uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of Prognostic Scores for Patients with Colorectal Cancer Peritoneal Metastases Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Colorectal Surgery.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Colorectal Surgery.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Oncology.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Colorectal Surgery.
2013 (English)In: Annals of Surgical Oncology, ISSN 1068-9265, E-ISSN 1534-4681, Vol. 20, no 13, 4183-4189 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background. There are three prognostic scores for the cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) treatment of colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases: the newly introduced COREP (colorectal peritoneal) score, the peritoneal surface disease severity score (PSDS), and the prognostic score (PS). The aim was to determine which prognostic score had the best prognostic value. Methods. Between 2006 and 2010, a total of 77 patients with peritoneal metastases fromcolorectal cancer underwent CRS/HIPEC treatment. The COREP, PSDS, and PS scores were successfully applied to 56 patients (73 %) having sufficient data. The end points were prediction of open-and-close cases (n = 9), R1 resections (n = 41), and survival of <12 months (n = 18). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (accuracy) was compared. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients not previously used for the development of the COREP score (n = 24). Multivariable logistic regressions of the three end points were performed as well as Cox regression for overall survival. Furthermore, COREP and peritoneal cancer index were compared. Results. For open-and-close case prediction, accuracy for the whole group (n = 56) and subgroup (n = 24) was 87 and 88 %, respectively for COREP; 66 and 77 % for PSDS; and 68 and 78 % for PS. For R1 resection prediction, accuracy was 81 and 81 %, 76 and 78 %, and 75 and 77 %, respectively. For prediction of survival of <12 months, accuracy was 83 and 84, 54 and 67 %, and 55 and 56 %, respectively. The COREP score was the only independent prognostic factor in all four multivariable analyses. A COREP score of >= 6 identified patients with poor survival more accurately than a PCI of >20. Conclusions. The COREP score predicted open-and-close cases, R1 resections, and poor survival better than PSDS and PS. COREP better identifies patients with poor survival than intraoperative PCI.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 20, no 13, 4183-4189 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-214026DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3204-2ISI: 000328256600020OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-214026DiVA: diva2:684204
Available from: 2014-01-07 Created: 2014-01-07 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Cashin, Peter H.Graf, WilhelmNygren, PeterMahteme, Haile

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Cashin, Peter H.Graf, WilhelmNygren, PeterMahteme, Haile
By organisation
Colorectal SurgeryOncology
In the same journal
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 791 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf