4.5 Article

Comparison of the Prognostic Value of Tumour- and Patient-Related Factors in Patients Undergoing Potentially Curative Resection of Oesophageal Cancer

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 35, Issue 8, Pages 1861-1866

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-011-1130-7

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Evidence is increasing that elevated systemic inflammation is associated with poor survival in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. However, it is not yet established if any specific component of systemic inflammatory response is a better predictor of cancer survival. The aim of the present study was to compare the predictive value of selected markers of systemic inflammation in patients who undergo surgical resection of oesophageal cancer. Methods One hundred twelve patients who underwent potentially curative resection for oesophageal carcinoma, including type I and type II tumours of the gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert and Stein in Dis Esophagus 9:173-182, 1996), between 1996 and 2008 were included in the study. Patients had laboratory measurement of white cells, neutrophils, lymphocytes, platelet counts, albumin, and C-reactive protein. Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and metastatic lymph node ratio (LNR) were calculated. Results On multivariate analysis, only the LNR (HR 2.87, 95% CI 1.99-4.15, p < 0.001) and the mGPS (HR 4.31, 95% CI 2.20-8.45, p < 0.001) were independently associated with cancer-specific survival in oesophageal cancer. An elevated mGPS was associated with high white cell count (p < 0.05) and poorer survival (p = 0.001). Conclusion The present study indicates that the mGPS, an acute-phase protein-based prognostic score, better predicts cancer survival compared with the cellular components of systemic inflammation in patients with oesophageal carcinoma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available