4.7 Article

Evaluation of prognostic factors in liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: a preplanned analysis of the FIRE-1 trial

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 109, 期 6, 页码 1428-1436

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.475

关键词

metastatic colorectal cancer; chemotherapy; irinotecan; hepatic resection; liver-limited disease; long-term survival; prognostic factors; Koehne's risk classification

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Liver-limited disease (LLD) denotes a specific subgroup of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Patients and Methods: A total of 479 patients with unresectable mCRC from an irinotecan-based randomised phase III trial were evaluated. Patients with LLD and non-LLD and hepatic resection were differentiated. Based on baseline patient characteristic, prognostic factors for hepatic resection were evaluated. Furthermore, prognostic factors for median overall survival (OS) were estimated via Cox regression in LLD patients. Results: Secondary liver resection was performed in 38 out of 479 patients (resection rate: 7.9%). Prognostic factors for hepatic resection were LLD, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), node-negative primary, alkaline phosphatase (AP) and Karnofsky performance status (PS). Median OS was significantly increased after hepatic resection (48 months), whereas OS in LLD (17 months) and non-LLD (19 months) was comparable in non-resected patients. With the inapplicability of Koehne's risk classification in LLD patients, a new score based on only the independent prognostic factors LDH and white blood cell (WBC) provided markedly improved information on the outcome. Conclusion: Patients undergoing hepatic resection showed favourable long-term survival, whereas non-resected LLD patients and non-LLD patients did not differ with regard to progression-free survival and OS. The LDH levels and WBC count were confirmed as prognostic factors and provide a useful and simple score for OS-related risk stratification also in LLD.

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