4.7 Article

Serum interleukin-6 level but not genotype predicts survival after resection in stages II and III gastric carcinoma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 428-434

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1032

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: It has been suggested that interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a prognostic indicator for survival in patients with gastric carcinoma, but this has not been proved using survival analysis. In Asians, the -6346 allele is associated with increased IL-6 production. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between serum IL-6 levels, -634G/C polymorphism, and overall survival after resection for gastric carcinoma. Experimental Design: A total of 155 consecutive patients with gastric carcinoma were evaluated. Serum IL-6 levels were analyzed using an enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay. Genotype was determined by PCR and restriction fragment length polymorphism. Serum levels and survival were correlated with genotype and clinicopathologic factors. Results: Age and stage, but not -634G/C genotype, were associated with serum IL-6 levels. The median survival for patients with stage II or stage III gastric carcinoma was 1,418 days in patients with low (<= 13 pg/mL) versus 618 days in patients with high ()13 pg/mL) serum IL-6 levels (P = 0.038). Results of a multivariate analysis showed that serum IL-6 level of >13 pg/mL was a significant predictor of poor survival (hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.92; P = 0.026). Conclusions: Serum IL-6 level of >13 pg/mL correlates with tumor progression and is an independent predictor of poor survival after resection. In patients with stage II and III gastric carcinoma, serum IL-6 level is more effective than stage as a prognostic indicator. By measuring IL-6, these patients can be divided into two groups with significant differences in survival. The -634G/C polymorphism is not associated with serum IL-6 level or survival.

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