4.5 Article

Pulmonary resection for metastases from colorectal cancer: prognostic factors and survival

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 699-704

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-006-0218-2

关键词

colorectal cancer; metastases; surgery; carcinoembryonic antigen; recurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Backgrounds Pulmonary metastases occur in up to 10% of all patients who undergo curative resection. Surgical resection is an important part in the treatment of pulmonary metastasis from colorectal cancer. We analyzed the treatment outcome and prognostic factors affecting survival in this subset of patients. Materials and methods Between October 1994 and December 2004, 59 patients underwent curative resection for pulmonary metastases of colorectal cancer. Uncontrollable synchronous liver and lung metastasis or synchronous colorectal cancer with isolated lung metastasis were excluded from this study. A retrospective review of patient characteristics and factors influencing survival was performed. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison between groups were performed by a log-rank analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model. Results The 5-year overall survival rate of all patients who received pulmonary resection was 50.3%. The number of pulmonary metastases was significantly related with survival in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis (p=0.032). Prethoracotomy carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level exceeding 5 ng/ml was related with poor survival (p=0.001). A disease-free interval of greater than 2 years did not correlate with survival after thoracotomy (p=0.3). Conclusion The prethoracotomy CEA level and the number of metastases were independent prognostic factors. Resection of pulmonary metastasis from colorectal cancer may result in improved survival or even healing in selected patients. Pulmonary resection of colorectal cancer is regarded as a safe and effective treatment with low morbidity and mortality rates.

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