4.6 Article

Systemic Inflammatory Response and Elevated Tumour Markers Predict Worse Survival in Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163064

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Finnish Cancer Society
  2. Medicinska understodsforeningen Liv och Halsa
  3. Mary and Georg C Ehrnrooth -foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Estimation of the prognosis of resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) currently relies on tumour-related factors such as resection margins and on lymph-node ratio (LNR) both inconveniently available only postoperatively. Our aim was to assess the accuracy of preoperative laboratory data in predicting PDAC prognosis. Methods Collection of laboratory and clinical data was retrospective from 265 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for PDAC at Helsinki University Hospital. Cancer-specific survival assessment utilized Kaplan-Meier analysis, and independent associations between factors were by the Cox regression model. Results During follow-up, 76% of the patients died of PDAC, with a median survival time of 19.6 months. In univariate analysis, CRP, albumin, CEA, and CA19-9 were significantly associated with postoperative cancer-specific survival. In multivariate analysis, taking into account age, gender, LNR, resection margins, tumour status, and adjuvant chemotherapy, the preoperative biomarkers independently associated with adverse prognosis were hypoalbuminemia (< 36 g/L, hazard ratio (HR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.19, p = 0.011), elevated CRP (> 5 mg/L, HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03-2.02, p = 0.036), CEA (> 5 mu g/L, HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.07-2.53, p = 0.047), and CA19-9 (>= 555 kU/L, HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.18-3.08, p = 0.008). Conclusion For patients with resectable PDAC, preoperative CRP, along with albumin and tumour markers, is useful for predicting prognosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available