Cargando…

Clinical significance of mucinous component in colorectal adenocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the clinical significance and prognostic value of mucinous component (MC) in colorectal adenocarcinoma (AC). METHODS: Patients with colorectal AC and AC with MC (ACMC) (1–100%) underwent surgical resection between January 2007 and February 2018 were retrosp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yan, Chuanwang, Yang, Hui, Chen, Lili, Liu, Ran, Shang, Wei, Yuan, Wenguang, Yang, Fei, Sun, Qing, Xia, Lijian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34852768
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-09031-9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study aims to investigate the clinical significance and prognostic value of mucinous component (MC) in colorectal adenocarcinoma (AC). METHODS: Patients with colorectal AC and AC with MC (ACMC) (1–100%) underwent surgical resection between January 2007 and February 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed according to a 1:1 ratio. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the optimal cut-off value of MC ratio for prognostic prediction. The clinicopathological features and 3-year overall survival (OS) of AC patients, mucinous adenocarcinoma (MAC) (MC > 50%) patients, and ACMC (1–50%) patients were compared before and after matching. Multivariable analysis was used for analyzing independent risk factors related to prognosis. RESULTS: A total of 532 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients with AC, MAC, and ACMC (1–50%) exhibited different clinicopathological features. However, their 3-year OS rates were similar (82.00% vs. 74.11% vs. 81.48%, P = 0.38). After matching, ROC curve determined 70% as the optimal cut-off value. And patients with ACMC > 70% had a much poorer 3-year OS compared with ACMC (1–70%) patients and AC patients (47.37% vs. 86.15% vs. 79.76%, P < 0.001). In addition, ACMC > 70% was revealed as a risk factor for poor survival in univariate analysis (HR = 1.643, 95%CI = 1.025–2.635, P = 0.039), though not an independent risk factor in multivariable analysis (HR = 1.550, 95%CI = 0.958–2.507, P = 0.074). CONCLUSIONS: MAC is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. MAC has a similar survival with AC and ACMC (1–50%) patients before and after matching. Patients with ACMC > 70% exhibited a much poorer OS, and should be given more clinical attention.