4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Colorectal cancer prognosis among patients with inflammatory bowel disease

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 335-342

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2005.12.035

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the genetic, endoscopic, and histologic features of IBD-associated CRC differ from cancers that arise sporadically. The objectives of this study were to describe the clinicopathologic features of IBD-associated CRC and to compare survival rates between patients with IBD-associated CRC and patients with sporadic CRC. Methods: There were 290 patients with IBD-associated CRC (241 with chronic ulcerative colitis [CUC] and 49 with Crohn's disease) and an equal number of age- and sex-matched sporadic CRC patients who were evaluated at the Mayo Clinic between :1976 and 1996. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively for demographic features, endoscopic and histologic characteristics, and vital status at the time of the last follow-up evaluation. The actuarial survival of each group was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The influence of clinical features on survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. Results: The median age at diagnosis of IBD-related CRC was 48 years. Fifty-five percent of IBD-related tumors were distal to the splenic flexure compared with 78% of sporadic tumors. During a median follow-up period of 5 years, :163 IBD-associated CRC patients died (56%), compared with 164 sporadic CRC patients (57%). The 5-year survival rates were 54% in the IBD-CRC subgroup vs 53% in the sporadic CRC subgroup (P =.94, log-rank). Conclusions: CUC-related CRC is diagnosed at a relatively young age, and IBD-related tumors tend to be distributed more evenly across the colorectum than sporadic tumors. The survival rates for IBD-associated and sporadic CRC were similar.

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