BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of perineural invasion (PNI) in colorectal cancer (CRC) does not reach a consensus. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for relevant reports published up to October 2014 was performed using the electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) was used to estimate the prognostic effects. RESULT: Thirty-eight studies comprising 12,661 CRC patients were analyzed. Our results showed that PNI is significantly associated with poor prognosis in OS (overall survival) (HR = 2.07, 95 % CI = 1.87-2.29, P < 0.01) and DFS (disease-free survival) (HR = 2.23, 95 % CI = 1.79-2.78, P < 0.01). There was no significant prognostic difference in DFS between stage II CRC patients with PNI(+) and stage III patients (HR = 1.67, 95 % CI = 0.53-5.25, P = 0.38). Further subgroup analysis revealed that the significance of the association between PNI and worse prognosis in CRC patients is not affected by many factors, including geographic setting, PNI positive rate, treatment, TNM stage, tumor site, and quality of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis indicates that PNI is a poor prognostic factor in CRC patients. The postoperative survival of stage II CRC patients with PNI(+) is probably more similar to that of stage III patients. Currently available adjuvant therapy should be considered in stage II CRC patients with PNI(+).
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of perineural invasion (PNI) in colorectal cancer (CRC) does not reach a consensus. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for relevant reports published up to October 2014 was performed using the electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) was used to estimate the prognostic effects. RESULT: Thirty-eight studies comprising 12,661 CRC patients were analyzed. Our results showed that PNI is significantly associated with poor prognosis in OS (overall survival) (HR = 2.07, 95 % CI = 1.87-2.29, P < 0.01) and DFS (disease-free survival) (HR = 2.23, 95 % CI = 1.79-2.78, P < 0.01). There was no significant prognostic difference in DFS between stage II CRC patients with PNI(+) and stage III patients (HR = 1.67, 95 % CI = 0.53-5.25, P = 0.38). Further subgroup analysis revealed that the significance of the association between PNI and worse prognosis in CRC patients is not affected by many factors, including geographic setting, PNI positive rate, treatment, TNM stage, tumor site, and quality of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis indicates that PNI is a poor prognostic factor in CRC patients. The postoperative survival of stage II CRC patients with PNI(+) is probably more similar to that of stage III patients. Currently available adjuvant therapy should be considered in stage II CRC patients with PNI(+).
Authors: C Bognel; C Rekacewicz; H Mankarios; J P Pignon; D Elias; P Duvillard; M Prade; M Ducreux; J Kac; P Rougier Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Eric J Silberfein; Kiran M Kattepogu; Chung-Yuan Hu; John M Skibber; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; Barry Feig; Prajnan Das; Sunil Krishnan; Christopher Crane; Scott Kopetz; Cathy Eng; George J Chang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Joanna Szkandera; Martin Pichler; Gudrun Absenger; Michael Stotz; Melanie Weissmueller; Hellmut Samonigg; Martin Asslaber; Sigurd Lax; Gerhard Leitner; Thomas Winder; Wilfried Renner; Armin Gerger Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Katelin A Mirkin; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Ali Mohamed; Yuxia Jia; Wafik S El-Deiry; Evangelos Messaris Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Yanqi Huang; Lan He; Di Dong; Caiyun Yang; Cuishan Liang; Xin Chen; Zelan Ma; Xiaomei Huang; Su Yao; Changhong Liang; Jie Tian; Zaiyi Liu Journal: Chin J Cancer Res Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.087