4.7 Article

Catalytic subunit of human telomerase reverse transcriptase is an independent predictor of survival in patients undergoing curative resection of hepatic colorectal metastases:: a Multicenter analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 13, 页码 3086-3093

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.944

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To determine the role of the catalytic subunit of human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) in predicting survival after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases (CRM). Patients and Methods Two hundred one patients who underwent curative resection of hepatic CRM between 1990 and 2000 were identified from a multicenter database. The CRM were analyzed for hTERT nucleolar expression by standard immunohistochemical techniques. hTERT expression and known clinicopathologic factors of survival were examined. Results With a median follow-up of 80 months, 152 patients (75.6%) had died; the 5-year overall survival was 30.7%. On univariate analysis, number of metastases greater than two (P = .0005), extrahepatic disease (P = .0054), disease-free interval less than 12 months (P = .006), carcinoembryonic antigen level greater than 200 ng/mL (P = .0071), and positive hTERT nucleolar staining (P < .0001) were associated with decreased survival. On multivariate analysis, three factors independently predicted survival: number of metastases (relative risk [RR] = 1.74; P = .0011); disease-free interval (RR = 1.70; P = .0035); and positive hTERT nucleolar staining (RR = 2.03-1 P < .0001). Patients with none or one of these factors had a 5-year survival rate of 48%, whereas those with two or three of these factors had a 5-year survival of 15% (P < .0001). Conclusion hTERT nucleolar expression is associated with worse survival after resection of hepatic CRM. hTERT expression in conjunction with number of hepatic metastases and disease-free interval may permit more accurate prediction of survival after resection of hepatic CRM.

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