The predictive value of high-density lipoprotein for ocular metastases in colorectal cancer patients

Figures & data

Table 1 The clinical characteristics of patients with colorectal cancer

Patient characteristics	OM group^a (%) (n=21)	NOM group (%) (n=682)	Total number of patients (%) (n=703)	P-value^d
Gender^b
Male	16 (76.2)	415 (60.9)	431 (61.3)	0.155
Female	5 (23.8)	267 (39.1)	272 (38.7)
Age (years)^c
Mean	57.6±12.1	58.6±13.5	58.5±13.5	0.751
Histopathological type^b
Adenocarcinoma	15 (71.4)	549 (80.5)	564 (80.2)	0.267
Mucinous adenocarcinoma	2 (9.5)	75 (11.0)	77 (11.0)
Signet-ring cell carcinoma	0 (0.0)	7 (1.0)	7 (1.0)
Unknown	4 (19.1)	51 (7.5)	55 (7.8)
Tumor classification^b
Colon cancer	9 (42.9)	302 (44.3)	311 (44.2)	0.200
Rectal cancer	10 (47.6)	361 (52.9)	371 (52.8)
Unknown	2 (9.5)	19 (2.8)	21 (3.0)
Lymph node metastasis
With	0	250	250
Without	21	432	453

Notes: ^aOM group included 16 orbital metastasis cases and 5 intraocular metastasis cases. ^bChi-square test was used. ^cNonparametric sum up test was used. ^dComparison between OM group and NOM metastases group. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Abbreviations: OM, ocular metastasis; NOM, non-ocular metastasis.

Figure 1 Clinical features of colorectal cancer patients involved.

Table 2 The differences of serum lipids between patients in different clinical characteristics

Clinical characteristics	TC (mmol/L)	TG (mmol/L)	HDL (mmol/L)	LDL (mmol/L)
Lymph node metastasis
LNM group (n=250)	4.39±1.03	1.24±0.59	1.24±0.37	2.66±0.87
NLNM group (n=453)	4.15±0.96	1.28±1.68	1.17±0.37	2.49±0.78
t	3.143	−0.367	2.475	2.652
P-value	0.002	0.714	0.014	0.008
Gender
Male (n=250)	4.11±0.96	1.27±1.69	1.14±0.35	2.50±0.81
Female (n=453)	4.42±1.02	1.27±0.71	1.27±0.39	2.64±0.81
t	−4.016	−0.052	−4.853	−2.348
P-value	＜0.001	0.958	＜0.001	0.019

Note: P<0.05 .

Abbreviations: LNM, lymph node metastasis; NLNM, non-lymph node metastasis; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

Table 3 The differences of clinical recognized serum tumor markers between patients with and without OM under different classifications

A. Non-lymph node metastasis
Clinical features	OM group (n=21)	NOM group (n=432)	t	P-value
TC (mmol/L)	4.26±0.52	4.14±0.98	0.952	0.350
TG (mmol/L)	1.16±0.47	1.29±1.72	−0.350	0.727
HDL (mmol/L)	1.38±0.34	1.16±0.37	2.695	0.007
LDL (mmol/L)	2.39±0.39	2.50±0.79	−1.220	0.233
B. Female
Clinical features	OM group (n=5)	NOM group (n=267)	t	P-value
TC (mmol/L)	4.26±0.46	4.42±1.03	−0.363	0.717
TG (mmol/L)	0.98±0.27	1.28±0.72	−0.930	0.353
HDL (mmol/L)	1.50±0.29	1.28±0.39	1.285	0.200
LDL (mmol/L)	2.63±0.18	2.65±0.82	−0.141	0.891
C. Male
Clinical features	OM group (n=16)	NOM group (n=415)	t	P-value
TC (mmol/L)	4.26±0.55	4.11±0.97	1.021	0.320
TG (mmol/L)	1.21±0.52	1.27±1.72	−0.128	0.898
HDL (mmol/L)	1.34±0.36	1.13±0.35	2.345	0.019
LDL (mmol/L)	2.31±0.41	2.50±0.82	−1.772	0.092
D. Non-lymph node metastasis + male
Clinical features	OM group (n=16)	NOM group (n=258)	t	P-value
TC (mmol/L)	4.26±0.55	4.01±0.89	1.701	0.104
TG (mmol/L)	1.21±0.52	1.29±2.13	−0.152	0.880
HDL (mmol/L)	1.34±0.36	1.10±0.34	2.733	0.007
LDL (mmol/L)	2.31±0.41	2.44±0.76	−1.188	0.247
E. Whole
Clinical features	OM group (n=21)	NOM group (n=682)	t/Z	P-value
TC (mmol/L)	4.26±0.52	4.23±1.00	0.206^a	0.839
TG (mmol/L)	1.16±0.47	1.27±1.42	−0.271	0.787
HDL (mmol/L)	1.38±0.34	1.19±0.37	2.322	0.021
LDL (mmol/L)	2.39±0.39	2.56±0.82	−1.910	0.067

Notes: ^aComparison between OM group and NOM metastases group by nonparametric sum up tests. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Abbreviations: OM, ocular metastasis; NOM, non-ocular metastasis; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.

Table 4 The binary logistic regression results of HDL in different groups

Group	B	OR	OR (95% CI)	P-value
NLNM	1.380	3.974	1.425–11.084	0.008
Male	1.370	3.937	1.219–12.712	0.022
NLNM + male	1.674	5.332	1.524–18.656	0.009
Total	1.158	3.184	1.184–8.563	0.022

Note: P<0.05 represented statistical significant.

Abbreviations: B, coefficient of regression; NLNM, non-lymph node metastasis.

Figure 2 Clinical features of colorectal cancer patients involved.

Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; ROC, receiver operating curve.

Table 5 The serum lipids as risk factors of different kinds of cancer

Author	Year	Cancer	Serum lipids
Liu et al^Citation36	2011	Lymph node	LDL
Saito et al^Citation39	2013	Liver cancer	LDL
His et al^Citation40	2014	Breast cancer	TC, HDL, ApoA1
Chandler et al^Citation41	2016	Colorectal cancer	HDL,TC, ApoB-100
Chandler et al^Citation41	2016	Lung cancer	HDL
Jiang et al^Citation42	2017	Breast cancer	PC, TG, DG, PE
Bastani et al^Citation43	2017	Ovarian cancer	HDL

Abbreviations: LDL, low-density lipoprotein; TC, total cholesterol; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; ApoA1, ApolipoproteinA1; ApoB-100, ApolipoproteinB-100; PC, phosphatidylcholine; TG, triacylglycerol; DG, diacylglycerol; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine.

Liu YL, Qian HX, Qin L, et al. Serum LDL-C and LDL-C/HDL-C ratio are positively correlated to lymph node stages in males with colorectal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58(106):383–387. 21661400

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Saito N, Sairenchi T, Irie F, et al. Low serum LDL cholesterol levels are associated with elevated mortality from liver cancer in Japan: the Ibaraki Prefectural health study. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2013;229(3):203–211. 23445767

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

His M, Zelek L, Deschasaux M, et al. Prospective associations between serum biomarkers of lipid metabolism and overall, breast and prostate cancer risk. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29(2):119–132. doi:10.1007/s10654-014-9884-524519551

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chandler PD, Song Y, Lin J, et al. Lipid biomarkers and long-term risk of cancer in the Women’s Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;103(6):1397–1407. doi:10.3945/ajcn.115.12432127099252

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jiang N, Zhang G, Pan L, et al. Potential plasma lipid biomarkers in early-stage breast cancer. Biotechnol Lett. 2017;39(11):1657–1666. doi:10.1007/s10529-017-2417-z28828718

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bastani A, Asghary A, Heidari MH, et al. Evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of serum level of prostasin, CA125, LDH, AFP, and hCG+β in epithelial ovarian cancer patients. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2017;38(3):418–424. 29693884

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar