Construction and evaluation of nomograms for 
malignant tumor
MALIGNANT TUMOR, SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, STD
Cervical myometrial invasion, parametrial involvement, and history of malignant tumor were used to construct a nomogram model for predicting DFS and 3‐ and 5‐year DFS rates (Figure A nomogram for predicting DFS. HMT, history of malignant tumor; MI, myometrial invasion; PI, parametrial involvementA nomogram for predicting postoperative OS. MI, myometrial invasion; PT, pathological type; STD, sexually transmitted diseasesWe then comprehensively evaluated the nomograms for discrimination, calibration and clinical utility with C‐index, receiver operating characteristic (ROC), Brier score, calibration plot, and DCA analysis (Table Evaluation index of nomogramsAUC curve. AUCs in 1‐to‐5 year for (A) the DFS nomogram in the training set; (B) the DFS nomogram in the validation set; (C) the OS nomogram in the training set; (D) the OS nomogram in the validation set.DFS calibration curve. Calibration curves for (A) the 3‐year DFS nomogram in the training set; (B) the 3‐year DFS nomogram in the validation set; (C) the 5‐year DFS nomogram in the training set; (D) the 5‐year DFS nomogram in the validation set.OS calibration curve. Calibration curves for (A) the 3‐year OS nomogram in the training set; (B) the 3‐year OS nomogram in the validation set; (C) the 5‐year OS nomogram in the training set; (D) the 5‐year OS nomogram in the validation set.Decision curve. Decision curves for (A) the DFS nomogram in the training set; (B) the DFS nomogram in the validation set; (C) the OS nomogram in the training set; (D) the OS nomogram in the validation set.The nomogram for postoperative OS generally showed slightly better performance in these aspects. The C‐index of 0.831 (0.768–0.894) was for the training set and 0.839 (0.756–0.921) for validation set. AUCs for 1‐ to 5‐year predictions ranged 0.736–0.860 in the training set and 0.761–0.828 in the validation set (Figure Calibration plots for 3‐year and 5‐year DFS/OS rates were plotted, comparing nomogram‐predicted with actual outcomes and indicated high quality of the nomogram (Figure 