Article

Ongoing Challenge of Stage II Colon Cancer

University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.43). 07/2011; 29(25):3346-8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.4571
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
22 Views
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology 08/2012; 30(27):3325-7. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2012.44.1949 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tumor staging of colorectal cancer is typically based on conventional TNM and Dukes classifications. However, additional information could be useful, and there is a significant interest in identifying molecular markers that are related to genetic or epigenetic processes. Using immunohistochemistry, we analyzed the expression of the high-mobility group A2 (previously high-mobility group 1-C [HMGI-C]) protein in 103 colorectal cancer cases to determine its use as a biomarker in colorectal cancer to integrate morphological staging. We found a progressive increase of the high-mobility group A2 protein expression in colorectal cancer tumor samples from cases in which all of the tumor cells were negative up to cases in which all of the tumor cells stained positive. Increased high-mobility group A2 expression is strongly associated with an increase in tumor invasiveness, which was measured through both budding and vascular invasion (P < .0001). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a decrease in overall survival when vascular invasion is present (P = .023). Moreover, a fraction of the analyzed samples showed high-mobility group A2-positive stromal fibroblasts. Although high-mobility group A2-positive tumors were associated with cell invasiveness, high-mobility group A2-positive stromal fibroblasts were correlated with less invasive tumors. High-mobility group A2 protein expression could be used as a prognostic marker to provide prospective information on patient outcome, complementing the data obtained using conventional pathologic staging systems.
    Human pathology 08/2012; 44(1). DOI:10.1016/j.humpath.2012.05.001 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Uncertainty exists regarding appropriate and affordable use of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer (T3, proficient DNA mismatch repair). This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness and costs from a US societal perspective of a multigene recurrence score (RS) assay for patients recently diagnosed with stage II colon cancer (T3, proficient DNA mismatch repair) eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. RS was compared with guideline-recommended clinicopathological factors (tumor stage, lymph nodes examined, tumor grade, and lymphovascular invasion) by using a state-transition (Markov) lifetime model. Data were obtained from published literature, a randomized controlled trial (QUick And Simple And Reliable) of adjuvant chemotherapy, and rates of chemotherapy use from the National Cooperative Cancer Network Colon/Rectum Cancer Outcomes study. Life-years, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime costs were examined. The RS is projected to reduce adjuvant chemotherapy use by 17% compared with current treatment patterns and to increase quality-adjusted life expectancy by an average of 0.035 years. Direct medical costs are expected to decrease by an average of $2971 per patient. The assay was cost saving for all subgroups of patients stratified by clinicopathologic factors. The most influential variables affecting treatment decisions were projected years of life remaining, recurrence score, and patients' disutilities associated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Use of the multigene RS to assess recurrence risk after surgery in stage II colon cancer (T3, proficient DNA mismatch repair) may reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without decreasing quality-adjusted life expectancy and be cost saving from a societal perspective. These findings need to be validated in additional cohorts, including studies of clinical practice as assay use diffuses into nonacademic settings.
    Value in Health 12/2012; 15(8):1014-21. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.07.012 · 2.89 Impact Factor
Show more