| Literature DB >> 26231560 |
Tomohiko Nishi1, Hiroya Takeuchi2, Sachiko Matsuda3, Masaharu Ogura4, Hirofumi Kawakubo5, Kazumasa Fukuda6, Rieko Nakamura7, Tsunehiro Takahashi8, Norihito Wada9, Yoshiro Saikawa10, Tai Omori11, Yuko Kitagawa12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is one of the most invasive surgical treatments for digestive tract cancer, and the blood levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1, interleukin-6, and interleukin-8 are increased for several hours after surgery or in patients experiencing postoperative complications. CXCR2, an interleukin-8 receptor, is reportedly expressed in several carcinomas, and interleukin-8 signaling promotes cancer cell proliferation. The impact of postoperative complications following esophagectomy on long-term survival is controversial. In this study, we demonstrate the significance of CXCR2 expression and validate the effects of CXCR2 expression and postoperative complications on long-term prognosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using resected specimens.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26231560 PMCID: PMC4522106 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-015-0658-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Associations between CXCR2 expression and clinical background factors
| Factors | All patients | CXCR2-positive | CXCR2-negative |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
| Age (years) | 0.81 | |||
| ≦49 | 3 (3.7 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 2 (4.1 %) | |
| 50–59 | 40 (48.8 %) | 17 (51.5 %) | 23 (46.9 %) | |
| 60–69 | 31 (37.8 %) | 13 (39.4 %) | 18 (36.7 %) | |
| ≧70 | 8 (9.8 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 6 (12.2 %) | |
| Sex | 0.33 | |||
| Male | 73 (89.0 %) | 28 (84.8 %) | 45 (91.8 %) | |
| Female | 9 (11.0 %) | 5 (15.2 %) | 4 (8.2 %) | |
| Location | 0.60 | |||
| Upper | 7 (8.5 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 5 (10.2 %) | |
| Middle | 52 (63.4 %) | 20 (60.6 %) | 32 (65.3 %) | |
| Lower | 23 (28.0 %) | 11 (33.3 %) | 12 (24.5 %) | |
| Approach | 0.82 | |||
| Thoracotomy | 61 (74.4 %) | 25 (75.8 %) | 36 (73.5 %) | |
| Thoracoscopy | 21 (25.6 %) | 8 (24.2 %) | 13 (26.5 %) | |
| Adjuvant therapy | 0.58 | |||
| None | 71 (86.6 %) | 27 (81.8 %) | 44 (89.8 %) | |
| Chemotherapy | 9 (11.0 %) | 5 (15.2 %) | 4 (8.2 %) | |
| Chemoradiotherapy | 2 (2.4 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) |
Associations between CXCR2 expression and pathological background factors
| All patients | CXCR2-positive | CXCR2-negative |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | |||
| pT factor | 1 | 40 (48.8 %) | 12 (36.4 %) | 28 (57.1 %) | 0.06 |
| 2 | 10 (12.2 %) | 7 (21.2 %) | 3 (6.1 %) | ||
| 3 | 32 (39.0 %) | 14 (42.4 %) | 18 (36.7 %) | ||
| pN factor | 0 | 31 (37.8 %) | 12 (36.4 %) | 19 (38.8 %) | 0.83 |
| 1 | 51 (62.2 %) | 21 (63.6 %) | 30 (61.2 %) | ||
| Histological stage | I | 24 (29.3 %) | 9 (27.3 %) | 15 (30.6 %) | 0.95 |
| IIA | 7 (8.5 %) | 3 (9.1 %) | 4 (8.2 %) | ||
| IIB | 24 (29.3 %) | 9 (27.3 %) | 15 (30.6 %) | ||
| III | 27 (32.9 %) | 12 (36.4 %) | 15 (30.6 %) | ||
| Histological type | Well | 17 (20.7 %) | 7 (21.2 %) | 10 (20.4 %) | 0.65 |
| Moderately | 57 (69.5 %) | 24 (72.7 %) | 33 (67.3 %) | ||
| Poorly | 8 (9.8 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 6 (12.2 %) | ||
| Infiltrative growth pattern | INF-a | 6 (7.3 %) | 3 (9.1 %) | 3 (6.1 %) | 0.86 |
| INF-b | 69 (84.1 %) | 27 (81.8 %) | 42 (85.7 %) | ||
| INF-c | 7 (8.5 %) | 3 (9.1 %) | 4 (8.2 %) | ||
| Lymphatic invasion | (+) | 65 (79.3 %) | 27 (81.8 %) | 38 (77.6 %) | 0.64 |
| (−) | 17 (20.7 %) | 6 (18.2 %) | 11 (22.4 %) | ||
| Venous invasion | (+) | 39 (47.6 %) | 18 (54.5 %) | 21 (42.9 %) | 0.30 |
| (−) | 43 (52.4 %) | 15 (45.5 %) | 28 (57.1 %) | ||
INF-a, expansive growth of tumor nests with a well-demarcated border from surrounding tissue; INF-b, intermediate growth pattern, between INF-a and c; INF-c, infiltrative growth of tumor nests with an ill-defined border from surrounding tissue
Fig. 1Immunohistochemistry of CXCR2. a, b Esophageal cancer cells are negative for CXCR2 expression. c, d CXCR2-positive staining is observed on the surface and in the cytoplasm of esophageal cancer cells. Scale bars, 200 and 50 μm
Frequency of postoperative complications
| Complications | All patients | CXCR2-positive | CXCR2-negative |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
| Bleeding | 1 (1.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | >0.99 |
| Grade IV | 1 (1.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | |
| Recurrent nerve palsy | 5 (6.1 %) | 4 (12.1 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | 0.15 |
| Grade II | 4 (4.9 %) | 3 (9.1 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | |
| Grade III | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Anastomotic leakage | 14 (17.1 %) | 5 (15.2 %) | 9 (18.3 %) | 0.70 |
| Grade II | 5 (6.1 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 3 (6.1 %) | |
| Grade III | 9 (11.0 %) | 3 (3.0 %) | 6 (12.2 %) | |
| Pneumonia | 13 (15.9 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 11 (22.4 %) | 0.06 |
| Grade II | 9 (11.0 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 8 (16.3 %) | |
| Grade III | 3 (3.7 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 2 (4.1 %) | |
| Grade IV | 1 (1.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | |
| Pyothorax | 5 (6.1 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 3 (6.1 %) | >0.99 |
| Grade II | 3 (3.7 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 3 (6.1 %) | |
| Grade III | 2 (2.4 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Intestinal obstruction | 2 (2.4 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | >0.99 |
| Grade II | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Grade III | 1 (1.2 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 1 (2.0 %) | |
| Bacteremia | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 0.40 |
| Grade IV | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Catheter infection | 3 (3.7 %) | 3 (9.1 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 0.06 |
| Grade II | 2 (2.4 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Grade IV | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Anastomotic stenosis | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 0.40 |
| Grade III | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Glottic edema | 2 (2.4 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 0.16 |
| Grade III | 2 (2.4 %) | 2 (6.1 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Intraabdominal abscess | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 0.40 |
| Grade III | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Thrombosis | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | 0.40 |
| Grade II | 1 (1.2 %) | 1 (3.0 %) | 0 (0.0 %) | |
| Any complication | 40 (48.8 %) | 17 (51.5 %) | 23 (46.9 %) | 0.68 |
Fig. 2a Recurrence-free survival and b overall survival after esophagectomy in the two groups according to CXCR2 expression
Fig. 3a Recurrence-free survival and b overall survival after esophagectomy among the four groups according to CXCR2 expression and postoperative complications
Fig. 4a Recurrence-free survival and b overall survival after esophagectomy between the CXCR2(+)/complication(+) group and the others
Multivariate analysis of variables predicting recurrence-free survival with Cox’s proportional hazard model
| Factors | Univariate | Multivariate | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio (95 % CI) |
| ||
| pT (pT1 or ≥pT2) | 0.050 | 1.09 (0.44–2.69) | 0.859 |
| pN (pN0 or pN1) | 0.015 | 1.04 (0.28–3.83) | 0.952 |
| pStage (pStageI vs other) | 0.021 | 1.62 (0.29–8.93) | 0.580 |
| Lymphatic invasion (+) or (−) | 0.025 | 1.27 (0.32–4.98) | 0.740 |
| Venous invasion (+) or (−) | 0.009 | 1.62 (0.74–3.55) | 0.230 |
| Histological type (poor or others) | 0.770 | ||
| Infiltrative growth pattern (INF-c or other) | 0.067 | ||
| CXCR2(+)/complication(+) or other | 0.001 | 2.51 (1.18–5.35) | 0.017 |
CI confidence interval
Relation between CXCR2 expression and sites of recurrence
| CXCR2-positive | CXCR2-negative | Total |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
| Relapsing patients | 19 (57.6 %) | 18 (36.7 %) | 37 (45.1 %) | 0.063 |
| Locoregional recurrence (+) | 13 (39.4 %) | 16 (32.7 %) | 29 (35.4 %) | 0.130 |
| Locoregional recurrence (−) | 6 (18.2 %) | 2 (4.1 %) | 8 (9.8 %) | |
| Distant recurrence (+) | 14 (42.4 %) | 5 (10.2 %) | 19 (23.2 %) | 0.005 |
| Distant recurrence (−) | 5 (15.2 %) | 13 (26.5 %) | 18 (22.0 %) |