Significance of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with an oxaliplatin-based regimen after simultaneous curative resection for colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastasis: a propensity score matching analysis

Sugimoto, Kiichi; Sakamoto, Kazuhiro; Ii, Yuki; Amemiya, Kota; Sugo, Hiroyuki; Ito, Tomoaki; Munakata, Shinya; Takahashi, Makoto; Kojima, Yutaka; Tomiki, Yuichi; Sato, Koichi; Saiura, Akio; Kawasaki, Seiji

doi:10.1186/s12893-021-01193-4

Table 2 Clinicopathological factors in the L-OHP (+) and (−) groups before and after propensity score matching

From: Significance of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with an oxaliplatin-based regimen after simultaneous curative resection for colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastasis: a propensity score matching analysis

Clinicopathological factors	Variables	Before matching		p-value	After matching		p-value
Clinicopathological factors	Variables	L-OHP (+) (n = 47)	L-OHP (−) (n = 47)	p-value	L-OHP (+) (n = 21)	L-OHP (−) (n = 21)	p-value
Age	Years^a	61 (32–78)	67 (37–85)	0.02	67 (49–78)	62 (37–82)	0.28
Gender	Male	31 (66.0%)	29 (61.7%)	0.83	17 (81.0%)	15 (71.4%)	0.72
Gender	Female	16 (34.0%)	18 (38.3%)	0.83	4 (19.0%)	6 (28.6%)	0.72
Location	Colon	39 (83.0%)	36 (76.6%)	0.61	17 (81.0%)	15 (71.4%)	0.72
Location	Rectum	8 (17.0%)	11 (23.4%)	0.61	4 (19.0%)	6 (28.6%)	0.72
Preoperative serum CEA	ng/mL^a	38.5 (1.1–3585)	13.6 (2.0–2759)	0.14	12.0 (2.0–442.8)	20.3 (2.6–622.7)	0.62
Preoperative serum CEA	≤ 30.0 ng/mL	22 (46.8%)	33 (70.2%)	0.04	14 (66.7%)	14 (66.7%)	1.00
Preoperative serum CEA	> 30.0 ng/mL	25 (53.2%)	14 (29.8%)	0.04	7 (33.3%)	7 (33.3%)	1.00
Preoperative serum CEA	≤ 5.0 ng/mL	10 (21.3%)	8 (17.0%)	0.79	7 (33.3%)	3 (14.3%)	0.28
Preoperative serum CEA	> 5.0 ng/mL	37 (78.7%)	39 (83.0%)	0.79	14 (66.7%)	18 (85.7%)	0.28
Postoperative serum CEA^b	ng/mL^a	2.5 (0.8–115.6)	2.7 (0.4–66.3)	0.94	2.0 (0.9–115.6)	2.4 (0.4–10.9)	0.41
Postoperative serum CEA^b	≤ 30.0 ng/mL	41 (91.1%)	43 (95.6%)	0.68	19 (95.0%)	21 (100%)	0.49
Postoperative serum CEA^b	> 30.0 ng/mL	4 (8.9%)	2 (4.4%)	0.68	1 (5.0%)	0 (0%)	0.49
Postoperative serum CEA^b	≤ 5.0 ng/mL	30 (66.7%)	37 (82.2%)	0.15	16 (80.0%)	19 (90.5%)	0.41
Postoperative serum CEA^b	> 5.0 ng/mL	15 (33.3%)	8 (17.8%)	0.15	4 (20.0%)	2 (9.5%)	0.41
Differentiation of primary tumor	Differentiated	41 (87.2%)	47 (100%)	0.03	21 (100%)	21 (100%)	1.00
Differentiation of primary tumor	Undifferentiated	6 (12.8%)	0 (0%)	0.03	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1.00
T classification	T1–3	37 (78.7%)	27 (57.5%)	0.046	16 (76.2%)	14 (66.7%)	0.73
T classification	T4	10 (21.3%)	20 (42.5%)	0.046	5 (23.8%)	7 (33.3%)	0.73
N classification	N0	15 (31.9%)	11 (23.4%)	0.49	9 (42.9%)	7 (33.3%)	0.75
N classification	N1, 2	32 (68.1%)	36 (76.6%)	0.49	12 (57.1%)	14 (66.7%)	0.75
Number of hepatic lesions	^a	2 (1–21)	1 (1–10)	0.04	2 (1–5)	1 (1–6)	0.35
Maximum diameter of hepatic lesion	mm^a	37 (8–120)	25 (5–85)	0.03	32 (8–65)	30 (8–85)	0.73
Synchronous	Absent	45 (95.7%)	46 (97.9%)	1.00	19 (90.5%)	21 (100%)	0.49
extrahepatic metastasis	Present	2 (4.3%)	1 (2.1%)	1.00	2 (9.5%)	0 (0%)	0.49
Liver resection	Partial	29 (61.7%)	30 (63.8%)	1.00	17 (81.0%)	13 (61.9%)	0.31
Liver resection	Anatomical	18 (38.3%)	17 (36.2%)	1.00	4 (19.0%)	8 (38.1%)	0.31
Surgical margin of hepatic lesion	Negative	41 (87.2%)	40 (85.1%)	1.00	19 (90.5%)	18 (85.7%)	1.00
Surgical margin of hepatic lesion	Positive	6 (12.8%)	7 (14.9%)	1.00	2 (9.5%)	3 (14.3%)	1.00

^aMedian (minimum–maximum)
^bn = 90 (postoperative serum CEA was not available in four patients)
Univariate analysis indicated that age, preoperative serum CEA (≤ 30.0 ng/mL/ > 30.0 ng/mL), differentiation of primary tumor (differentiated/undifferentiated), T classification (T1-3/T4), number of hepatic lesions and maximum diameter of the hepatic lesion differed significantly between the L-OHP( +) and (−) groups. Patients in the L-OHP (+) group were younger (p = 0.02), more frequently showed preoperative serum CEA of higher than 30.0 ng/mL (p = 0.04), more frequently had an undifferentiated primary tumor (p = 0.03) and a T1–T3 primary tumor (p = 0.046), and had more (p = 0.04) and larger (p = 0.03) hepatic lesions. There were no significant differences in other clinicopathological factors between the two groups
The PS was estimated with potential confounders of age, preoperative serum CEA, differentiation of primary tumor, T classification, number of hepatic lesions, and maximum diameter of hepatic lesions. A total of 21 patients in each group were matched in one-on-one pair PS matching analysis. There were no significant differences in univariate analysis of clinicopathological factors between the L-OHP (+) and (−) groups after PS matching

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2482

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcsurgery@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Surgery

Contact us