Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, age, clinical manifestation, morphology and distribution of microcalcifications on MG and lesions associated with microcalcifications on US were confirmed as independent predictors of malignant microcalcifications. In terms of discrimination ability, the C-index of the M-U nomogram was significantly higher than that of the M nomogram (0.917 vs 0.897, p = 0.006). The bias-corrected curve was close to the ideal line in the calibration curve. Decision curve analysis suggested that the M-U nomogram was superior to M nomogram.
Conclusions:
Combining mammographic parameters with ultrasonographic findings in a nomogram provided better performance than an M nomogram alone, especially for dense breasts, which suggests the value of ultrasonographic finding for individualized prediction of malignancy in patients with microcalcifications.
Related Concept Videos
Dosage Regimen Designs: Nomograms and Tabulations
Predicting Molecular Geometry
Finding the Center of Gravity
Respiratory System Abnormal Finding I: Inspection and Percussion
Inspection Findings
During an inspection, several findings may suggest the presence of respiratory distress or disease. Pursed-lip breathing, where exhalation is slowed by...
Cardiovascular System Abnormal Findings I: Inspection and Palpation
Abnormal findings observed during an inspection
Finding Electric Potential From Electric Field

