4.6 Article

Tumor sidedness is not an independent prognostic marker of colorectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection: A retrospective cohort study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218207

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recent literature has suggested that tumor sidedness in colorectal cancer (CRC) is an independent prognostic and potentially predictive marker of survival. The aims of the study were to determine the prognostic significance of tumor sidedness in colorectal cancer patients undergoing primary tumor resection and to assess associated tumor biology. Methods A total of 3281 consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection of their primary CRC from January 1998 to December 2012 were analyzed for association with tumor biologic factors and with overall survival. Metastatic patients were excluded from analysis. Results Left sided CRCs were associated with a number of additional key prognostic markers including BRAFV600E wildtype status (P<0.001), mismatch repair proficiency (p<0.001), absence of peritumoral lymphocytic response (p = 0.001), high lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (p<0.001) and low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (p<0.001). In primary analysis with 3067 patients, there was no statistical difference in sidedness in the univariate analysis (p = 0.291). Three further subgroup analyses were performed. In the first subgroup, only stage III patients were analyzed. In the second, patients with mismatch repair deficiency were removed. In the third, additional clinicopathologic variables known to be independently prognostic were added into analysis. In all three subgroup analyses tumor sidedness was not an independent prognostic marker. Conclusions Tumor sidedness was not an independent prognostic marker of CRC. However, right sided CRCs were associated with several key independent prognostic markers supporting a hypothesis that tumor sidedness is a surrogate for other biomarkers.

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