4.3 Article

C-Reactive Protein Level Is an Indicator of the Aggressiveness of Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 110-116

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000465

关键词

pancreatic cancer; C-reactive protein; gemcitabine; chemotherapy; cachexia; prognostic factor

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  2. JSPS KAKENHI [22790624]
  3. National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund [23-A-2]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22790624, 26460930] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This study investigated the ability of serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) to stratify the aggressiveness of advanced pancreatic cancer (PCa), including poor outcomes, systemic weakness, and extent of the disease in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. Methods The prognostic CRP classification was constructed in the retrospective cohort, consisting of advanced PCa patients with first-line gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM). Stratification using the prognostic CRP classification was validated for relationships with the aggressiveness of advanced PCa in the prospective cohort, consisting of treatment-naive patients without obvious infections who received first-line GEM or GEM-based regimens. Results C-reactive protein low (<0.5 mg/dL), intermediate (0.5 and <2.0 mg/dL), and high (2.0 mg/dL) related good, moderate, and poor survival, respectively, and were independent predictors of survival in multivariate analyses among the 280 patients in the retrospective cohort and the 141 patients in the prospective cohort. Low Karnofsky Performance Status, hypoalbuminemia, anemia, and large tumor burden were more common in the high CRP group than in the low CRP group. The intermediate CRP group showed a larger burden of tumor than the low CRP group. Conclusions C-reactive protein stratified the outcomes, systemic weakness, and tumor burden. C-reactive protein is an indicator of the aggressiveness of advanced PCa.

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

4.3
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