Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Apr;47(2):242-50.
doi: 10.4143/crt.2014.066. Epub 2014 Sep 11.

Novel methods for clinical risk stratification in patients with colorectal liver metastases

Affiliations

Novel methods for clinical risk stratification in patients with colorectal liver metastases

Ki-Yeol Kim et al. Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: Colorectal cancer patients with liver-confined metastases are classified as stage IV, but their prognoses can differ from metastases at other sites. In this study, we suggest a novel method for risk stratification using clinically effective factors.

Materials and methods: Data on 566 consecutive patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) between 1989 and 2010 were analyzed. This analysis was based on principal component analysis (PCA).

Results: The survival rate was affected by carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (p < 0.001; risk ratio, 1.90), distribution of liver metastasis (p=0.014; risk ratio, 1.46), and disease-free interval (DFI; p < 0.001; risk ratio, 1.98). When patients were divided into three groups according to PCA score using significantly affected factors, they showed significantly different survival patterns (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The PCA scoring system based on CEA level, distribution of liver metastasis, and DFI may be useful for preoperatively determining prognoses in order to assist in clinical decisionmaking and designing future clinical trials for CLM treatment.

Keywords: Colorectal neoplasms; Liver metastasis; Patient stratification; Risk calculation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Comparison of accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity in training and test data sets. Results are from 500 rounds of simulation. The sizes of training and test data sets were 396 (70%) and 170 (30%), respectively. The symbol×indicates accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of Fong’s criteria.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves of risk groups defined by principal component analysis scores. Comparison of three risk groups (A); group 1 vs. group 2 (B); and group 2 vs. group 3 (C).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves of risk groups defined by Fong’s score. (A) Comparison of survival patterns between two vs. six groups. (B) Pairwise comparisons.

References

    1. Adam R, Hoti E, Folprecht G, Benson AB. Accomplishments in 2008 in the management of curable metastatic colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2009;3(5 Suppl 2):S15–22. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stangl R, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Charnley RM, Scheele J. Factors influencing the natural history of colorectal liver metastases. Lancet. 1994;343:1405–10. - PubMed
    1. Mella J, Biffin A, Radcliffe AG, Stamatakis JD, Steele RJ. Population-based audit of colorectal cancer management in two UK health regions. Colorectal Cancer Working Group, Royal College of Surgeons of England Clinical Epidemiology and Audit Unit. Br J Surg. 1997;84:1731–6. - PubMed
    1. Poston GJ, Adam R, Alberts S, Curley S, Figueras J, Haller D, et al. OncoSurge: a strategy for improving resectability with curative intent in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7125–34. - PubMed
    1. Rees M, John TG. Current status of surgery in colorectal metastases to the liver. Hepatogastroenterology. 2001;48:341–4. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources