| Literature DB >> 36204177 |
Chongkai Fang1,2,3, Yue Huang1, Chuyao Chen1,2, Duorui Nie1, Jietao Lin4, Zhiwei Xiao4, Saimei Li5, Silin Liu1,2, Rui Luo1,2, Hongtong Lin6, Chong Zhong2,3, Xuewu Huang4, Cui Shao2,5,7.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) is a high degree of malignancy with rapid disease progression and has a poor prognosis. Both serum apolipoprotein A-I (ApoA-I) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) play key roles in anti-inflammation and antitumor. This study is aimed at evaluating the implication of serum ApoA-I level in combination with NLR in the prognosis of CRLM.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36204177 PMCID: PMC9532097 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9149788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.501
Figure 1Study design and workflow.
The clinical characteristics of patients grouped according to ApoA-I level and NLR.
| Variables | ApoA − I ≤ 1.03 | ApoA − I > 1.03 |
| NLR ≤ 3.24 | NLR > 3.24 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 119 | 118 | 119 | 118 | ||
| Age | 61.101 ± 12.321 | 59.847 ± 11.045 | 0.411 | 59.639 ± 11.600 | 61.322 ± 11.779 | 0.269 |
| Sex | 0.713 | 0.520 | ||||
| (i) Male | 78 (65.546%) | 80 (67.797%) | 77 (64.706%) | 81 (68.644%) | ||
| (ii) Female | 41 (34.454%) | 38 (32.203%) | 42 (35.294%) | 37 (31.356%) | ||
| Liver metastases number | 0.359 | 0.155 | ||||
| (i) ≤2 | 29 (24.370%) | 35 (29.661%) | 37 (31.092%) | 27 (22.881%) | ||
| (ii) >2 | 90 (75.630%) | 83 (70.339%) | 82 (68.908%) | 91 (77.119%) | ||
| Type of liver metastases | 0.430 | 0.189 | ||||
| (i) Simultaneous | 92 (77.311%) | 86 (72.881%) | 85 (71.429%) | 93 (78.814%) | ||
| (ii) Metachronous | 27 (22.689%) | 32 (27.119%) | 34 (28.571%) | 25 (21.186%) | ||
| Tumor location | 0.852 | 0.169 | ||||
| (i) LCRC | 89 (74.790%) | 87 (73.729%) | 93 (78.070%) | 83 (71.681%) | ||
| (ii) RCC | 30 (25.210%) | 31 (26.271%) | 26 (21.930%) | 35 (28.319%) | ||
| Pathological type | 0.362 | 0.347 | ||||
| (i) Adenocarcinoma | 112 (94.118%) | 114 (96.610%) | 115 (96.639%) | 111 (94.068%) | ||
| (ii) Nonadenocarcinoma | 7 (5.882%) | 4 (3.390%) | 4 (3.361%) | 7 (5.932%) | ||
| Degree of tumor differentiation | 0.363 | 0.416 | ||||
| (i) Moderately | 88 (73.950%) | 94 (79.661%) | 91 (76.470%) | 91 (77.119%) | ||
| (ii) Poorly | 22 (18.487%) | 14 (11.864%) | 16 (13.445%) | 20 (16.949%) | ||
| (iii) Well | 9 (7.563%) | 10 (8.475%) | 12 (10.084%) | 7 (5.932%) | ||
| cT classification | 0.846 | 0.558 | ||||
| (i) 1-3 | 58 (48.739%) | 59 (50.000%) | 61 (51.261%) | 56 (47.458%) | ||
| (ii) 4 | 61 (51.261%) | 59 (50.000%) | 58 (48.739%) | 62 (52.542%) | ||
| cN classification | 0.542 | 0.213 | ||||
| (i) 0-1 | 69 (57.983%) | 73 (61.864%) | 76 (63.866%) | 66 (55.932%) | ||
| (ii) 2-3 | 50 (42.017%) | 45 (38.136%) | 43 (36.134%) | 52 (44.068%) | ||
| KPS scores | < |
| ||||
| (i) ≥80 | 80 (67.227%) | 105 (88.983%) | 100 (84.034%) | 85 (72.034%) | ||
| (ii) <80 | 39 (32.773%) | 13 (11.017%) | 19 (15.966%) | 33 (27.966%) | ||
| Primary surgery |
|
| ||||
| (i) No | 57 (47.899%) | 37 (31.356%) | 37 (31.092%) | 57 (48.305%) | ||
| (ii) Yes | 62 (52.101%) | 81 (68.644%) | 82 (68.908%) | 61 (51.695%) | ||
| Chemotherapy | 0.076 | < | ||||
| (i) No | 44 (36.975%) | 31 (26.271%) | 25 (21.008%) | 50 (42.373%) | ||
| (ii) Yes | 75 (63.025%) | 87 (73.729%) | 94 (78.992%) | 68 (57.627%) | ||
| Targeted therapy | 0.688 | 0.688 | ||||
| (i) No | 86 (72.269%) | 88 (74.576%) | 86 (72.269%) | 88 (74.576%) | ||
| (ii) Yes | 33 (27.731%) | 30 (25.424%) | 33 (27.731%) | 30 (25.424%) | ||
| Topical treatment | 0.421 | 0.098 | ||||
| (i) No | 94 (78.992%) | 88 (74.576%) | 86 (72.269%) | 96 (81.356%) | ||
| (ii) Yes | 25 (21.008%) | 30 (25.424%) | 33 (27.731%) | 22 (18.644%) | ||
| Metastasis surgery | 0.691 | 0.068 | ||||
| (i) No | 103 (86.555%) | 100 (84.746%) | 97 (81.513%) | 106 (89.831%) | ||
| (ii) Yes | 16 (13.445%) | 18 (15.254%) | 22 (18.487%) | 12 (10.169%) |
∗ P < 0.05 considered as statistically significant.
Univariate and multivariate Cox analysis for OS in patients with CRLM.
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) |
| HR (95%CI) |
| |
| Age | 1.157 (0.861, 1.555) | 0.321 | ||
| (i) <65 vs. ≥65 | ||||
| Sex | 1.305 (0.956, 1.781) | 0.076 | ||
| (i) Male vs. Female | ||||
| Number of Liver metastases | 2.056 (1.538, 2.749) | < | 1.760 (1.215, 2.599) |
|
| (i) ≤2 vs. >2 | ||||
| Type of liver metastases | 0.539 (0.401, 0.723) | < | 0.598 (0.409, 0.862) |
|
| (i) Simultaneous vs. Metachronous | ||||
| Tumor location | 1.482 (1.047, 2.098) |
| 1.530 (1.086, 2.128) |
|
| (i) LCRC vs. RCC | ||||
| Pathological type | 0.816 (0.456, 1.460) | 0.529 | ||
| (i) Adenocarcinoma vs. nonadenocarcinoma | ||||
| Degree of tumor differentiation | 0.768 (0.506, 1.166) | 0.092 | ||
| (i) Poorly vs. moderately vs. well | ||||
| cT classification | 1.429 (1.077, 1.898) |
| 1.277 (0.949, 1.720) | 0.106 |
| (i) 1-3 vs. 4 | ||||
| cN classification | 1.601 (1.189, 2.157) | < | 1.422 (1.047, 1.927) |
|
| (i) 0-1 vs. 2-3 | ||||
| KPS scores | 1.592 (1.092, 2.322) |
| 1.396 (0.970, 1.977) | 0.066 |
| (i) ≥80 vs. <80 | ||||
| Primary surgery | 0.439 (0.316, 0.611) | < | 0.659 (0.466, 0.935) |
|
| (i) No vs. Yes | ||||
| Chemotherapy | 0.543 (0.385, 0.767) | < | 0.628 (0.452, 0.880) |
|
| (i) No vs. Yes | ||||
| Targeted therapy | 0.794 (0.584, 1.080) | 0.161 | ||
| (i) No vs. Yes | ||||
| Topical treatment | 0.684 (0.505, 0.926) |
| 0.933 (0.648, 1.321) | 0.700 |
| (i) No vs. Yes | ||||
| Metastasis surgery | 0.531 (0.378, 0.747) |
| 0.978 (0.594, 1.560) | 0.928 |
| (i) No vs. Yes | ||||
| ApoA-I | 0.655 (0.493, 0.872) |
| 0.717 (0.527, 0.976) |
|
| (i) ≤1.03 vs. >1.03 | ||||
| NLR | 1.583 (1.191, 2.105) |
| 1.159 (0.852, 1.578) | 0.348 |
| (i) ≤3.24 vs. >3.24 | ||||
∗ P < 0.05 considered as statistically significant.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier curves of OS according to the ApoA-I (a) and NLR (b).
Figure 3Stratified associations between ApoA-I (a), NLR (b), and prognosis by clinical features.
Figure 4A novel risk-stratified prognostic model constructed by three categories.
Figure 5Comparison of the prognostic predictive ability of the risk-stratified prognostic model in CRLM patients.
Figure 6Prognostic significance of risk-stratified prognostic models in CRLM at different clinical stages by Kaplan-Meier survival curves. (a) OS in patients with CRLM in stages T1-3; (b) OS in patients in stage T4 CRLM; (c) OS in patients with CRLM in stages N0-1; (d) OS of patients with stages N2-3 CRLM.