Comparison of prognostic impact between positive intraoperative peritoneal and lavage cytologies in colorectal cancer
Background The prognostic value of positive intraoperative peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology, including the differences in their prognostic impact, in colorectal cancer is controversial. We aimed to investigate the prognostic values of positive peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology findings...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of clinical oncology 2021-07, Vol.26 (7), p.1272-1284 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1284 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 1272 |
| container_title | International journal of clinical oncology |
| container_volume | 26 |
| creator | Sato, Kentaro Imaizumi, Ken Kasajima, Hiroyuki Kurushima, Michihiro Umehara, Minoru Tsuruga, Yosuke Yamana, Daisuke Obuchi, Keisuke Sato, Aya Nakanishi, Kazuaki |
| description | Background
The prognostic value of positive intraoperative peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology, including the differences in their prognostic impact, in colorectal cancer is controversial. We aimed to investigate the prognostic values of positive peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology findings for colorectal cancer and compare their prognostic impact.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated 592 clinical stage II–IV colorectal cancer patients who underwent peritoneal cytology (
n
= 225) or lavage cytology (
n
= 367) between November 1993 and December 2018. The prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival were identified, and the differences in cancer-specific survival were examined between the patients.
Results
The cytology-positive rate was 10.8% (64/592), 17.8% (40/225), and 6.5% (24/367) in the overall, peritoneal cytology, and lavage cytology groups, respectively. Both positive peritoneal cytology (hazard ratio: 2.196) and lavage cytology (hazard ratio: 2.319) were independent prognostic factors. The peritoneal cytology-positive group showed significantly poorer cancer-specific survival than the cytology-negative group (5-year: 3.5% vs. 59.5%; 10-year: 3.5% vs. 46.1%,
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10147-021-01918-8 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2511896176</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2542531942</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-fd1b6cfee063d5deb1331caca83d0c30fd14fa2281b7aa3b94b55c60c32ff8073</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9vFSEUxYnR2D_6BVwYEjduRrnADDNL81LbJk3c6JowzJ0XmnkwAlPTb--1r9bERVdcOL97LnAYewfiEwhhPhcQoE0jJDQCBuib_gU7Ba1MY4yRL6lWGpqhk-0JOyvlVggwXStfsxOleq0B4JRtu3RYXQ4lRZ5mvua0j6nU4Hmgc1_5iPUXYuRrKqGGO-Qh1uzSitk9bKkINUV0C3dx4ou7c3vk_r6mJe0DFuK5pzqjr8R4Fz3mN-zV7JaCbx_Xc_bj68X33VVz8-3yevflpvFqGGozTzB2fkYUnZraCUdQCrzzrleT8EqQrmcnZQ-jcU6Ngx7b1nckyXnuhVHn7OPRl971c8NS7SEUj8viIqatWNkC9ENH30Loh__Q27TlSLcjSstWwaAlUfJI-ZxKyTjbNYeDy_cWhP0Tij2GYikU-xCK7anp_aP1Nh5wemr5mwIB6ggUkuIe87_Zz9j-Bkkjmmo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2542531942</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of prognostic impact between positive intraoperative peritoneal and lavage cytologies in colorectal cancer</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Sato, Kentaro ; Imaizumi, Ken ; Kasajima, Hiroyuki ; Kurushima, Michihiro ; Umehara, Minoru ; Tsuruga, Yosuke ; Yamana, Daisuke ; Obuchi, Keisuke ; Sato, Aya ; Nakanishi, Kazuaki</creator><creatorcontrib>Sato, Kentaro ; Imaizumi, Ken ; Kasajima, Hiroyuki ; Kurushima, Michihiro ; Umehara, Minoru ; Tsuruga, Yosuke ; Yamana, Daisuke ; Obuchi, Keisuke ; Sato, Aya ; Nakanishi, Kazuaki</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The prognostic value of positive intraoperative peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology, including the differences in their prognostic impact, in colorectal cancer is controversial. We aimed to investigate the prognostic values of positive peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology findings for colorectal cancer and compare their prognostic impact.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated 592 clinical stage II–IV colorectal cancer patients who underwent peritoneal cytology (
n
= 225) or lavage cytology (
n
= 367) between November 1993 and December 2018. The prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival were identified, and the differences in cancer-specific survival were examined between the patients.
Results
The cytology-positive rate was 10.8% (64/592), 17.8% (40/225), and 6.5% (24/367) in the overall, peritoneal cytology, and lavage cytology groups, respectively. Both positive peritoneal cytology (hazard ratio: 2.196) and lavage cytology (hazard ratio: 2.319) were independent prognostic factors. The peritoneal cytology-positive group showed significantly poorer cancer-specific survival than the cytology-negative group (5-year: 3.5% vs. 59.5%; 10-year: 3.5% vs. 46.1%,
p
< 0.001). Similar results were obtained for lavage cytology (5-year: 14.1% vs. 73.9%; 10-year: 4.7% vs. 63.5%,
p
< 0.001). The cancer-specific survival was not significantly different between the peritoneal cytology-positive and lavage cytology-positive groups (
p
= 0.058). Both positive peritoneal and lavage cytology were associated with poorer cancer-specific survival across all colorectal cancer stages.
Conclusions
Positive peritoneal and lavage cytology are associated with worse cancer-specific survival in colorectal cancer. The prognostic impact was comparable between positive lavage and peritoneal cytology. Thus, cytology should be a standard assessment modality for colorectal cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1341-9625</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1437-7772</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10147-021-01918-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33844111</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Singapore: Springer Singapore</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Cancer Research ; Cellular biology ; Colorectal cancer ; Colorectal carcinoma ; Cytology ; Lavage ; Medical prognosis ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Peritoneum ; Surgical Oncology ; Survival</subject><ispartof>International journal of clinical oncology, 2021-07, Vol.26 (7), p.1272-1284</ispartof><rights>Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2021</rights><rights>Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-fd1b6cfee063d5deb1331caca83d0c30fd14fa2281b7aa3b94b55c60c32ff8073</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-fd1b6cfee063d5deb1331caca83d0c30fd14fa2281b7aa3b94b55c60c32ff8073</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7751-6270</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10147-021-01918-8$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10147-021-01918-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33844111$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sato, Kentaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Imaizumi, Ken</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasajima, Hiroyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurushima, Michihiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Umehara, Minoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsuruga, Yosuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamana, Daisuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Obuchi, Keisuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sato, Aya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakanishi, Kazuaki</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of prognostic impact between positive intraoperative peritoneal and lavage cytologies in colorectal cancer</title><title>International journal of clinical oncology</title><addtitle>Int J Clin Oncol</addtitle><addtitle>Int J Clin Oncol</addtitle><description>Background
The prognostic value of positive intraoperative peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology, including the differences in their prognostic impact, in colorectal cancer is controversial. We aimed to investigate the prognostic values of positive peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology findings for colorectal cancer and compare their prognostic impact.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated 592 clinical stage II–IV colorectal cancer patients who underwent peritoneal cytology (
n
= 225) or lavage cytology (
n
= 367) between November 1993 and December 2018. The prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival were identified, and the differences in cancer-specific survival were examined between the patients.
Results
The cytology-positive rate was 10.8% (64/592), 17.8% (40/225), and 6.5% (24/367) in the overall, peritoneal cytology, and lavage cytology groups, respectively. Both positive peritoneal cytology (hazard ratio: 2.196) and lavage cytology (hazard ratio: 2.319) were independent prognostic factors. The peritoneal cytology-positive group showed significantly poorer cancer-specific survival than the cytology-negative group (5-year: 3.5% vs. 59.5%; 10-year: 3.5% vs. 46.1%,
p
< 0.001). Similar results were obtained for lavage cytology (5-year: 14.1% vs. 73.9%; 10-year: 4.7% vs. 63.5%,
p
< 0.001). The cancer-specific survival was not significantly different between the peritoneal cytology-positive and lavage cytology-positive groups (
p
= 0.058). Both positive peritoneal and lavage cytology were associated with poorer cancer-specific survival across all colorectal cancer stages.
Conclusions
Positive peritoneal and lavage cytology are associated with worse cancer-specific survival in colorectal cancer. The prognostic impact was comparable between positive lavage and peritoneal cytology. Thus, cytology should be a standard assessment modality for colorectal cancer.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer Research</subject><subject>Cellular biology</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal carcinoma</subject><subject>Cytology</subject><subject>Lavage</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Peritoneum</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><subject>Survival</subject><issn>1341-9625</issn><issn>1437-7772</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9vFSEUxYnR2D_6BVwYEjduRrnADDNL81LbJk3c6JowzJ0XmnkwAlPTb--1r9bERVdcOL97LnAYewfiEwhhPhcQoE0jJDQCBuib_gU7Ba1MY4yRL6lWGpqhk-0JOyvlVggwXStfsxOleq0B4JRtu3RYXQ4lRZ5mvua0j6nU4Hmgc1_5iPUXYuRrKqGGO-Qh1uzSitk9bKkINUV0C3dx4ou7c3vk_r6mJe0DFuK5pzqjr8R4Fz3mN-zV7JaCbx_Xc_bj68X33VVz8-3yevflpvFqGGozTzB2fkYUnZraCUdQCrzzrleT8EqQrmcnZQ-jcU6Ngx7b1nckyXnuhVHn7OPRl971c8NS7SEUj8viIqatWNkC9ENH30Loh__Q27TlSLcjSstWwaAlUfJI-ZxKyTjbNYeDy_cWhP0Tij2GYikU-xCK7anp_aP1Nh5wemr5mwIB6ggUkuIe87_Zz9j-Bkkjmmo</recordid><startdate>20210701</startdate><enddate>20210701</enddate><creator>Sato, Kentaro</creator><creator>Imaizumi, Ken</creator><creator>Kasajima, Hiroyuki</creator><creator>Kurushima, Michihiro</creator><creator>Umehara, Minoru</creator><creator>Tsuruga, Yosuke</creator><creator>Yamana, Daisuke</creator><creator>Obuchi, Keisuke</creator><creator>Sato, Aya</creator><creator>Nakanishi, Kazuaki</creator><general>Springer Singapore</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-6270</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210701</creationdate><title>Comparison of prognostic impact between positive intraoperative peritoneal and lavage cytologies in colorectal cancer</title><author>Sato, Kentaro ; Imaizumi, Ken ; Kasajima, Hiroyuki ; Kurushima, Michihiro ; Umehara, Minoru ; Tsuruga, Yosuke ; Yamana, Daisuke ; Obuchi, Keisuke ; Sato, Aya ; Nakanishi, Kazuaki</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-fd1b6cfee063d5deb1331caca83d0c30fd14fa2281b7aa3b94b55c60c32ff8073</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer Research</topic><topic>Cellular biology</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal carcinoma</topic><topic>Cytology</topic><topic>Lavage</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Peritoneum</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><topic>Survival</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sato, Kentaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Imaizumi, Ken</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasajima, Hiroyuki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kurushima, Michihiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Umehara, Minoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsuruga, Yosuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yamana, Daisuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Obuchi, Keisuke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sato, Aya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nakanishi, Kazuaki</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of clinical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sato, Kentaro</au><au>Imaizumi, Ken</au><au>Kasajima, Hiroyuki</au><au>Kurushima, Michihiro</au><au>Umehara, Minoru</au><au>Tsuruga, Yosuke</au><au>Yamana, Daisuke</au><au>Obuchi, Keisuke</au><au>Sato, Aya</au><au>Nakanishi, Kazuaki</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of prognostic impact between positive intraoperative peritoneal and lavage cytologies in colorectal cancer</atitle><jtitle>International journal of clinical oncology</jtitle><stitle>Int J Clin Oncol</stitle><addtitle>Int J Clin Oncol</addtitle><date>2021-07-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1272</spage><epage>1284</epage><pages>1272-1284</pages><issn>1341-9625</issn><eissn>1437-7772</eissn><abstract>Background
The prognostic value of positive intraoperative peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology, including the differences in their prognostic impact, in colorectal cancer is controversial. We aimed to investigate the prognostic values of positive peritoneal cytology and lavage cytology findings for colorectal cancer and compare their prognostic impact.
Methods
We retrospectively evaluated 592 clinical stage II–IV colorectal cancer patients who underwent peritoneal cytology (
n
= 225) or lavage cytology (
n
= 367) between November 1993 and December 2018. The prognostic factors for cancer-specific survival were identified, and the differences in cancer-specific survival were examined between the patients.
Results
The cytology-positive rate was 10.8% (64/592), 17.8% (40/225), and 6.5% (24/367) in the overall, peritoneal cytology, and lavage cytology groups, respectively. Both positive peritoneal cytology (hazard ratio: 2.196) and lavage cytology (hazard ratio: 2.319) were independent prognostic factors. The peritoneal cytology-positive group showed significantly poorer cancer-specific survival than the cytology-negative group (5-year: 3.5% vs. 59.5%; 10-year: 3.5% vs. 46.1%,
p
< 0.001). Similar results were obtained for lavage cytology (5-year: 14.1% vs. 73.9%; 10-year: 4.7% vs. 63.5%,
p
< 0.001). The cancer-specific survival was not significantly different between the peritoneal cytology-positive and lavage cytology-positive groups (
p
= 0.058). Both positive peritoneal and lavage cytology were associated with poorer cancer-specific survival across all colorectal cancer stages.
Conclusions
Positive peritoneal and lavage cytology are associated with worse cancer-specific survival in colorectal cancer. The prognostic impact was comparable between positive lavage and peritoneal cytology. Thus, cytology should be a standard assessment modality for colorectal cancer.</abstract><cop>Singapore</cop><pub>Springer Singapore</pub><pmid>33844111</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10147-021-01918-8</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-6270</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1341-9625 |
| ispartof | International journal of clinical oncology, 2021-07, Vol.26 (7), p.1272-1284 |
| issn | 1341-9625 1437-7772 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2511896176 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Cancer Cancer Research Cellular biology Colorectal cancer Colorectal carcinoma Cytology Lavage Medical prognosis Medicine Medicine & Public Health Oncology Original Article Peritoneum Surgical Oncology Survival |
| title | Comparison of prognostic impact between positive intraoperative peritoneal and lavage cytologies in colorectal cancer |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T20%3A14%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20prognostic%20impact%20between%20positive%20intraoperative%20peritoneal%20and%20lavage%20cytologies%20in%20colorectal%20cancer&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20clinical%20oncology&rft.au=Sato,%20Kentaro&rft.date=2021-07-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1272&rft.epage=1284&rft.pages=1272-1284&rft.issn=1341-9625&rft.eissn=1437-7772&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10147-021-01918-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2542531942%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2542531942&rft_id=info:pmid/33844111&rfr_iscdi=true |