Overall Survival Cancer-specific Survival Research Articles

Adverse Tumour and Host Biology May Explain the Poorer Outcomes Seen in Emergency Presentations of Colon Cancer.

To examine the association between tumor/host factors (including the systemic inflammatory response), mode of presentation, and short/long-term outcomes in patients undergoing curative resectional surgery for TNM I to III colon cancer. Emergency presentations of colon cancer are associated with worse long-term outcomes than elective presentations despite adjustment for TNM stage. A number of differences in tumor and host factors have been identified between elective and emergency presentations and it may be these factors that are associated with adverse outcomes. Patients undergoing curative surgery for TNM I to III colon cancer in the West of Scotland from 2011 to 2014 were identified. Tumor/host factors independently associated with the emergency presentation were identified and entered into a subsequent survival model to determine those that were independently associated with overall survival/cancer-specific survival (OS/CSS). A total of 2705 patients were identified. The emergency presentation was associated with a worse 3-year OS and CSS compared with elective presentations (70% vs 86% and 91% vs 75%). T stage, age, systemic inflammatory grade, anemia (all P < 0.001), N stage ( P = 0.077), extramural venous invasion ( P = 0.003), body mass index ( P = 0.001), and American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification classification ( P = 0.021) were independently associated with emergency presentation. Of these, body mass index [hazard ratio (HR), 0.82], American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (HR, 1.45), anemia (HR, 1.29), systemic inflammatory grade (HR. 1.11), T stage (HR, 1.57), N stage (HR, 1.80), and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 0.47) were independently associated with OS. Similar results were observed for CSS. Within patients undergoing curative surgery for colon cancer, the emergency presentation was not independently associated with worse OS/CSS. Rather, a combination of tumor and host factors account for the worse outcomes observed.

For colorectal cancer patients with type II diabetes, could metformin improve the survival rate? A meta-analysis

Current research is controversial about whether metformin can improve the survival rate of patients with colon cancer. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to identify the association between metformin and the survival rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with type II diabetes. We conducted a search in databases including Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. All articles were published in the last decade, and the quality of each study was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Odds ratios (ORs) and its corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each study were calculated and summary relative risk estimates with corresponding 95% CIs were generated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Ten articles were included in this meta-analysis. The included articles were all cohort studies. In a pooled analysis of all studies, metformin using was associated with increased overall survival (OS) rate (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.63) and cancer-specific survival (CS) rate (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82) of CRC patients with diabetes. We found that the effect of metformin is associated with geographical region through subgroup meta-analysis. Metformin using was associated with an increased OS rate and CS rate of colorectal cancer.

Sublobectomy Versus Lobectomy for Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer, A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies

The selection of surgeries for patients with stage I NSCLC remains controversial. We evaluated the effectiveness of different surgeries for stage I NSCLC through a meta-analysis of studies that compared sublobectomy with lobectomy. The overall survival/cancer-specific survival (OS/CSS) of stage I NSCLC after sublobectomy or lobectomy was compared. The log (hazard ratio) [ln (HR)] and its standard error (SE) were used as the outcome measure for data combining. There were 24 eligible studies, published from 1990 to 2010, enrolled (11,360 patients). Compared with sublobectomy, there was a significant benefit of lobectomy on OS and CSS of stage I NSCLC patients (HR 1.40; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.15-1.69; P = .0006). In stage Ia patients with tumor no large than 2 cm, there were no differences in OS between lobectomy and sublobectomy (HR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.39-1.71; P = .58). For the comparison between lobectomy and segmentectomy, there was no significant difference on OS (HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.85-1.40; P = .45) and CSS (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.38; P = .97) in stage I NSCLC patients. There was no significant publication bias detected in any sections of the analysis. For stage I patients, sublobectomy causes lower survival than lobectomy, whereas the outcomes of segmentectomy are comparable to that of lobectomy; for stage Ia patients with tumor ≤2 cm, sublobectomy produces similar survival to lobectomy.