| Literature DB >> 23617771 |
Ji-Feng Feng1, Ying Huang, Qiang Zhao.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several researchers have determined the tumor length to be an important prognostic indictor of esophageal cancer (EC). However, controversy exists concerning the optimal cut-off points for tumor length to predict overall survival. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of tumor length and propose the optimum cut-off point for tumor length in predicting survival difference in elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23617771 PMCID: PMC3713379 DOI: 10.3109/03009734.2013.792887
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ups J Med Sci ISSN: 0300-9734 Impact factor: 2.384
Baseline characteristics of 132 elderly patients with ESCC.
| Cases ( | |
|---|---|
| Age (mean ± SD, years) | 73.6 ± 2.6 |
| Gender | |
| Female | 11 (8.3) |
| Male | 121 (91.7) |
| Tumor length (mean ± SD, cm) | 4.59 ± 1.74 |
| Tumor location | |
| Upper | 6 (4.5) |
| Middle | 55 (41.7) |
| Lower | 71 (53.8) |
| Differentiation | |
| Well | 17 (12.9) |
| Moderate | 81 (61.3) |
| Poor | 34 (25.8) |
| T grade | |
| T1 | 19 (14.4) |
| T2 | 16 (12.1) |
| T3 | 89 (67.4) |
| T4 | 8 (6.1) |
| N staging | |
| N0 | 58 (43.9) |
| N1 | 42 (31.8) |
| N2 | 18 (13.7) |
| N3 | 14 (10.6) |
| TLN (mean ± SD, nodes) | 22.7 ± 9.7 |
| MLN (mean ± SD, nodes) | 2.2 ± 3.7 |
ESCC = esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; MLN = metastatic lymph nodes; TLN = total lymph nodes.
Figure 1.A ROC curve plots the sensitivity on the y-axis against 1 minus the specificity on the x-axis. A diagonal line at 45 degrees, known as the line of chance, would result from a test which allocated subjects randomly. Each point on the ROC curve corresponds to a value of tumor length. In general, a good cut-off point is one which produces both a large sensitivity and a large specificity. This can be interpreted as choosing the point on the ROC curve with the largest vertical distance from the line of chance (two-way arrow). The AUC for tumor length was 67.1% with a sensitivity of 79.7% and a specificity of 53.4% (1 – 46.6%) by Youden index (dotted lines). The threshold value corresponding to the tumor length was 4.0 cm.
Characteristics of patients with tumor length more or less than 4.0 cm.
| Tumor length ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ≤4.0 cm | >4.0 cm | ||
| Age (years) | 0.020 | ||
| ≤75 | 47 (48.5) | 50 (51.5) | |
| >75 | 9 (25.7) | 26 (74.3) | |
| Gender | 0.832 | ||
| Female | 5 (45.5) | 6 (54.5) | |
| Male | 51 (42.1) | 70 (57.9) | |
| Differentiation | 0.864 | ||
| Well/Moderate | 42 (42.9) | 56 (57.1) | |
| Poor | 14 (41.2) | 20 (58.8) | |
| Tumor location | 0.454 | ||
| Upper/Middle | 28 (45.9) | 33 (55.1) | |
| Lower | 28 (39.4) | 43 (60.6) | |
| N staging | 0.119 | ||
| N0 | 29 (50.0) | 29 (50.0) | |
| N1-3 | 27 (36.5) | 47 (63.5) | |
| T grade | 0.001 | ||
| T1-2 | 23 (65.7) | 12 (34.3) | |
| T3-4 | 33 (34.0) | 64 (66.0) | |
Figure 2.Patients with tumor length ≤4.0 cm had a significantly better 5-year survival rate than patients with a tumor length >4.0 cm (60.7% versus 31.6%, P = 0.007).
Figure 3.Kaplan–Meier survival curves stratified by tumor length in (A) T1-2 patients, (B) T3-4 patients, (C) N0 patients, and (D) N1-3 patients.
Univariate and multivariate analyses in elderly patients with ESCC.
| Cases ( | Survival(%) | Univariate analysis HR (95% CI) |
| Multivariate analyses HR (95% CI) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.780 | 0.322 | ||||
| ≤75 | 97 (73.5) | 45.4 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| >75 | 35 (26.5) | 40.0 | 1.075 (0.647–1.785) | 0.743 (0.413–1.337) | ||
| Gender | 0.420 | 0.175 | ||||
| Female | 11 (8.3) | 54.5 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| Male | 121 (91.7) | 43.0 | 1.453 (0.586–3.606) | 1.989 (0.737–5.372) | ||
| Tumor location | 0.642 | 0.422 | ||||
| Upper/Middle | 61 (46.2) | 42.6 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| Lower | 71 (53.8) | 45.1 | 1.115 (0.706–1.761) | 1.231 (0.741–2.045) | ||
| TLN (nodes) | 0.288 | 0.176 | ||||
| ≤15 | 32 (24.2) | 37.5 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| >15 | 100 (75.8) | 46.0 | 0.756 (0.452–1.266) | 0.672 (0.378–1.194) | ||
| Vessel involvement | 0.037 | 0.194 | ||||
| No | 100 (75.8) | 46.0 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| Yes | 32 (24.2) | 37.5 | 1.733 (1.032–2.911) | 1.456 (0.825–2.569) | ||
| Perineural invasion | 0.009 | 0.281 | ||||
| No | 113 (85.6) | 47.8 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| Yes | 19 (14.4) | 21.1 | 2.130 (1.205–3.766) | 1.432 (0.745–2.752) | ||
| Differentiation | 0.027 | 0.032 | ||||
| Well/Moderate | 98 (74.2) | 49.0 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| Poor | 34 (25.8) | 29.4 | 1.715 (1.053–2.794) | 1.774 (1.049–3.000) | ||
| Tumor length (cm) | 0.007 | 0.036 | ||||
| ≤4 | 56 (42.4) | 60.7 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| >4 | 76 (57.6) | 31.6 | 1.963 (1.191–3.237) | 1.769 (1.038–3.016) | ||
| N staging | 0.000 | 0.018 | ||||
| N0 | 58 (43.9) | 63.8 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| N1-3 | 74 (56.1) | 28.4 | 3.059 (1.838–5.091) | 1.949 (1.119–3.395) | ||
| T grade | 0.000 | 0.002 | ||||
| T1-2 | 35 (26.5) | 77.1 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
| T3-4 | 97 (73.5) | 32.0 | 4.450 (2.129–9.298) | 3.342 (1.538–7.261) |
CI = confidence interval; ESCC = esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; HR = hazard ratio; TLN = total lymph nodes.