The survival and clinicopathological differences between patients with stage IIIA and stage II rectal cancer: An analysis of 12,036 patients in the SEER database
- PMID: 27806332
- PMCID: PMC5346750
- DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.12970
The survival and clinicopathological differences between patients with stage IIIA and stage II rectal cancer: An analysis of 12,036 patients in the SEER database
Abstract
Background: Stage IIIA rectal cancer has distinctive oncological features, including limited depth of intestinal wall invasion and early regional lymph node metastasis. We aim to compare survival outcomes and clinicopathological features for stage IIIA rectal cancer with those for stage II rectal cancer.
Methods: We analyzed patients with stage II or stage IIIA rectal cancer treated with surgery without receiving preoperative radiotherapy based on data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 1988 and 2003. Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox proportional analyses were utilized to analyze independent prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival (CSS).
Results: We included 12,036 rectal cancer patients (10,132 stage II and 1,904 stage IIIA) from the SEER database. Patients with stage IIIA rectal cancer had smaller tumor size than patients with stage II rectal cancer. A multivariate analysis suggested that compared with patients with stage IIIA rectal cancer, patients with stage II disease were more likely to have more unfavorable CSS (HR 1.195, 95% CI 1.079-1.324, p=0.001). When stage II rectal cancer was further analyzed as stage IIA, IIB and IIC rectal cancer, the multivariate analysis indicated that compared with patients with stage IIIA rectal cancer, patients with stage IIA rectal cancer (HR 1.113, 95% CI 1.003-1.235, p=0.044), stage IIB rectal cancer (HR 1.493, 95% CI 1.267-1.758, p<0.001) and stage IIC rectal cancer (HR 2.712, 95% CI 2.319-3.171, p<0.001) were also more likely to exhibit more unfavorable CSS.
Conclusions: Patients with stage IIIA rectal cancer had more favorable survival outcomes and smaller tumor size compared with patients with stage II rectal cancer.
Keywords: rectal cancer; stage II; stage IIIA; survival.
Conflict of interest statement
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30. - PubMed
-
- Quirke P, Williams GT, Ectors N, Ensari A, Piard F, Nagtegaal I. The future of the TNM staging system in colorectal cancer: time for a debate? Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:651–657. - PubMed
-
- Sobin LH, Fleming ID. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, fifth edition (1997). Union Internationale Contre le Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer. 1997;80:1803–1804. - PubMed
-
- Sobin LH. TNM, sixth edition: new developments in general concepts and rules. Semin Surg Oncol. 2003;21:19–22. - PubMed
-
- Sobin LH, Compton CC. TNM seventh edition: what's new, what's changed: communication from the International Union Against Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:5336–5339. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
