Oncological impact of vascular invasion in colon cancer might differ depending on tumor sidedness.

Moamen Shalkamy Abdelgawaad Shalkamy, Jung Hoon Bae, Chul Seung Lee, Seung Rim Han, Ji Hoon Kim, Bong-Hyeon Kye, In Kyu Lee, Yoon Suk Lee
{"title":"Oncological impact of vascular invasion in colon cancer might differ depending on tumor sidedness.","authors":"Moamen Shalkamy Abdelgawaad Shalkamy,&nbsp;Jung Hoon Bae,&nbsp;Chul Seung Lee,&nbsp;Seung Rim Han,&nbsp;Ji Hoon Kim,&nbsp;Bong-Hyeon Kye,&nbsp;In Kyu Lee,&nbsp;Yoon Suk Lee","doi":"10.7602/jmis.2022.25.2.53","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Vascular invasion is a well-known independent prognostic factor in colon cancer and tumor sidedness is also being considered a prognostic factor. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological impact of vascular invasion depending on the tumor location in stages I to III colon cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was performed using data from patients who underwent curative resection between 2004 and 2015. Patients were divided into right-sided colon cancer (RCC) and left-sided colon cancer (LCC) groups according to the tumor location. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the RCC and LCC groups, depending on the presence of vascular invasion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 793 patients were included, of which 304 (38.3%) had RCC and 489 (61.7%) had LCC. DFS and OS did not differ significantly between the RCC and LCC groups. Vascular invasion was a poor prognostic factor for DFS in both RCC (hazard ratio [HR], 2.291; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.186-4.425; <i>p</i> = 0.010) and LCC (HR, 1.848; 95% CI, 1.139-2.998; <i>p</i> = 0.011). Additionally, it was associated with significantly worse OS in the RCC (HR, 3.503; 95% CI, 1.681-7.300; <i>p</i> < 0.001), but not in the LCC group (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 0.885-3.175; <i>p</i> = 0.109). Multivariate analysis revealed that vascular invasion was independently poor prognostic factor for OS in the RCC (HR, 3.186; 95% CI, 1.391-7.300; <i>p</i> = 0.006).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that RCC with vascular invasion had worse OS than LCC with vascular invasion.</p>","PeriodicalId":73832,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6f/b1/jmis-25-2-53.PMC9218406.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7602/jmis.2022.25.2.53","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: Vascular invasion is a well-known independent prognostic factor in colon cancer and tumor sidedness is also being considered a prognostic factor. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological impact of vascular invasion depending on the tumor location in stages I to III colon cancer.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using data from patients who underwent curative resection between 2004 and 2015. Patients were divided into right-sided colon cancer (RCC) and left-sided colon cancer (LCC) groups according to the tumor location. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the RCC and LCC groups, depending on the presence of vascular invasion.

Results: A total of 793 patients were included, of which 304 (38.3%) had RCC and 489 (61.7%) had LCC. DFS and OS did not differ significantly between the RCC and LCC groups. Vascular invasion was a poor prognostic factor for DFS in both RCC (hazard ratio [HR], 2.291; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.186-4.425; p = 0.010) and LCC (HR, 1.848; 95% CI, 1.139-2.998; p = 0.011). Additionally, it was associated with significantly worse OS in the RCC (HR, 3.503; 95% CI, 1.681-7.300; p < 0.001), but not in the LCC group (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 0.885-3.175; p = 0.109). Multivariate analysis revealed that vascular invasion was independently poor prognostic factor for OS in the RCC (HR, 3.186; 95% CI, 1.391-7.300; p = 0.006).

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that RCC with vascular invasion had worse OS than LCC with vascular invasion.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结肠癌血管浸润的肿瘤学影响可能因肿瘤的侧边性而异。
目的:血管侵犯是结肠癌的一个众所周知的独立预后因素,肿瘤侧边性也被认为是一个预后因素。本研究的目的是比较I期至III期结肠癌中不同肿瘤位置的血管浸润对肿瘤的影响。方法:回顾性分析2004年至2015年接受根治性手术的患者资料。根据肿瘤部位将患者分为右侧结肠癌(RCC)组和左侧结肠癌(LCC)组。根据是否存在血管侵犯,比较RCC组和LCC组之间的无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)。结果:共纳入793例患者,其中304例(38.3%)为RCC, 489例(61.7%)为LCC。DFS和OS在RCC组和LCC组之间无显著差异。在两种RCC中,血管侵犯是DFS的不良预后因素(危险比[HR], 2.291;95%置信区间[CI], 1.186-4.425;p = 0.010)和LCC (HR, 1.848;95% ci, 1.139-2.998;P = 0.011)。此外,它与RCC的OS显著恶化相关(HR, 3.503;95% ci, 1.681-7.300;p < 0.001),但在LCC组没有(HR, 1.676;95% ci, 0.885-3.175;P = 0.109)。多因素分析显示,血管侵犯是RCC发生OS的独立不良预后因素(HR, 3.186;95% ci, 1.391-7.300;P = 0.006)。结论:血管侵犯的RCC比血管侵犯的LCC的OS更差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acute peritonitis caused by a ruptured urachal cyst accompanied by omphalitis in an adult: a case report and literature review. Analyzing the emergence of surgical robotics in Africa: a scoping review of pioneering procedures, platforms utilized, and outcome meta-analysis. Assessment of mechanical bowel preparation prior to nephrectomy in the minimally invasive surgery era: insights from a national database analysis in the United States. Automated machine learning with R: AutoML tools for beginners in clinical research. Is prophylactic abdominal drainage mandatory in laparoscopic hemicolectomy?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1