3.8 Article

Association of specific metastatic organs with the prognosis and chemotherapeutic response in patients with advanced lung cancer

期刊

RESPIRATORY INVESTIGATION
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 472-480

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resinv.2019.06.004

关键词

Metastasis; Organ; Response rate; Prognosis; Lung cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study was performed to investigate the influence of specific metastatic organs on the prognosis and therapeutic effect in patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 400 patients with pathologically diagnosed advanced lung cancer to determine the association of the patients' metastatic status with their prognoses and responses to first-line therapy. Metastases within the chest cavity (pulmonary metastasis, pleural effusion, and pericardial effusion) were counted as one organ. Results: The numbers of metastatic organs in the patients were as follows: one (n=199 patients), two (n=99), three (n=61), and four or more (n=41). A multivariate analysis showed that liver and muscle metastases were independently associated with shorter overall survival (median of 207 and 120 days, respectively) and shorter progression-free survival (median of 125 and 53 days, respectively). Chest cavity, bone, brain, and lymph node metastases were not associated with survival. The presence of either muscle or skin metastasis was associated with a lower response rate to first-line therapy than was the absence of each metastasis (14.3% vs. 49.4% and 11.1% vs. 48.9% in patients with vs. without muscle or skin metastasis, respectively). Conclusions: Muscle and liver metastases were associated with poor outcomes. Muscle and skin metastases were associated with a lower response rate to treatment. For patients with advanced lung cancer, oncologists should select treatment strategies considering the patients' metastatic statuses as well as other clinical characteristics. (C) 2019 The Japanese Respiratory Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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