4.5 Article

Long-Term Follow-Up and Prognostic Factors for Advanced Thymic Carcinoma

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 93, 期 28, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000324

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fujian Province Natural Science Foundation [2012J05139]
  2. Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction Program of Fujian, P.R. China
  3. National Clinical Key Specialty Construction Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival outcomes in patients with advanced thymic carcinoma and identify prognostic factors influencing the survival. We retrospectively analyzed 90 consecutive patients with pathologically confirmed advanced thymic carcinoma (Masaoka III and IV) in our institute, from December 2000 to 2012. Age, sex, clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, Masaoka and tumor node metastasis staging, pathologic grade, and treatment modalities were analyzed to identify prognostic factors associated with the progress-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) rates. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS, version 19.0 (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, IL). A total of 73 (81.1%) male and 17 (18.9%) female patients participated in the study. The median follow-up time was 75 months (range, 20-158 months). The 5-year PFS and OS rates were 23.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.6%-33.8%) and 35.7% (95% CI, 25.1%-46.4%), respectively. The multivariate Cox regression model analysis showed that factors improving the PFS were the normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (P < 0.001), Masaoka III stage (P = 0.028), and radiotherapy (RT) (P < 0.001). The LDH (P < 0.001), T stage (P < 0.001), and the pathologic grade (P = 0.047) were independently prognostic of OS. Long-term follow-up of the advanced thymic carcinoma showed poor outcomes of PFS and OS. LDH, Masaoka stage, and RT affected the PFS, and LDH, T stage, and pathologic grade seemed to affect the OS. Establishing a better staging system for predicting outcomes would be warranted.

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

4.5
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