4.7 Article

Predictive potential of tumour-stroma ratio on benefit from adjuvant bevacizumab in high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 119, 期 2, 页码 164-169

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-018-0083-0

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Genootschap Landgoed Keukenhof
  2. Genentech Roche
  3. Chugai Pharmaceutical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The tumour-stroma ratio (TSR) has proven to be an independent prognostic factor in colon cancer. METHODS: Haematoxylin eosin tissue slides of patients from the AVANT trial were microscopically scored for TSR and categorised as stroma -low or stroma -high. Scores were correlated to the primary and secondary endpoint disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients with stroma-high tumours (N = 339, 28%) had a significantly shorter DFS (p < 0.001) compared to stroma-low tumours (N = 824, 68%). In the bevacizumab-FOLFOX-4 arm, DFS was significantly shorter compared to FOLFOX-4 in stroma-low tumours, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.94 (95% CI 1.24-3.04; p = 0.004). In stroma-high tumours a trend for better DFS was seen in bevacizumab-FOLFOX-4 vs. FOLFOX-4 (HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.35-1.07; p = 0.08)). For bevacizumab-XELOX vs. FOLFOX-4, this was not seen (stroma-low HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.64-1.77; p = 0.80); stroma-high HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.47-1.30; p = 0.35)). OS showed the same pattern for bevacizumab-FOLFOX-4 vs. FOLFOX-4 with a HR of 2.53 (95% CI 1.36-4.71; p = 0.003) for stroma-low and HR 0.50 (95% CI 0.22-1.14; p = 0.10) for stroma-high tumours. For bevacizumab-XELOX vs. FOLFOX-4, HR 1.13 (95% CI 0.55-2.31; p = 0.74) for stroma-low tumours and HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.37-1.51; p = 0.41) for stroma-high tumours. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis suggests a significantly shorter DFS and OS in stroma-low tumours with addition of bevacizumab to intravenous oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, contrary to stroma-high tumours, where a beneficial trend is observed.

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

4.7
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