Back to Search Start Over

Prognostic value of cystatin C in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective study of 1063 patients

Authors :
Jing Yuan
Miao Xu
Jing Li
Ning Li
Li-Zhen Chen
Qi-Sheng Feng
Yi-Xin Zeng
Source :
Clinics, Vol 71, Iss 6, Pp 338-343
Publisher :
Elsevier EspaƱa.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma experience highly variable outcomes despite receiving similar therapeutic regimens. Identifying biomarkers that predict survival and guide individualized therapy is urgently needed. Cystatin C has been explored as a valuable prognostic marker in several malignancies. We retrospectively assessed the relationship between serum cystatin C levels and nasopharyngeal carcinoma prognosis in a large cohort of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients receiving long-term follow-up. METHODS: A total of 1063 consecutive patients diagnosed with nasopharyngeal carcinoma from June 2006 to December 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. The serum levels of cystatin C at the time of diagnosis were collected. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analyses using a Cox regression model were performed to assess the correlation of cystatin C levels with overall survival, progression-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival and loco-regional recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration was 68.3 months. The optimal cut-off value of cystatin C levels for predicting death was 0.945 mg/L. Compared with the low cystatin C group, the high cystatin C group experienced significantly shorter overall survival (hazard ratio=1.47, p=0.050), progression-free survival (hazard ratio=1.65, p=0.004), distant metastasis-free survival (hazard ratio=2.37, p

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
18075932 and 19805322
Volume :
71
Issue :
6
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
Clinics
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.335bffa7b95b4f1dbe57efcf49d2ef17
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2016(06)09