Limits...
The combination of preoperative serum C-reactive protein and carcinoembryonic antigen is a useful prognostic factor in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a combined ROC analysis.

Huang Y, Liu JS, Feng JF - Onco Targets Ther (2015)

Bottom Line: Patients with COCC ≤8.0 had a significantly better CSS than patients with COCC >8.0 (53.1% vs 15.3%, P<0.001).In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.722 for COCC, 0.645 for CRP, and 0.618 for CEA, indicating that COCC was superior to CRP or CEA for CSS prediction.We conclude that COCC was superior to CRP or CEA as a more precise prognostic factor in patients with ESCC.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Nursing, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.

ABSTRACT

Background: The prognostic value of inflammatory index in esophageal cancer (EC) has not been established. In the present study, therefore, we initially evaluated a novel prognostic system, named the COCC (COmbination of C-reactive protein [CRP] and carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]), for making a prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods: A total of 327 patients with ESCC between January 2006 and December 2008 were included in this retrospective study. The COCC was calculated by combined CRP and CEA according to the logistic equation. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the cancer-specific survival (CSS), and the difference was assessed by the log-rank test. Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic factors.

Results: In our study, COCC was defined as CRP +0.71 CEA according to the logistic equation. Receiver operating characteristic curves for CSS prediction were plotted to verify the optimum cutoff points for CRP, CEA, and COCC, which were 9.8 mg/L, 4.2 ng/mL, and 8.0, respectively. Patients with COCC ≤8.0 had a significantly better CSS than patients with COCC >8.0 (53.1% vs 15.3%, P<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that COCC was an independent prognostic factor in patients with ESCC (P=0.006). In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.722 for COCC, 0.645 for CRP, and 0.618 for CEA, indicating that COCC was superior to CRP or CEA for CSS prediction.

Conclusion: The COCC is an independent prognostic factor in patients with ESCC. We conclude that COCC was superior to CRP or CEA as a more precise prognostic factor in patients with ESCC.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Pearson correlation analysis.Notes: There were significant positive correlations between CRP and CEA (r=0.386, P<0.001; A), CRP and COCC (r=0.988, P<0.001; B), CEA and COCC (r=0.492, P<0.001; C).Abbreviations: CRP, C-reactive protein; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; COCC, COmbination of CRP and CEA.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4401204&req=5

f4-ott-8-795: Pearson correlation analysis.Notes: There were significant positive correlations between CRP and CEA (r=0.386, P<0.001; A), CRP and COCC (r=0.988, P<0.001; B), CEA and COCC (r=0.492, P<0.001; C).Abbreviations: CRP, C-reactive protein; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; COCC, COmbination of CRP and CEA.

Mentions: Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation of CRP, CEA, and COCC. Our results revealed that there were significant positive correlations between CRP and CEA (r=0.386, P<0.001, Figure 4A), CRP and COCC (r=0.988, P<0.001, Figure 4B), CEA and COCC (r=0.492, P<0.001, Figure 4C).


The combination of preoperative serum C-reactive protein and carcinoembryonic antigen is a useful prognostic factor in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a combined ROC analysis.

Huang Y, Liu JS, Feng JF - Onco Targets Ther (2015)

Pearson correlation analysis.Notes: There were significant positive correlations between CRP and CEA (r=0.386, P<0.001; A), CRP and COCC (r=0.988, P<0.001; B), CEA and COCC (r=0.492, P<0.001; C).Abbreviations: CRP, C-reactive protein; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; COCC, COmbination of CRP and CEA.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4401204&req=5

f4-ott-8-795: Pearson correlation analysis.Notes: There were significant positive correlations between CRP and CEA (r=0.386, P<0.001; A), CRP and COCC (r=0.988, P<0.001; B), CEA and COCC (r=0.492, P<0.001; C).Abbreviations: CRP, C-reactive protein; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; COCC, COmbination of CRP and CEA.
Mentions: Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation of CRP, CEA, and COCC. Our results revealed that there were significant positive correlations between CRP and CEA (r=0.386, P<0.001, Figure 4A), CRP and COCC (r=0.988, P<0.001, Figure 4B), CEA and COCC (r=0.492, P<0.001, Figure 4C).

Bottom Line: Patients with COCC ≤8.0 had a significantly better CSS than patients with COCC >8.0 (53.1% vs 15.3%, P<0.001).In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.722 for COCC, 0.645 for CRP, and 0.618 for CEA, indicating that COCC was superior to CRP or CEA for CSS prediction.We conclude that COCC was superior to CRP or CEA as a more precise prognostic factor in patients with ESCC.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Nursing, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.

ABSTRACT

Background: The prognostic value of inflammatory index in esophageal cancer (EC) has not been established. In the present study, therefore, we initially evaluated a novel prognostic system, named the COCC (COmbination of C-reactive protein [CRP] and carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]), for making a prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods: A total of 327 patients with ESCC between January 2006 and December 2008 were included in this retrospective study. The COCC was calculated by combined CRP and CEA according to the logistic equation. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the cancer-specific survival (CSS), and the difference was assessed by the log-rank test. Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic factors.

Results: In our study, COCC was defined as CRP +0.71 CEA according to the logistic equation. Receiver operating characteristic curves for CSS prediction were plotted to verify the optimum cutoff points for CRP, CEA, and COCC, which were 9.8 mg/L, 4.2 ng/mL, and 8.0, respectively. Patients with COCC ≤8.0 had a significantly better CSS than patients with COCC >8.0 (53.1% vs 15.3%, P<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that COCC was an independent prognostic factor in patients with ESCC (P=0.006). In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.722 for COCC, 0.645 for CRP, and 0.618 for CEA, indicating that COCC was superior to CRP or CEA for CSS prediction.

Conclusion: The COCC is an independent prognostic factor in patients with ESCC. We conclude that COCC was superior to CRP or CEA as a more precise prognostic factor in patients with ESCC.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus