Clinicopathologic characteristics, laboratory parameters, treatment protocols, and outcomes of pancreatic cancer: A retrospective cohort study of 1433 patients in China
PeerJ, ISSN: 2167-8359, Vol: 2018, Issue: 5, Page: e4893
2018
- 13Citations
- 18Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations13
- Citation Indexes13
- 13
- Captures18
- Readers18
- 18
Article Description
Objectives: The prognosis of people with pancreatic cancer is extremely unfavorable. However, the prognostic factors remain largely undefined.We aimed to perform comprehensive analyses of clinicopathologic characteristics, laboratory parameters, and treatment protocols for exploring their role as prognostic factors of pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and hospitalized at the China National Cancer Center between April 2006 and May 2016 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Clinicopathologic characteristics, laboratory parameters, and treatment protocols were compared among patients at different stages of the disease. The association between these factors and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: The present study included 1,433 consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer. Median OS was 10.6months (95%confidence interval [CI] 9.8-11.3months), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 43.7%, 14.8%, and 8.8%, respectively. Cox multivariate analysis findings identified the following factors as independent predictors of OS: gender (female vsmale, hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI [0.54-0.95]); elevated total bilirubin (TBil; 1.82, 1.34-2.47); elevated carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9; 1.72, 1.17-2.54); tumor being located in pancreatic body and tail (1.52, 1.10-2.10); advanced T stage (T3-4 vs T1-2, 1.62, 1.15-2.27); lymph node metastasis (1.57, 1.20-2.07); distant metastasis (1.59, 1.12-2.27); the presence of surgical resection (0.53, 0.34-0.81); and the presence of systemic chemotherapy (0.62, 0.45-0.82). Conclusions: Being male, elevated TBil and carcinoembryonic antigen, tumor being located in pancreatic body and tail, advanced T stage, lymph node and distant metastasis, the absence of surgical resection, and the absence of systematic chemotherapy were associated with worse OS in patients with pancreatic cancer.
Bibliographic Details
10.7717/peerj.4893; 10.7717/peerj.4893/table-3; 10.7717/peerj.4893/table-2; 10.7717/peerj.4893/fig-1; 10.7717/peerj.4893/table-4; 10.7717/peerj.4893/table-5; 10.7717/peerj.4893/table-1; 10.7717/peerj.4893/supp-1
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85047630587&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29868287; https://peerj.com/articles/4893; https://peerj.com/articles/4893/table-3; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893/table-3; https://peerj.com/articles/4893/table-2; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893/table-2; https://peerj.com/articles/4893/fig-1; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893/fig-1; https://peerj.com/articles/4893/table-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893/table-4; https://peerj.com/articles/4893/table-5; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893/table-5; https://peerj.com/articles/4893/table-1; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893/table-1; https://peerj.com/articles/4893/supp-1; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893/supp-1; https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4893; https://peerj.com/articles/4893/; https://peerj.com/articles/4893.pdf; https://peerj.com/articles/4893.html
PeerJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know