4.6 Article

Preresection serum C-reactive protein measurement and survival among patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
卷 142, 期 5, 页码 1161-1167

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.07.021

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study aimed to determine whether preresection serum CRP level independently predicts survival among patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Clinical, pathologic, and laboratory data from 300 patients operated on for non-small cell lung cancer in a single institution were studied in univariate and multivariate survival analyses. Validation was sought in another cohort of 68 similar patients from another institution. Results: In the main cohort, preoperative CRP value was 3 mg/L or lower in 136 patients (45.3%), between 4 and 20 mg/L in 89 (29.7%), and greater than 20 in 64 (21.3%). CRP level was significantly associated with chronic bronchitis, hypoalbuminemia, pathologic stage, and peritumoral vascular emboli. Overall, 5-year survivals of patients with preoperative CRP 3 mg/L or lower, between 4 and 20 mg/L, and greater than 20 mg/L were 55.6%, 45.6%, and 40.0%, respectively (P = .0571). In multivariate analysis, CRP level greater than 20 was significantly associated with survival, but with significant interaction between CRP level and disease stage (P = .02). Patients in stage I or II disease with CRP levels greater than 20 had worse survival than did patients with undetectable CRP (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.874; 95% confidence interval, 1.039-3.381); the difference was not significant in stages III and IV. In the validation series, CRP level greater than 20 mg/L also predicted worse survival (P = .018). Conclusions: Preoperative CRP level greater than 20 mg/L is significantly associated with worse survival than undetectable CRP in patients with stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:1161-7)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据