Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
BMC Cancer · November 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Appendiceal epithelial malignancies are rare and heterogeneous. Confirmed hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is not directly recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We constructed a SEER-derived HIPEC-related treatment proxy and evaluated its association with cancer-specific survival and its incremental prognostic information in surgically treated patients. We included 5,520 adults diagnosed in 2007–2017 from SEER and divided them into training ( n = 3,863) and internal validation ( n = 1,657) cohorts. HIPEC-proxy positivity required recorded intraoperative systemic therapy and chemotherapy. Cause-specific Cox analyses were used to evaluate prognostic associations, and a model based on conventional clinicopathologic variables was compared with a model additionally including the proxy. Performance at 1, 3, and 5 years was characterized using discrimination, calibration, Brier score, and IDI. Both models were externally evaluated without refitting in 209 institutional patients. Internal validation AUCs at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.815, 0.810, and 0.782 for the HIPEC-proxy model versus 0.812, 0.808, and 0.780 for the base model, indicating useful prognostic discrimination but minimal incremental gain from the proxy; paired differences were not statistically significant. In the external cohort, corresponding AUCs were 0.775, 0.797, and 0.783 versus 0.753, 0.759, and 0.751. The 3- and 5-year paired AUC differences were modest but statistically supported, whereas the 1-year estimate remained imprecise. External calibration was generally acceptable, with some overprediction at longer horizons. Sensitivity analyses addressing proportional-hazards violations yielded similar proxy estimates. In this retrospective surgically treated cohort, the SEER-derived HIPEC-related proxy was associated with cancer-specific prognosis and provided minimal incremental discrimination internally and modest improvement at 3 and 5 years externally. The proxy should not be interpreted as confirmed HIPEC exposure, evidence of treatment benefit, or a basis for individual postoperative prediction or treatment selection. These findings support further evaluation of the proxy as prognostic treatment-pattern information in datasets with more detailed treatment characterization.