4.7 Article

Preoperative Serum CA19-9 and Dissected Peripancreatic Tissue Margin as Determiners of Long-Term Survival in Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 1231-1240

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0415-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatic cancer, a particularly deadly form of malignancy, has increased in the last decade worldwide. The purpose of this study is to identify markers for determining and identifying possible long-term survivors in cases of advanced pancreatic cancer. 117 patients with pancreatic ductal carcinoma, including 89 with invasive tubular adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, Japan Pancreas Society (JPS) stage III-IVb patients, who underwent tumor resection between 1986 and 2006. Univariate prognostic analyses of the 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) revealed that JPS stage (P < 0.0001), preoperative serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) level (preCA19-9; P < 0.0001), dissected peripancreatic tissue margin (DPM; P < 0.0001), residual tumor (R factor; P = 0.0007), lymph node metastasis density over 10% (ND10; P = 0.006), volume of the stromal connective tissue (stroma factor; P = 0.008), growth pattern (P = 0.01), and histology (P = 0.03) were all significantly associated with poor outcome in advanced pancreatic cancer. Multivariate logistic analysis confirmed that preCA19-9 [P = 0.0006, relative risk (RR) = 2.16] and DPM (P = 0.04, RR = 1.62) were prognostic factors that remained, independent of JPS stage (P = 0.001). The higher preCA19-9 was, the worse the prognosis was. Astonishingly, among JPS stage III cases, 76.9% of the patients with preCA19-9 below 37 U/ml survived more than 5 years. This, combined with an analysis of DPM, allowed us to identify those with the potentiality for long-term survival. Our results reveal for the first time that it is possible with JPS stage III-IVb invasive tubular adenocarcinomas of the pancreas to differentiate prognostic groups and potential survival rates, like with other cancers.

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