We concluded that D&C had a high accuracy in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer in grade 3 tumors (77.8%) and tumor invasion into the outer half of the myometrium (75%). Overall, 48% of endometrial cancer patients' tumor grades seemed to be decreased by D&C evaluation; thus, the diagnosis of endometrial disorders by D&C should not be overlooked.
Background: Serum CEA has been widely used to screen for potential recurrent disease after resection in rectal cancer. However, the influence of baseline CEA on the performance of CEA in recurrence surveillance needs to be investigated. Patients and Methods: This longitudinal cohort study included 484 patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 18,013 patients in a prospectively enrolled institutional database program of colorectal disease. Baseline CEA levels were determined before treatment, and CEA-based follow-up tests and examinations were applied in the surveillance after treatment. Results: A total of 62.6% (62/99) overall, 53.5% (23/43) local, and 64.9% (50/77) distant recurrences were seen in patients who had similar CEA levels with their baseline statuses. The sensitivity of elevated CEA levels during surveillance for overall recurrence was significantly lower in patients with negative baseline CEA than in those with elevated baseline CEA levels (41.3% vs 69.4%; P =.007). Moreover, similar results were observed in the surveillance for local (50% vs 61.5%; P =.048) and distant (39.6% vs 72.4%; P =.005) recurrences between these 2 patient groups. However, CEA had comparable and excellent specificity during surveillance for recurrent disease in these groups. The addition of CA19-9 to the CEA assay significantly improved the sensitivity in recurrence surveillance for patients with negative baseline CEA (49.2% vs 41.3%; P =.037). Finally, we identified a subgroup of CEA-turn recurrences characterized by negative CEA at baseline, elevated CEA at recurrence, and worse survival outcomes after recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07–3.30; P =.026). Conclusions: In patients with rectal cancer with negative baseline CEA, serum CEA had insufficient sensitivity in recurrence surveillance after treatment, and additional surveillance may improve oncologic outcomes. Baseline CEA should be considered before CEA-based surveillance can be applied in the follow-up trials.
Objective:We conducted this multicenter cohort study to evaluate the current tumor-node-metastasis staging system and treatment modality by analyzing the survival outcomes of patient groups with stage III and IV colon cancer. Patients and Methods:Stage III and IV colon cancer patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (SEER cohort) and prospectively maintained Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU) cohort were included in this study. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the cumulative rate of overall survival (OS) between patient groups, and the inverse probability weighting method was used to calculated age and sex-adjusted survival curves. The Cox regression model was used to identify the risk factors for OS.Results: A total of 17,911 and 1135 stage III-IV cases were included in the SEER and SYSU cohorts, respectively. Among them, 1448 and 124 resectable stage IV cases underwent curative-intent treatment in the SEER and SYSU cohorts, respectively. The T4N2b group showed a significantly worse survival outcome compared with the M1a subset receiving curative-intent treatment (HR, 1.46; p < 0.001). This finding was validated in the SYSU cohort, in which the T4N2 group had a worse outcome than that of the M1 group receiving curative-intent treatment (HR, 2.44; p < 0.001). These findings were confirmed in the adjusted survival analysis. In the multivariate analysis, the right-side tumor, poor-undifferentiated tumor, and age over 60 years were identified as independent risk factors for T4N2b patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.