Zhen Guan1, Xiao-Yan Zhang1, Xiao-Ting Li1, Rui-Jia Sun1, Qiao-Yuan Lu1, Ai-Wen Wu2, Ying-Shi Sun3. 1. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiology, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52 Fu Cheng Road, Hai Dian District, Beijing, 100142, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52 Fu Cheng Road, Hai Dian District, Beijing, 100142, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiology, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, No. 52 Fu Cheng Road, Hai Dian District, Beijing, 100142, China. sys27@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the association between CT-detected extramural vascular invasion (ctEMVI) and lymph-vascular invasion (LVI) in colon cancer, and analyze the prognostic value of ctEMVI in different conditions of LVI. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 448 colon cancer patients from January 2015 to December 2017. Preoperative CT features and clinical and pathological data were collected. Associations between ctEMVI and LVI were tested. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed. Multivariate Cox regression was performed adjusted with propensity score(PS). Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare survival differences between the ctEMVI and LVI groups. A 1:1 patient pairing was conducted using PS matching to assess the prognostic effect of ctEMVI in LVI subgroups. RESULTS: Among the 448 patients, there were 261 men and 187 women, with an average age of 63 ± 12 years. The coincidence rate of ctEMVI and LVI was 73.9%. The k coefficient for identifying ctEMVI was 0.84. ctEMVI and LVI were both independent risk factors for overall survival (ctEMVI: HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.5; LVI: HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1) and metastasis-free survival (ctEMVI: HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.7-6.4; LVI: HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.5) adjusted with PS. In the LVI(+) subgroup, the prognosis of ctEMVI(+) was significantly worse than that of ctEMVI(-); in the LVI(-) subgroup, the prognosis of different ctEMVI states was similar. CONCLUSION: ctEMVI is an independent prognostic risk factor and has different prognostic value in different LVI states. It is recommended to perform the evaluation in routine work, especially for patients with positive LVI.
PURPOSE: To explore the association between CT-detected extramural vascular invasion (ctEMVI) and lymph-vascular invasion (LVI) in colon cancer, and analyze the prognostic value of ctEMVI in different conditions of LVI. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 448 colon cancer patients from January 2015 to December 2017. Preoperative CT features and clinical and pathological data were collected. Associations between ctEMVI and LVI were tested. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed. Multivariate Cox regression was performed adjusted with propensity score(PS). Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare survival differences between the ctEMVI and LVI groups. A 1:1 patient pairing was conducted using PS matching to assess the prognostic effect of ctEMVI in LVI subgroups. RESULTS: Among the 448 patients, there were 261 men and 187 women, with an average age of 63 ± 12 years. The coincidence rate of ctEMVI and LVI was 73.9%. The k coefficient for identifying ctEMVI was 0.84. ctEMVI and LVI were both independent risk factors for overall survival (ctEMVI: HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.5; LVI: HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.1) and metastasis-free survival (ctEMVI: HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.7-6.4; LVI: HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.5) adjusted with PS. In the LVI(+) subgroup, the prognosis of ctEMVI(+) was significantly worse than that of ctEMVI(-); in the LVI(-) subgroup, the prognosis of different ctEMVI states was similar. CONCLUSION: ctEMVI is an independent prognostic risk factor and has different prognostic value in different LVI states. It is recommended to perform the evaluation in routine work, especially for patients with positive LVI.
Authors: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Mustafa A Arain; Yi-Jen Chen; Kristen K Ciombor; Stacey Cohen; Harry S Cooper; Dustin Deming; Linda Farkas; Ignacio Garrido-Laguna; Jean L Grem; Andrew Gunn; J Randolph Hecht; Sarah Hoffe; Joleen Hubbard; Steven Hunt; Kimberly L Johung; Natalie Kirilcuk; Smitha Krishnamurthi; Wells A Messersmith; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Eric D Miller; Mary F Mulcahy; Steven Nurkin; Michael J Overman; Aparna Parikh; Hitendra Patel; Katrina Pedersen; Leonard Saltz; Charles Schneider; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Kristina M Gregory; Lisa A Gurski Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Johannes Betge; Marion J Pollheimer; Richard A Lindtner; Peter Kornprat; Andrea Schlemmer; Peter Rehak; Michael Vieth; Gerald Hoefler; Cord Langner Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lieve G J Leijssen; Anne M Dinaux; Ramzi Amri; Martin S Taylor; Vikram Deshpande; Liliana G Bordeianou; Hiroko Kunitake; David L Berger Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 3.454