4.4 Article

Prognostic Value of Progranulin in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Treated with Curative Resection

期刊

PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 397-404

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.1007/s12253-018-0520-7

关键词

Progranulin; Colorectal neoplasms; Recurrence; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Progranulin (PGRN) has been characterized as an autocrine growth and survival factor and is known to stimulate tumorigenesis and proliferation of several types of cancer cell. However, little is known about the prognostic role of PGRN in colorectal cancer (CRC). A retrospective analysis was performed for patients with colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection between May 2013 and June 2015. PGRN expression in tumor cells was semi-quantitatively categorized (no expression, 0; weak/focal, 1+; moderate/focal or diffuse, 2+; strong/diffuse, 3+), and high expression was considered for tumors graded >= 2+ staining intensity. A total of 109 patients (28 stage I, 32 stage II, and 49 stage III) were analyzed. Thirty-eight patients (35%) had tumors with high PGRN expression, and there was a trend of elevated pre-operative CEA and CA19-9 levels in patients with high PGRN-expressing tumors compared to those with low PGRN-expressing tumors (CEA, 49% vs. 21%; CA19-9, 21% vs. 7%). The 3-year recurrence-free survival (3Y-RFS) and overall survival rates were 83.7% (95% CI, 76.8-90.6) and 96.0% (95% CI, 92.3-99.7), respectively. Patients with high PGRN-expressing tumors had a worse rate of 3Y-RFS (66.8%) compared to those with low PGRN-expressing tumors (92.4%; p = 0.010). Multivariate analysis showed that high PGRN expression, age (>66 years), stage (III), and perineural invasion (+) were independent prognostic factors associated with poor RFS after adjusting for confounding factors including sex, MSI, tumor location, KRAS, and lympho-vascular invasion. PGRN overexpression was significantly associated with poor RFS in patients with CRC who have undergone curative resection.

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

4.4
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