Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 2

3845 - Comprehensive Evaluation of Recurrence Risk (CERR) Score for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Development and Validation

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 2

Topics

Tumour Site

Colon and Rectal Cancer

Presenters

Wei Ye

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v198-v252. 10.1093/annonc/mdz246

Authors

W. Ye1, Y. Chen1, J. Xu2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Colorectal Cancer Center; Department Of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 200032 - Shanghai/CN
  • 2 Colorectal Cancer Center; Department Of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, 200010 - shanghai/CN

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 3845

Background

For colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), some key prognostic factors— KRAS/NRAS/BRAF, location of primary tumor, and CA19-9—were identified for recurrence and survival but were rarely included in prognostic scoring system analysis. Besides, tumor burden score (TBS) is a prognostic indicator capturing the cumulative impact CRLM size and CRLM number, but TBS does not take spatial factor—unilobar or bilobar metastasis—into account.

Methods

787 patients undergoing hepatic resection of CRLM were included and were divided into training and validation groups. Modified TBS (mTBS) was established by a mathematical equation (parameters were CRLM size, CRLM number, and unilobar/bilobar metastasis). In the training group, the Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors of prognosis; these factors were combined into the Comprehensive Evaluation of Recurrence Risk (CERR) score. The score was compared with Fong score and “Genetic and Morphological Evaluation” (GAME) score and validated in the validation group. Some indices (including C-index, iAUC, Akaike information criterion, net reclassification index, and integrated discrimination improvement) were calculated to compare the discriminatory capacities of three prognostic scoring systems.

Results

mTBS (AUC 0.617) out-performed TBS (AUC 0.568) in predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.006). Five preoperative predictors of worse RFS were identified and were incorporated into CERR score: KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutated tumor (1 point); node-positive primary (1 point); extrahepatic disease (1 point); CEA >200 ng/ml or CA19-9 >200 U/mL (1 point); mTBS between 5 and 11 (1 point) or 12 and over (2 points). Patients undergoing hepatectomy for CRLM were stratified by CERR score into risk groups: high-risk group (CERR score 4 or more) had a 3-year RFS rate of 9.77%; medium-risk group (CERR score 2-3) had a 3-year RFS rate of 21.96%; low-risk group (CERR score 0-1) had a 3-year RFS rate of 39.90%. The validation group showed that the discriminatory capacity of the CERR score was superior to that of the Fong score and the GAME score.

Conclusions

The CERR score is a prognostic tool that can be used to determine optimal clinical management strategies.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.