4.2 Article

Role of desmoplasia in recurrence of stage II colorectal cancer within five years after surgery and therapeutic implication

期刊

CANCER INVESTIGATION
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 419-425

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07357900701788155

关键词

colorectal cancer; desmoplasia; disease recurrence; mortality

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) metastasis is enhanced in patients with venous embolization increasing the risk of recurrence and therefore mortality rate. Several evidences indicate that stage II patients have an abrupt recurrence within five years from surgery. This fact, led us to investigate the role played by different histological variables on CRC invasiveness. Aim: To demonstrate if quantitative and qualitative desmoplastic response and lymphocytic infiltration are prognostic factor involved in the recurrence of CRC within five years from surgery, considering possible clinical and therapeutical implications. Methods: Thirty-four patients with CRC underwent colectomy and the UICC-TNM classification was applied for disease staging. Histological variables were semi-quantitatively evaluted. Qualitative evaluation of desmoplasia was obtained with the hematoxillin-eosin method. Results: Survival rate arose 88% at stage II, at five years of follow-up, and the 12% not treated with adiuvant chemotherapy developed metastasis. Desmoplasia is strongly associated with venous neoplastic invasiveness (OR: 21.93; 95%CI: 1.012-475.26, p = 0.02), and therefore, with mortality rate (OR: 14.33; 95%CI: 0.67-304, p = 0.04). Moreover, mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with immature desmoplasia compare to mature stromal tissue (OR: 15.61, 95%CI: 0.69-343.38, p = 0.04). Conclusions: These observations should prompt a future evaluation of desmoplasia to extent more suitably the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in II stage patients. Further clinical trials are needed to determine if these findings will be able to reduce mortality rate, in stage II CRC patients.

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

4.2
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