Novel prognostic markers associated with poor survival in stage III rectal cancers: Invasive growth pattern and Tumor necrosis
Öz
Aim: Rectal carcinomas (RC) are one of the most common cancers in the western world. TNM system is the most significant predictive indicator in these tumors but patients characterized by the same stage often have prominent distinct survival. In this research, we analyzed the survival effect of Invasive growth pattern (IGP) and Tumor necrosis (TN) in stage III RC.
Material and Methods: A hundred forty-five patients operated for stage III RC during 1999-2012 at Kırıkkale University were included in this research. These parameters were scored on hematoxylin and eosin stained sections. The relationship between the results and the clinicopathological characteristics was analyzed.
Results: These parameters were significantly upregulated in RCs which classified as higher tumor size (IGP: p<0.001; TN: p=0.033), higher pT (IGP: p=0.016; TN: p=0.047), angiolymphatic invasion (IGP: p=0.025), high number metastatic lymph nodes (IGP: p<0.001; TN: p=0.001), advanced stage (IGP: p<0.001; TN: p=0.018), and advanced grade (IGP: p<0.001). In univariate analysis, patients with these two parameters had worse 5-year survival ([IGP= RFS: 50%, p=0.001; OS=55%, p=0.003], [TN= RFS: 53%, p=0.005; OS: 58%, p=0.017]). Multivariate analyzes confirmed that these two parameters are an independent worse survival parameter for RFS (IGP=Hazard ratio [HR]: 1.58 [1.05-2.66], p=0.005; TN=1.44 [1.07–2.34], p=0.013) and OS (IGP=HR: 1.55 [1.11–3.18], p=0.008; TN= 1.38 [1.09–2.28], p=0.024). In addition, IGP was found to be more successful than TN.
Conclusion: Our data suggest that IGP and TN provide valuable prognostic information for RC, and adding these parameters to the current risk classification may contribute to better patient selection.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1. Fulop ZZ, Gurzu S, Bara T, Dragus E, Bara T Jr, Voidazan S, Banias L, Jung I. Lymph node ratio, an independent prognostic factor for patients with stage II-III rectal carcinoma. Pathol Res Pract 2019; 215: 152384
- 2. Takiyama H, Kawai K, Ishihara S et al. Different Impacts of Preoperative Radiotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy on Oncological Outcomes in Patients with Stages II and III Lower Rectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Analysis. Dig Surg 2018; 35: 212-19.
- 3. Jass JR, Love SB, Northover JM. A new prognostic classification of rectal cancer. Lancet 1987; 1: 1303–306
- 4. Rajaganeshan R, Prasad R, Guillou PJ et al. The influence of invasive growth pattern and microvessel density on prognosis in colorectal cancer and colorectal liver metastases. Br J Cancer 2007; 96: 1112-17.
- 5. Okano K, Yamamoto J, Kosuge T et al. Fibrous pseudocapsule of metastatic liver tumors from colorectal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic study of 152 first resection cases. Cancer 2000; 89: 267–75.
- 6. Pollheimer MJ, Kornprat P, Lindtner RA et al. Tumor necrosis is a new promising prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. Hum Pathol 2010; 41: 1749–57.
- 7. Richards CH, Roxburgh CS, Anderson JH et al. Prognostic value of tumour necrosis and host inflammatory responses in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2012; 99: 287–94.
- 8. Sobin LH, Compton CC. TNM seventh edition: what’s new, what’s changed: communication from the International Union Against Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer 2010; 116: 5336–39.
Ayrıntılar
Birincil Dil
İngilizce
Konular
Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi
Bölüm
Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar
Mehmet Zengin
0000-0003-1937-2771
Türkiye
Yayımlanma Tarihi
30 Eylül 2019
Gönderilme Tarihi
31 Mayıs 2019
Kabul Tarihi
22 Ağustos 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı
Yıl 2019 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3