ABSTRACT
Studies have suggested that perineural invasion (PNI) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) serve as independent prognostic factors in colorectal cancer (CRC). Currently, little is known regarding the combination of PNI and LVI as prognostic factors, independent of stage. We hypothesized that this combination was a better prognostic marker than either PNI or LVI alone, and that S100 staining would detect PNI not seen with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). Surgical pathology slides were retrospectively reviewed for 151 stages I to IV CRC patients who had surgery between January 1, 2008 and December 8, 2008 at 3 Hackensack Meridian Health hospitals in New Jersey. PNI and LVI were detected by H&E staining and a subset of 127 patient samples were additionally examined for PNI by S100 staining. Correlation between staining characteristics and patient outcomes was assessed using the Pearson χ tests and the Fisher exact tests. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Of the 151 cases reviewed, 30.5% were positive for PNI and 35.1% were positive for LVI by H&E. The use of S100 staining for PNI enabled its detection in 27 additional cases. Median time from patient diagnosis to death was significantly shorter for patients who were positive for both PNI and LVI (P<0.001). PNI and LVI were individual markers for poor survival in CRC patients and their combined presence had an even worse outcome. Failure to detect PNI on H&E can be overcome by S100 staining.
Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor/metabolism , Colorectal Neoplasms/metabolism , Peripheral Nerves/metabolism , S100 Proteins/metabolism , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Colorectal Neoplasms/mortality , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Female , Humans , Lymphatic Metastasis , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Invasiveness/pathology , Neoplasm Staging , Peripheral Nerves/pathology , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Staining and Labeling , Survival RateABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patient activation-the knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage one's health-is associated with improved self-management behaviors for several chronic conditions. This study assesses rates of patient activation in breast and prostate cancer survivors and explores the characteristics associated with patient activation. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of survivors with localized (Stage I or II) breast and prostate cancers who were post-treatment (between 1-10+ years) were recruited from 4 community hospital sites in New Jersey. Survey data on patient characteristics (demographic and psychosocial) and clinical factors were assessed to explore the relationships with patient activation using the Patient Activation Measure-13. RESULTS: Among 325 survivors (112 prostate; 213 breast), overall patient activation was high (M = 3.25). Activation was significantly lower among prostate survivors when compared with breast cancer survivors (M = 3.25 [SD, 0.38] vs M = 3.34 [SD, 0.37], P<.05). For prostate survivors, race (P < .05), marital status (P < .001), employment status (P < .01), household income (P < .05), and fear of recurrence (P < .01) were significantly associated with patient activation. For both groups, ease of access to oncology team and primary care physicians (PCPs) (all P values < .001) and perceptions of time spent with oncologists' team and PCPs (all P values < .01) were positive predictors of activation. CONCLUSIONS: In both breast and prostate survivors, access to providers (both PCPs and oncologists) and perception that adequate time spent with providers were associated with activation. Therefore, clinical interventions maybe a promising avenue to improve patient activation. Research is needed to develop and test tailored patient activation interventions to improve self-management among cancer survivors.
