4.5 Article

Preoperative SCC Antigen, CRP Serum Levels, and Lymph Node Density in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 95, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003149

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Council, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, China [NSC 102-2314-B-182A-081, MOST 103-2314-B-182A-057-MY2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prognostic significance of squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and lymph node density (LND) has been individually recognized in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). We investigated the relationship between preoperative serum markers (SCC-Ag and CRP) and postoperative prognostic marker (LND) in this study. We retrospectively analyzed 277 OSCC patients who underwent primary curative resection and neck dissection with/or without adjuvant therapy between March 2008 and November 2013. Serum SCC-Ag and CRP levels were measured preoperatively. Distant metastasis, overall survival (OS), and diseasefree survival (DFS) were used to evaluate the prognostic significance of preoperative SCC-Ag and CRP levels in relation to LND. LND (cutoff point >= 0.06) correlated with the pathologic tumor status, pathologic nodal metastasis, degree of differentiation, tumor stage, tumor depth (>= 10mm vs <10 mm), and perineural invasion (all P values were <0.001). LND was significantly associated with development of distant metastasis, DFS, and OS (all P values were <0.001). Preoperative elevated CRP and SCC-Ag levels were significantly associated with LND (P = 0.006), DFS (P < 0.001), and OS (P < 0.001). LND+ patients were further stratified into prognostic groups according to their SCC-Ag and CRP levels (DFS: P = 0.010; OS: P = 0.003). LND correlated with the incidence of DM, DFS, and OS in patients with OSCC. Concurrent elevated preoperative SCC-Ag and CRP levels are predictors for LND. In addition, SCC-Ag and CRP are markers for classifying high-risk LND+ patients with OSCC into subgroups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据