| Literature DB >> 33811752 |
Ha Eun Kim1, Seong Yong Park1, Hyunki Kim2, Dae Joon Kim1, Sun Ill Kim2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although perineural invasion is a well known prognostic factor used in several cancers, its prognostic role in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma remains controversial. Here, we investigated the prognostic role of perineural invasion in surgically treated esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; perineural invasion; prognosis
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33811752 PMCID: PMC8107023 DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13960
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Thorac Cancer ISSN: 1759-7706 Impact factor: 3.500
FIGURE 1The presence of perineural invasion in an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma specimen stained with hematoxylin and eosin. (a) The nerve fiber was partially surrounded by tumor cells (red arrow). (b) Tumor cells embedded in the perineurium (black arrow)
Patient demographics
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 62.73 ± 7.97 |
| Sex, male (n, %) | 287 (90.8%) |
| Location (n, %) | |
| Upper | 21 (6.6%) |
| Mid | 169 (53.5%) |
| Lower | 126 (39.9%) |
| Tumor differentiation (n, %) | |
| Well differentiated (G1) | 43 (13.6%) |
| Moderately differentiated (G2) | 179 (56.7%) |
| Poorly differentiated (G3) | 94 (29.7%) |
| Neoadjuvant treatment (n, %) | 70 (22.2%) |
| Three‐field dissection (n, %) | 20 (6.3%) |
| R0 resection (n, %) | 306 (96.8%) |
| Number of total dissected lymph nodes (n) | 48.93 ± 26.89 |
| Depth of invasion (T stage) (n, %) | |
| 0 and 1 | 216 (68.4%) |
| 2 | 33 (10.4%) |
| 3 | 64 (20.3%) |
| 4 | 3 (0.9%) |
| Nodal stage (n, %) | |
| 0 | 194 (61.4%) |
| 1 | 66 (20.9%) |
| 2 | 45 (14.2%) |
| 3 | 11 (3.5%) |
| Pathological stage (n, %) | |
| 0 and I | 164 (51.8%) |
| II | 83 (26.3%) |
| III | 69 (21.9%) |
| Perineural invasion (n, %) | 25 (7.9%) |
Note: Data are shown as either mean ± standard deviation, or as n (%).
Pathological features and recurrence patterns according to perineural invasion
| Variable | No perineural invasion | Perineural invasion |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Depth of invasion (T stage) | < 0.001 | ||
| 1 | 214 (72.6%) | 2 (8.0%) | |
| 2 | 32 (12.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
| 3 | 43 (14.8%) | 21 (84.0%) | |
| 4 | 2 (0.6%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
| Nodal metastases | 0.001 | ||
| Absent | 187 (64.2%) | 7 (28%) | |
| Present | 104 (35.8%) | 18 (72%) | |
| Tumor differentiation | 0.342 | ||
| Well differentiated (G1) | 42 (14.4%) | 1 (4%) | |
| Moderately differentiated (G2) | 163 (56.1%) | 16 (64%) | |
| Poorly differentiated (G3) | 86 (29.5%) | 8 (32%) |
Note: Data are shown as n (%).
FIGURE 2Survival curves showing the (a) overall survival (OS) and (b) disease‐free survival (DFS) of the entire sample. Survival curves showing (c) OS and (d) DFS according to perineural invasion
FIGURE 3Cumulative incidence curves of recurrence showing (a) locoregional recurrence and (b) distant metastases
Risk factors for three‐year disease‐free survival
| Multivariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Model 1 | Model 2, PNI | ||||
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) |
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) |
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) |
| |
| Age | 1.008 (0.983–1.033) | 0.551 | 1.024 (0.991–1.058) | 0.163 | 1.011 (0.988–1.035) | 0.339 |
| Sex | 0.772 (0.376–1.586) | 0.481 | 0.858 (0.339–2.175) | 0.747 | 0.777 (0.377–1.603) | 0.495 |
| Neoadjuvant Tx. | 2.037 (1.346–3.083) | 0.001 | 0.741 (0.382–1.435) | 0.373 | 2.436 (1.589–3.735) | < 0.001 |
| Incomplete resection | 4.467 (2.614–7.631) | < 0.001 | 1.167 (0.476–2.858) | 0.020 | 2.114 (1.166–3.835) | 0.014 |
| Stage II (vs. 0 and I) | 1.553 (0.937–2.573) | 0.087 | 0.736 (0.329–1.647) | 0.456 | 1.489 (0.896–2.474) | 0.124 |
| Stage III (vs. 0 and I) | 5.736 (3.689–8.918) | < 0.001 | 3.860 (1.620–9.193) | 0.002 | 4.987 (3.114–7.987) | < 0.001 |
| Perineural invasion | 4.000 (2.393–6.688) | < 0.001 | 1.890 (1.088–3.282) | 0.024 | ||
| Concordance index | 0.712 (0.638–0.786) | 0.723 (0.649–0.798) | ||||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; PNI, perineural invasion.
FIGURE 4Survival curves of disease‐free survival showing (a) node‐negative patients, (b) node‐positive patients, (c) tumor differentiation grade 1 and 2, (d) grade 3, (e) patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment, and (f) those who did not undergo neoadjuvant treatment