4.7 Article

Severe obesity prior to diagnosis limits survival in colorectal cancer patients evaluated at a large cancer centre

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 114, Issue 1, Pages 103-109

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.424

Keywords

colorectal cancer; overall survival; progression; weight loss; obese; lean; BMI; mortality

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support Grant [CA016672]
  2. TexGen Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In contrast to the consistent evidence for obesity and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, the impact of obesity in CRC patients is less clear. In a well-characterised cohort of CRC patients, we prospectively evaluated class I and class II obesity with survival outcomes. Methods: The CRC patients (N = 634) were followed from the date of diagnosis until disease progression/first recurrence (progression-free survival (PFS)) or death (overall survival (OS)). Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from reported usual weight prior to diagnosis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated in models adjusted for clinicopathologic, treatment, and lifestyle factors. Results: Over a median follow-up of 4 years, 208 (33%) patients died and 235 (37%) recurred or progressed. Class II obesity, as compared with either overweight or normal weight, was associated with an increased risk of death (HR and 95% CI: 1.55 (0.97-2.48) and 1.65 (1.02-2.68), respectively), but no clear association was observed with PFS. In analyses restricted to patients who presented as stages I-III, who reported stable weight, or who were aged <50 years, obesity was associated with a significant two-to five-fold increased risk of death. Conclusions: In CRC patients evaluated at a large cancer centre, severely obese patients experienced worse survival outcomes independent of many other factors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available