Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSillah, Abdul Karim
dc.contributor.authorPritchard, S A
dc.contributor.authorWatkins, Gillian R
dc.contributor.authorMcShane, James
dc.contributor.authorWest, Catharine M L
dc.contributor.authorPage, Richard
dc.contributor.authorWelch, I M
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-15T16:14:09Z
dc.date.available2009-07-15T16:14:09Z
dc.date.issued2009-03-20
dc.identifier.citationThe degree of circumferential tumour involvement as a prognostic factor in oesophageal cancer. 2009: Eur J Cardiothorac Surgen
dc.identifier.issn1873-734X
dc.identifier.pmid19318270
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.12.052
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/74016
dc.description.abstractObjective: Tumour length is an adverse prognostic factor in oesophageal cancer. However, the prognostic role of the degree of oesophageal circumference (DOC) involved by tumour with or without resection margin invasion is not clear. This work assessed the relationship between DOC involved by tumour, clinico-pathological variables and prognosis. Methods: The clinico-pathological details of 320 patients who underwent potentially curative oesophagogastrectomy for cancer between 1994 and 2007 were analysed. The DOC involved with tumour measured macroscopically on the resected specimen was classified as small (<2.5cm, n=115), large (>/=2.5cm, n=144) or circumferential (i.e. involving the whole circumference, n=61). Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were carried out. Results: The DOC with tumour was higher in ulcerating tumours than stenosing or polypoidal types (p=0.017). Tumour length, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and vascular invasion were independently associated with DOC with tumour on multivariate analysis (p<0.05 for all). DOC >/=2.5cm was an adverse prognostic factor in univariate analysis (p=0.002) with a hazard ratio of 1.52 [95% CI 1.13-2.04] compared with those <2.5cm. Circumferential tumours had a similar prognosis to tumours >/=2.5cm (p=0.60). The prognostic significance of DOC with tumour was lost in multivariate analysis where the factors retaining independence were patient age, T-stage, lymph node metastasis, vascular invasion and positive resection margins. However, when patients were stratified by use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=121), the DOC with tumour retained prognostic significance on multivariate analysis in the 199 patients who did not undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.04). Conclusion: The DOC with tumour appears to provide prognostic information in oesophageal cancer surgery, especially in patients who do not undergo preoperative chemotherapy.
dc.languageENG
dc.language.isonullen
dc.subjectOesophageal Canceren
dc.subjectPrognosisen
dc.subjectTumour Circumferenceen
dc.titleThe degree of circumferential tumour involvement as a prognostic factor in oesophageal cancer.
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, South Moor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, United Kingdom; Academic Radiation Oncology, University of Manchester, Christie Hospital, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, United Kingdom.en
dc.identifier.journalEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgeryen
html.description.abstractObjective: Tumour length is an adverse prognostic factor in oesophageal cancer. However, the prognostic role of the degree of oesophageal circumference (DOC) involved by tumour with or without resection margin invasion is not clear. This work assessed the relationship between DOC involved by tumour, clinico-pathological variables and prognosis. Methods: The clinico-pathological details of 320 patients who underwent potentially curative oesophagogastrectomy for cancer between 1994 and 2007 were analysed. The DOC involved with tumour measured macroscopically on the resected specimen was classified as small (<2.5cm, n=115), large (>/=2.5cm, n=144) or circumferential (i.e. involving the whole circumference, n=61). Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were carried out. Results: The DOC with tumour was higher in ulcerating tumours than stenosing or polypoidal types (p=0.017). Tumour length, T-stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and vascular invasion were independently associated with DOC with tumour on multivariate analysis (p<0.05 for all). DOC >/=2.5cm was an adverse prognostic factor in univariate analysis (p=0.002) with a hazard ratio of 1.52 [95% CI 1.13-2.04] compared with those <2.5cm. Circumferential tumours had a similar prognosis to tumours >/=2.5cm (p=0.60). The prognostic significance of DOC with tumour was lost in multivariate analysis where the factors retaining independence were patient age, T-stage, lymph node metastasis, vascular invasion and positive resection margins. However, when patients were stratified by use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=121), the DOC with tumour retained prognostic significance on multivariate analysis in the 199 patients who did not undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.04). Conclusion: The DOC with tumour appears to provide prognostic information in oesophageal cancer surgery, especially in patients who do not undergo preoperative chemotherapy.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record