4.5 Article

Pulmonary metastasis in newly diagnosed colon-rectal cancer: a population-based nomogram study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 867-878

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-019-03270-w

Keywords

Colorectal cancer; Pulmonary metastasis; Risk factors; Prognosis; Nomogram

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81672268]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) has a high worldwide incidence with a tendency to metastasize to the lungs. We aimed to identify clinical factors related to lung metastasis (LM) and analyze the prognosis of patients after LM.MethodsMultivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for LM from CRC. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed to identify potentially important prognostic factors for patients with LM.ResultsAge (p=0.010), tumor size (p<0.001), T stage (p<0.001), N stage (p<0.001), race (p<0.001), tumor site (p<0.001), liver metastasis (p<0.001), brain metastasis (p<0.001), bone metastasis (p<0.001), serum levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (p<0.001), and circumferential resection margin (CRM) (p<0.001) were associated with a risk of LM from CRC. All factors (all, p<0.001) except tumor size (p=0.095) and race (p=0.650) were related to the overall survival of patients. Two nomograms were formulated to visually predict lung metastasis risk and 1-, 3-, and 5- year overall survivals for patients with LM. The concordance indices were 0.754 and 0.749, respectively.ConclusionsAge, tumor size, histological grade, serum levels of CEA, tumor site, surgery modalities of CRC, CRM, number of positive lymph nodes, and chemotherapy were independent risk factors for LM from CRC. The nomograms we developed can be effectively used to forecast the risk of LM and predict the survival for LM from CRC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available