Qinhao Guo1, Jun Zhu2, Yong Wu3, Hao Wen4, Lingfang Xia5, Xiaohua Wu6, Xingzhu Ju7. 1. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 130 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. Electronic address: 18111230017@fudan.edu.cn. 2. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 130 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. Electronic address: joelchu88@qq.com. 3. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 130 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. Electronic address: edison-1016@163.com. 4. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 130 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. Electronic address: 303337078@qq.com. 5. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 130 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. Electronic address: nightxlf@163.com. 6. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 130 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. Electronic address: docwuxh@163.com. 7. Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 130 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China; Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, 270 Dong-An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. Electronic address: xingzhu_ju@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We seek to explore the clinical significance of serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) and the optimal cut-off value for predicting tumor recurrence and survival in operable cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients. METHODS: A total of 3471 patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma who underwent radical surgery were enrolled in this study. The cut-off value of serum SCC-Ag for tumor recurrence was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis was further performed. RESULTS: The optimal cut-off value of serum SCC-Ag level for predicting tumor recurrence was calculated and set at 2.75 ng/mL. Compared to the value of 1.5 ng/mL used in clinical practice, our results showed that serum SCC-Ag level >2.75 ng/mL was closely related to extrapelvic metastases in relapsed patients (P = 0.035). Multivariate analysis showed that neither serum SCC-Ag level >1.5 ng/mL nor serum SCC-Ag level >2.75 ng/mL was independent risk factors for PFS and OS in all patients. However, among 964 patients with at least one high-risk factor (parametrial invasion, vaginal margin invasion and lymph node metastasis), serum SCC-Ag level > 2.75 ng/mL, instead of serum SCC-Ag level > 1.5 ng/mL, could be used as an independent factor affecting PFS (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Preoperative serum SCC-Ag level > 2.75 ng/mL is closely related to extrapelvic recurrence, and is an independent factor for tumor recurrence and survival in cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients with high-risk factors.
OBJECTIVE: We seek to explore the clinical significance of serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) and the optimal cut-off value for predicting tumor recurrence and survival in operable cervical squamous cell carcinomapatients. METHODS: A total of 3471 patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma who underwent radical surgery were enrolled in this study. The cut-off value of serum SCC-Ag for tumor recurrence was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analysis was further performed. RESULTS: The optimal cut-off value of serum SCC-Ag level for predicting tumor recurrence was calculated and set at 2.75 ng/mL. Compared to the value of 1.5 ng/mL used in clinical practice, our results showed that serum SCC-Ag level >2.75 ng/mL was closely related to extrapelvic metastases in relapsed patients (P = 0.035). Multivariate analysis showed that neither serum SCC-Ag level >1.5 ng/mL nor serum SCC-Ag level >2.75 ng/mL was independent risk factors for PFS and OS in all patients. However, among 964 patients with at least one high-risk factor (parametrial invasion, vaginal margin invasion and lymph node metastasis), serum SCC-Ag level > 2.75 ng/mL, instead of serum SCC-Ag level > 1.5 ng/mL, could be used as an independent factor affecting PFS (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Preoperative serum SCC-Ag level > 2.75 ng/mL is closely related to extrapelvic recurrence, and is an independent factor for tumor recurrence and survival in cervical squamous cell carcinomapatients with high-risk factors.