Ignazio Tarantino1, Felix J Hüttner1,2, Rene Warschkow3,4, Bruno M Schmied3, Markus K Diener1,2, Alexis Ulrich5. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Study Center of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Surgery, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. alexis.ulrich@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognostic relevance of mucinous histology in colorectal cancer remains unclear, especially for rectal neoplasms. The objective of this study was to evaluate if mucinous subtype has a relevant impact on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients with adenocarcinomas of the rectum. METHODS: On the basis of the data set of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute of the United States, patients with rectal cancer between 2004 and 2011 were identified. Risk-adjusted Cox regression analysis and propensity score methods were used to assess OS and CSS. RESULTS: In total, 40,083 patients with stage I-IV rectal cancer, of whom 2483 (6.2 %) had mucinous histology, were included in this study. In unadjusted analysis, the 5-year OS and CSS for patients with a mucinous adenocarcinoma was 54.3 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 52.0-56.7] and 61.4 % (95 % CI 59.1-63.9) compared to 66.4 % (95 % CI 65.8-67.0) and 74.5 % (95 % CI 73.9-75.1) for patients with nonmucinous adenocarcinoma (P < 0.001). The survival disadvantage persisting in risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.23, 95 % CI 1.15-1.31, P < 0.001 and 1.25, 95 % CI 1.16-1.35, P < 0.001) disappeared after propensity score matching (OS: HR = 0.96, 95 % CI 0.76-1.21, P = 0.722; CSS: HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80-1.40, P = 0.693). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based, propensity score matched analysis shows that mucinous histology itself does not constrain survival in rectal cancer patients. Therefore, treatment decisions should not be different according to mucinous histology.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic relevance of mucinous histology in colorectal cancer remains unclear, especially for rectal neoplasms. The objective of this study was to evaluate if mucinous subtype has a relevant impact on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients with adenocarcinomas of the rectum. METHODS: On the basis of the data set of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute of the United States, patients with rectal cancer between 2004 and 2011 were identified. Risk-adjusted Cox regression analysis and propensity score methods were used to assess OS and CSS. RESULTS: In total, 40,083 patients with stage I-IV rectal cancer, of whom 2483 (6.2 %) had mucinous histology, were included in this study. In unadjusted analysis, the 5-year OS and CSS for patients with a mucinous adenocarcinoma was 54.3 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 52.0-56.7] and 61.4 % (95 % CI 59.1-63.9) compared to 66.4 % (95 % CI 65.8-67.0) and 74.5 % (95 % CI 73.9-75.1) for patients with nonmucinous adenocarcinoma (P < 0.001). The survival disadvantage persisting in risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.23, 95 % CI 1.15-1.31, P < 0.001 and 1.25, 95 % CI 1.16-1.35, P < 0.001) disappeared after propensity score matching (OS: HR = 0.96, 95 % CI 0.76-1.21, P = 0.722; CSS: HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80-1.40, P = 0.693). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based, propensity score matched analysis shows that mucinous histology itself does not constrain survival in rectal cancerpatients. Therefore, treatment decisions should not be different according to mucinous histology.
Authors: Simone Sibio; A Di Giorgio; S D'Ugo; G Palmieri; L Cinelli; V Formica; B Sensi; G Bagaglini; S Di Carlo; V Bellato; G S Sica Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Sare Hosseini; Ali Mohammad Bananzadeh; Roham Salek; Mohammad Zare-Bandamiri; Ali Taghizadeh Kermani; Mohammad Mohammadianpanah Journal: Ann Coloproctol Date: 2017-04-28
Authors: David S Williams; Dmitri Mouradov; Marsali R Newman; Elham Amini; David K Nickless; Catherine G Fang; Michelle Palmieri; Anuratha Sakthianandeswaren; Shan Li; Robyn L Ward; Nicholas J Hawkins; Iain Skinner; Ian Jones; Peter Gibbs; Oliver M Sieber Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Rene Warschkow; Ignazio Tarantino; Felix J Huttner; Bruno M Schmied; Ulrich Guller; Markus K Diener; Alexis Ulrich Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jiao Yang; Xiang Lin Du; Shu Ting Li; Bi Yuan Wang; Yin Ying Wu; Zhe Ling Chen; Meng Lv; Yan Wei Shen; Xin Wang; Dan Feng Dong; Dan Li; Fan Wang; En Xiao Li; Min Yi; Jin Yang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240