| Literature DB >> 35154320 |
Li Shan1, Tian Li2, Wenhao Gu3, Yuting Gao3, Erdong Zuo1, Huizhu Qiu1, Rong Li1, Xu Cheng1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of sarcopenia on the prognosis of stage II-III colorectal cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35154320 PMCID: PMC8828329 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6851900
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Correlation between patients' clinicopathological characteristics and PMI.
| Clinical characteristics | Total no. | PMI | Ratio of low PMI (%) | Odds ratio in PMI |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Low | ||||||
| Age | >60 years old | 119 | 64 | 55 | 42.01 | 1.031 (1.001–1.063) | 0.045 |
| ≤60 years old | 77 | 58 | 19 | 24.68 | |||
|
| |||||||
| Gender | Male | 109 | 79 | 30 | 27.78 | 0.225 (0.225–0.735) | 0.003 |
| Female | 87 | 43 | 44 | 50.57 | |||
|
| |||||||
| Stage | II | 75 | 51 | 24 | 32.00 | 1.361 (0.746–2.485) | 0.315 |
| III | 121 | 71 | 50 | 41.32 | |||
|
| |||||||
| T stage | T1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 100.00 | 0.823 (0.509–1.329) | 0.425 |
| T2 | 10 | 3 | 7 | 70.00 | |||
| T3 | 40 | 30 | 10 | 25.00 | |||
| T4 | 145 | 89 | 56 | 38.62 | |||
|
| |||||||
| Lymph node | N0 | 75 | 51 | 24 | 32.00 | 1.395 (0.980–1.986) | 0.064 |
| N1 | 64 | 43 | 21 | 32.81 | |||
| N2 | 57 | 28 | 29 | 50.88 | |||
|
| |||||||
| Pathological grade | G1 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 22.22 | 0.797 (0.414–1.534) | 0.497 |
| G2 | 154 | 91 | 63 | 40.91 | |||
| G3 | 33 | 24 | 9 | 27.27 | |||
|
| |||||||
| CEA | High | 73 | 46 | 27 | 36.99 | 0.998 (0.985–1.101) | 0.751 |
| Normal | 123 | 76 | 47 | 38.21 | |||
|
| |||||||
| Myelosuppression | Grade III-IV | 43 | 25 | 18 | 41.86 | 1.247 (0.626–2.485) | 0.530 |
Figure 1Low-PMI colorectal cancer patients is associated with poor RFS and OS. (a) RFS; (b) OS.
COX regression analysis results on correlations between patients' PMI, clinicopathological characteristics, and RFS.
| Parameter | Univariate COX analysis | Multivariate COX analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| Coef | HR | 95% CI |
| |
| Age | 1.020 | 0.992–1.048 | 0.162 | — | 0.997 | 0.969–1.025 | 0.828 |
| Gender | 0.794 | 0.470–1.342 | 0.389 | — | 0.969 | 0.543–1.726 | 0.914 |
| Stage | 3.395 | 1.712–6.734 | 0.001 | 0.843 | 2.324 | 1.143–4.727 | 0.020 |
| T | 1.071 | 0.676–1.697 | 0.769 | 0.994 | 0.636–1.554 | 0.981 | |
| N | 2.046 | 1.478–2.832 | 1.60 | — | 1.054 | 0.571–1.947 | 0.866 |
| Pathological grade | 5.082 | 3.012–8.575 | 1.11 | 1.623 | 5.066 | 2.909–8.821 | 9.81 |
| Grade III-IV myelosuppression | 2.859 | 1.675–4.880 | 1.17 | — | 1.403 | 0.772–2.548 | 0.267 |
| CEA | 1.009 | 1.000–1.016 | 0.041 | 0.009 | 1.009 | 1.000–1.017 | 0.038 |
| PMI | 2.315 | 1.366–3.923 | 0.002 | 0.868 | 2.382 | 1.398–4.058 | 0.001 |
COX regression analysis results on correlations between patients' PMI, clinicopathological characteristics, and OS.
| Parameter | Univariate COX analysis | Multivariate COX analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| Coef | HR | 95% CI |
| |
| Age | 1.041 | 1.005–1.078 | 0.026 | — | 1.023 | 0.984–1.063 | 0.253 |
| Gender | 1.003 | 0.529–1.902 | 0.993 | — | 1.289 | 0.641–2.590 | 0.476 |
| Stage | 3.279 | 1.442–7.455 | 0.005 | — | 1.163 | 0.257–5.262 | 0.845 |
| T | 1.221 | 0.669–2.230 | 0.516 | — | 1.001 | 0.559–1.795 | 0.996 |
| N | 2.043 | 1.374–3.036 | 4.14 | — | 1.297 | 0.591–2.846 | 0.516 |
| Pathological grade | 4.607 | 2.461–8.623 | 1.79 | 1.747 | 5.737 | 2.956–11.135 | 2.42 |
| Grade III-IV myelosuppression | 3.229 | 1.703–6.123 | 3.29 | — | 1.885 | 0.921–3.859 | 0.083 |
| CEA | 1.011 | 1.003–1.020 | 0.010 | 0.013 | 1.013 | 1.005–1.022 | 0.002 |
| PMI | 2.110 | 1.113–4.000 | 0.022 | 0.812 | 2.252 | 1.179–4.302 | 0.014 |
Figure 2Forest plot of patients' RFS and OS from multivariate COX regression analysis. (a) RFS; (b) OS.
Figure 3Prognostic model nomograms. (a) RFS; (b) OS.
Figure 4Evaluation of the prognostic in predicting patients' RFS. (a) KM analysis; (b) 1-year ROC; (c) 3-year ROC; (d) 5-year ROC; (e): heatmap; (f) risk score distribution map; (g) recurrence state distribution map.
Figure 5Evaluation of the prognostic in predicting patients' OS. (a) KM analysis; (b) 1-year ROC; (c) 3-year ROC; (d) 5-year ROC; (e) heatmap; (f) risk score distribution map; (g) survival state distribution map.