Wei Chen1,2,3, Hong-Jun Yi2,3,4, Xiao-Qiong Chen1,2,3, Wan-Zhen Xie5, Xing-Kui Tang6, Jun-Wen Ye1,2,3, Xiang Peng2,3,7, Yan Zhang2,3,8, Jing-Lin Liang9,10,11, Mei-Jin Huang12,13,14. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, 510655, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 2. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China. 3. Guangdong Research Institute of Gastroenterology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China. 4. Department of Pathology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, #26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, 510655, Guangdong, China. 5. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou, 510225, China. 6. Guangzhou Panyu Central Hospital, Guangzhou, 511400, Guangdong, People's Republic of China. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China. 8. Department of Medicine Oncology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China. 9. Department of Colorectal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, 510655, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. Ljingl@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 10. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China. Ljingl@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 11. Guangdong Research Institute of Gastroenterology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China. Ljingl@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 12. Department of Colorectal Surgery, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, 510655, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. Hmjin@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 13. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Disease, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China. Hmjin@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 14. Guangdong Research Institute of Gastroenterology, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China. Hmjin@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of CIP2A (cancerous inhibitor of protein phosphatase 2A) and the NLR (neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio) in the serum of patients with CRC (colorectal cancer) after resection. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of 61 patients who underwent resection between January 2012 and December 2013 were collected. The NLR and CIP2A were divided into low score groups (0) and high score groups (1) with 2.03 and 6.07 as the optimal cut-off value according to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. To identify the COCN (combination of CIP2A and the NLR) score, we added CIP2A and NLR points together and categorized CRC patients into three groups. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to identify the overall survival (OS) rates of the different groups. Finally, a ROC curve was plotted to evaluate the prognostic efficacy of COCN. RESULTS: The CIP2A was associated with location (P = 0.046) and CEA (P = 0.037) in patients with CRC. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the 5-year OS of patients with low level of serum CIP2A was better than that of high level. The 5-year OS of the patients in the low NLR group was better than that of those in the high NLR group. The COCN score was associated with CEA (P < 0.001) and CA19-9 (P = 0.001). The 5-year OS of the patients in the COCN 0 group was highest, followed by that of those in the COCN 1 and COCN 2 groups. Age, N stage and M stage were factors associated with 5-year OS according to the univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) for COCN was largest, indicating that COCN has better prognostic power than CIP2A or the NLR alone. CONCLUSION: COCN could be used as a better prognostic biomarker for CRC than the NLR or CIP2A alone.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of CIP2A (cancerous inhibitor of protein phosphatase 2A) and the NLR (neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio) in the serum of patients with CRC (colorectal cancer) after resection. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of 61 patients who underwent resection between January 2012 and December 2013 were collected. The NLR and CIP2A were divided into low score groups (0) and high score groups (1) with 2.03 and 6.07 as the optimal cut-off value according to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. To identify the COCN (combination of CIP2A and the NLR) score, we added CIP2A and NLR points together and categorized CRCpatients into three groups. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to identify the overall survival (OS) rates of the different groups. Finally, a ROC curve was plotted to evaluate the prognostic efficacy of COCN. RESULTS: The CIP2A was associated with location (P = 0.046) and CEA (P = 0.037) in patients with CRC. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the 5-year OS of patients with low level of serum CIP2A was better than that of high level. The 5-year OS of the patients in the low NLR group was better than that of those in the high NLR group. The COCN score was associated with CEA (P < 0.001) and CA19-9 (P = 0.001). The 5-year OS of the patients in the COCN 0 group was highest, followed by that of those in the COCN 1 and COCN 2 groups. Age, N stage and M stage were factors associated with 5-year OS according to the univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) for COCN was largest, indicating that COCN has better prognostic power than CIP2A or the NLR alone. CONCLUSION:COCN could be used as a better prognostic biomarker for CRC than the NLR or CIP2A alone.