4.4 Article

Prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen and vascular endothelial growth factor tumor tissue content in colorectal cancer

Journal

ONCOLOGY
Volume 71, Issue 3-4, Pages 176-184

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000106072

Keywords

colorectal cancer; vascular endothelial growth factor; carcinoembryonic antigen; relapse-free survival; overall survival

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: This study was designed to assess the prognostic significance of the combined measurement of vascular endothelial growth factor ( VEGF) and carcinoembryonic antigen ( CEA) tissue content with respect to relapse- free and overall survival of patients with colorectal cancer ( CRC). Methods: Quantitative evaluation of VEGF and CEA content was performed on protein extracts obtained from tissue biopsies from 69 CRC patients and 15 healthy donors. Results: VEGF significantly correlated with CEA content of either tumor tissues ( rho = 0.55, p < 0.0001) or corresponding normal mucosa ( rho = 0.34, p < 0.005). General regression analyses demonstrated that CEA was an independent predictor of VEGF tissue content either in CRC biopsies ( regression coefficient = 0.57, p < 0.0001) or normal mucosa ( regression coefficient = 0.25, p < 0.05). Cox proportional hazards survival analysis showed that tumor tissue content of both VEGF and CEA had an independent prognostic value in predicting both relapse- free ( hazards ratio = 5.98, p = 0.002) and overall ( hazards ratio = 4.73, p = 0.007) survival, irrespective of Dukes' stage. Kaplan- Meier analysis demonstrated that anelevated tumor content of both CEA and VEGF had a negative prognostic value in respect to either relapse- free ( logrank test: 10.4, p = 0.001) or overall survival ( log- rank test: 7.33, p = 0.007). Conclusion: Tumor tissue VEGF and CEA content determination might add useful prognostic information in the management of patients with CRC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available