4.7 Article

Prognostic Value of Mucinous Histology Depends on Microsatellite Instability Status in Patients with Stage III Colon Cancer Treated with Adjuvant FOLFOX Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 3407-3413

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3169-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The close association between mucinous histology and microsatellite instability (MSI) may have hindered the evaluation of prognostic significance of mucinous histology. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate whether mucinous histology was associated with a worse prognosis, independent of MSI status, compared to nonmucinous histology in patients with stage III colon cancer. This study enrolled 394 consecutive patients with stage III colorectal cancer treated with adjuvant FOLFOX after curative resection (R0). Clinicopathological information was retrospectively reviewed. Tumors were analyzed for MSI by polymerase chain reaction to determine MSI status. Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard regression models were used. The estimated rate of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with nonmucinous adenocarcinoma (NMA 79.2 %) was significantly greater than that in patients with mucinous adenocarcinoma (MA) and adenocarcinoma with mucinous component (MC) (56.9 %; log-rank, P = 0.002). In univariate analysis, histology (NMA vs. MA/MC), American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC), and lymphovascular invasion (present vs. absent) were significantly associated with DFS. In multivariate analysis, mucinous histology (MA/MC) was associated with decreased DFS in all patients (hazard ratio 1.82, 95 % confidence interval 1.03-3.23, P = 0.0403). In patients with MA/MC, no difference in DFS was observed between MSI and microsatellite stability (log-rank, P = 0.732). Mucinous histology is an independent poor prognostic factor for DFS in patients with stage III colon cancer after adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy.

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

4.7
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