1
|
Haddad A, Lendoire M, Uppal A, Maki H, Folkert I, Wang Y, Ayabe RI, Newhook TE, Chun YS, Tzeng CWD, Vauthey JN, Tran Cao HS. CEA Rebound After Discontinuation of Pre-Hepatectomy Chemotherapy Predicts Worse Outcomes After Resection of Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 2025; 32:1021-1032. [PMID: 39516416 PMCID: PMC11773633 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-16370-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2024] [Accepted: 10/02/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels may vary with administration and discontinuation of pre-hepatectomy chemotherapy in patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CLM). The prognostic significance of these changes, termed CEA dynamics, is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for CLM (2001-2021) at a comprehensive cancer center were included. CEA dynamics were classified as CEA normal (CEA < 5 ng/mL before, during, and after chemotherapy), CEA decrease (elevated CEA levels that drop during and after chemotherapy), and CEA rebound (elevated CEA levels that drop during chemotherapy but rebound upon discontinuation). Recurrence-free (RFS), hepatic-specific disease-free (hDFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared across CEA dynamics groups. RESULTS Of 903 patients, 254 (28%) were CEA normal, 423 (47%) were CEA decrease, and 226 (25%) were CEA rebound. Median RFS was 15.9 months, median hDFS was not reached, and median OS was 11.9 years for CEA normal patients. By comparison, CEA decrease and CEA rebound patients had shorter median RFS (12.2 months, P = 0.002 and 7.4 months, P < 0.001, respectively), shorter median hDFS (29.1 months, P = 0.003 and 14.8 months, P < 0.001, respectively), and shorter median OS (7.1 years, P = 0.131, and 4.9 years, P < 0.001, respectively). On multivariable analysis, CEA rebound was an independent predictor of worse RFS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.93], hDFS (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03-1.88), and OS (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.18-2.73). Among patients with CEA rebound, RAS-BRAF/TP53 comutation and multiple tumors predicted worse OS while APC mutation predicted improved OS. CONCLUSION CEA rebound between pre-hepatectomy chemotherapy discontinuation and CLM resection is associated with worse oncologic outcomes, particularly in patients with aggressive tumor biology, and may help frame patient and surgeon expectations ahead of CLM resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antony Haddad
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Mateo Lendoire
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Abhineet Uppal
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Harufumi Maki
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ian Folkert
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yifan Wang
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Reed I Ayabe
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Timothy E Newhook
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yun Shin Chun
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Wei D Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hop S Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Automatic Segmentation of Magnetic Resonance Images of Severe Patients with Advanced Liver Cancer and the Molecular Mechanism of Emodin-Induced Apoptosis of HepG2 Cells under the Deep Learning. JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE ENGINEERING 2022; 2022:3951112. [PMID: 35295165 PMCID: PMC8920667 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3951112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2021] [Accepted: 01/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
To improve the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of severe patients with advanced liver cancer and enhance the effect of chemotherapy treatment, the U-Net model was optimized by introducing the batch normalization (BN) layer and the dropout layer, and the segmentation training and verification of the optimized model were realized by the magnetic resonance (MR) image data. Subsequently, HepG2 cells were taken as the research objects and treated with 0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 μmol/L emodin (EMO), respectively. The methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) method was used to explore the changes in cell viability, the acridine orange (AO)/ethidium bromide (EB) and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) were used for staining, the Annexin V fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)/propidium iodide (PI) (Annexin V-FITC/PI) was adopted to detect the apoptosis after EMO treatment, and the Western blot (WB) method was used with the purpose of exploring the changes in protein expression levels of PARP, Bcl-2, and p53 in the cells after treatment. It was found that compared with the original U-Net model, the introduction of the BN layer and the dropout layer can improve the robustness of the U-Net model, and the optimized U-Net model had the highest dice similarity coefficient (DSC) (98.45%) and mean average precision (MAP) (0.88) for the liver tumor segmentation.
Collapse
|
3
|
Han C, Yang Y, Guo L, Guan Q, Ruan S. The expression of long non-coding RNA HOTAIR in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and its prognostic correlation with sunitinib therapy. Arch Med Sci 2022; 18:71-78. [PMID: 35154527 PMCID: PMC8826866 DOI: 10.5114/aoms/100480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2018] [Accepted: 12/03/2018] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The study was designed to assess the expression of long non-coding RNA HOTAIR (lncRNA HOTAIR) in tissues and peripheral blood of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In addition, we also investigated the prognostic correlation between the expression level of lncRNA HOTAIR in tumour tissues and peripheral blood of patients with advanced HCC and sunitinib monotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 60 patients with advanced HCC who received sunitinib monotherapy and another 60 healthy individuals who were examined at the physical examination centre during the same period were included in the study. Real-time quantitative PCR (RT-QPCR) was used to determine the relative expression of lncRNA HOTAIR in tumour tissue, adjacent tissue, and peripheral blood of HCC patients as well as peripheral blood of healthy controls. Moreover, the clinicopathological information, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were collected, followed by correlation analysis with lncRNA HOTAIR expression. RESULTS The expression of lncRNA HOTAIR was significantly higher in tumour tissues compared to that in adjacent tissues (t = 9.03, p < 0.001). The expression of lncRNA HOTAIR in peripheral blood of HCC patients was higher than that in healthy controls (t = 8.04, p < 0.001). There was a correlation between the expression of lncRNA HOTAIR in tumour tissue and peripheral blood in HCC patients (r = 0.638, p < 0.001). Patients with low lncRNA HOTAIR expression in tumour tissues harboured significantly longer OS (13.4 vs. 9.5, p < 0.001) and PFS (8.4 vs. 6.2, p < 0.001) compared to those with high expression. Consistently, patients with low lncRNA HOTAIR expression in peripheral blood had significantly prolonged OS (12.8 vs. 9.1, p < 0.001) and PFS (8.9 vs. 6.4, p < 0.001) compared to those with high expression. Patients with low expression both in tumour tissue and peripheral blood had prolonged OS (14.3 vs. 8.8, p < 0.001) and PFS (10.6 vs. 6.0, p < 0.001) compared to the rest of the patients. Cox regression analysis indicated that the expression level of lncRNA HOTAIR in tumour tissue and peripheral blood was an independent predictive factor of OS and PFS in patients with advanced HCC treated by sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS The expression of lncRNA HOTAIR was up-regulated in tumour tissue and peripheral blood in patients with advanced HCC. In addition, the expression level of lncRNA HOTAIR was one of the indicators predicting the effectiveness of sunitinib therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chenyang Han
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China
| | - Yi Yang
- Department of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China
| | - Li Guo
- Centre Laboratory, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China
| | - Qiaobing Guan
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China
| | - Shuiliang Ruan
- Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhou SN, Pan WT, Pan MX, Luo QY, Zhang L, Lin JZ, Zhao YJ, Yan XL, Yuan LP, Zhang YX, Yang DJ, Qiu MZ. Comparison of Immune Microenvironment Between Colon and Liver Metastatic Tissue in Colon Cancer Patients with Liver Metastasis. Dig Dis Sci 2021; 66:474-482. [PMID: 32193860 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-020-06203-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2019] [Accepted: 03/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liver metastasis is an indicator of unfavorable responses to immunotherapy in colorectal cancer patients. However, the difference of immune microenvironment between primary tumors and liver metastases has not been well understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty-four colon cancer with liver metastasis patients who received resection of both primary and metastasis lesions have been analyzed. The immune score is based on the density of infiltrating immune cells (CD3+ cell, CD8+ cell, CD11b+ cell, CD11c+ cell, and CD33+ cell) in the center and margin of the tumor. The expression of immune markers between the primary tumor and hepatic metastases was analyzed using Wilcoxon's signed rank test. RESULTS All the five markers had higher expression in tumor margins than center tumor in both primary tumor and hepatic metastases lesions. The expression of CD11c and CD11b had no difference between metastatic lesions and primary tumor. In tumor margins, except CD11b, all the other 4 markers expressed significantly higher in hepatic metastases than in primary tumor. Intra-tumor, CD3 had higher expression in primary tumor than in hepatic metastases, while CD33 had higher expression in hepatic metastases than in primary tumor. CD8+ CD3+ cells of the total CD8+ cell population in primary tumor was significantly higher than in hepatic metastases (36.42% vs. 24.88%, p = 0.0069). CONCLUSIONS The immune microenvironment between primary tumor and hepatic metastasis is different. More immunosuppressing cells in liver may partially explain why immunotherapy in colon cancer is less effective with liver metastatic disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Su-Na Zhou
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Wen-Tao Pan
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Meng-Xian Pan
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Qiu-Yun Luo
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Lin Zhang
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Jun-Zhong Lin
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Yu-Jie Zhao
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Xiang-Lei Yan
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Lu-Ping Yuan
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Yu-Xin Zhang
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Da-Jun Yang
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China
| | - Miao-Zhen Qiu
- Department of Experimental Research, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, China.
| |
Collapse
|