4.5 Article

Sustained Elevation of Postoperative Serum Level of Carbohydrate Antigen 19-9 is High-Risk Stigmata for Primary Hepatic Recurrence in Patients with Curatively Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 634-641

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4814-4

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [24592018, 16K10588]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K10588, 24592018] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundSurvival after surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) is poor and heterogeneous, even for curative (R0) resection. Serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 levels are important prognostic markers for resected PA. However, sustained elevation of CA19-9 in association with the patterns of recurrence has been rarely investigated.MethodsPatients who underwent R0 resection (n=539) were grouped according to postoperative serum CA19-9 levels (Group E: sustained elevation; Group N: no elevation). Clinicopathological factors, patterns of recurrence, and survival were compared between the groups.ResultsGroup E (n=159) had significantly shorter median overall survival (17.1 vs. 35.4months, p<0.0001) than Group N (n=380). Postoperative CA19-9 elevation was a significant independent predictor of poor survival in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 1.98, p<0.0001). The rate of hepatic recurrence in Group E was 2.6-fold higher than in Group N (45% vs. 17%, p<0.0001). Postoperative CA19-9 elevation was a strongest independent predictor of primary hepatic recurrence (p<0.0001) by a multiple regression model. Loco-regional, peritoneal, and other distant recurrence did not differ between the groups. The extent of preoperative CA19-9 elevation was correlated sustained elevation of CA19-9 after surgery (p<0.0001) and primary hepatic recurrence (p=0.0019).ConclusionsSustained CA19-9 elevation was strong predictor of primary hepatic recurrence and short survival in cases of R0 resection for PA.

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