Purpose: Recent studies have shown that cyclooxygenase (Cox)-2 may be involved in colorectal carcinogenesis. We aimed to determine whether Cox-2 expression in itself can predict outcome of colorectal cancer patient after surgery. In addition, the expression of Cox-1 was also evaluated.

Experimental Design: Tissue samples of primary and secondary tumors from 288 patients undergoing surgical resections for colorectal adenocarcinoma were immunohistochemically examined for Cox-2 and Cox-1 expressions. The specimens were graded based on the intensity and extent of staining; then, the correlations between Cox-2 and Cox-1 expressions with clinicopathologic parameters and survival time were analyzed.

Results: Expression of Cox-2 was positive in 70.8% of primary tumor, 92.0% of lymph node metastases, 100.0% of hepatic metastases, and was significantly associated with tumor size, depth of invasion, lymph node metastasis, vessels invasion, stage and recurrence. In contrast, Cox-1 was positive in 42.7% of primary tumor, 84.0% of lymph node metastases, 37.5% hepatic metastases, and was associated with only tumor size. Patients with Cox-2–positive tumors had a significant shorter survival time than those with negative tumors did (P = 0.0006 by log-rank test); and, in a multivariate analysis, Cox-2 was an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.0103; relative risk 4.114; 95% confidence interval, 1.397–12.120). Cox-1 status had no statistically effect on patient survival time.

Conclusions: Elevated Cox-2 expression, but not that of Cox-1, was significantly associated with reduced survival and recognized as an independent prognostic factor in our cohort of colorectal cancer patients.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world and the second most common cause of cancer-related death (1). During 2000, in the United States, 130,200 new cases of colon cancer and rectal cancer were reported (2). In Japan, ∼36,000 patients dead of this cancer in 2001 (3). Despite numerous attempts to detect cancer at an early stage, the overall long-term outcome of patients curatively resected has not significantly changed in the last decade, the 5-year survival rate being ∼60% (4). Assessment of molecular prognostic factors associated with a distinct prognostic outcome would, therefore, be of great help for identification of patients who are likely to benefit from adjuvant therapies, leading to an improvement in prognosis.

Recent studies have suggested that an increase in the expression of cyclooxygenase (Cox)-2, a key-inducible enzyme involved in the production of prostaglandins and other eicosanoids, may play a significant role in carcinogenesis in addition to its well-known role in inflammatory reactions (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

Interestingly, Cox-2 has been reported to be significantly increased in up to 85% of human sporadic colorectal carcinoma, predominantly within neoplastic epithelial cells (5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), in which Cox-2 may induce resistance to apoptosis, alter extracellular matrix adhesion, modulate tumor angiogenesis, and increase metastatic potential (7, 9, 19). In addition, a specific cause-effect relationship between the overexpression of Cox-2 and colon cancer has been determined in studies on intestinal carcinogenesis in the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC)Δ716(8, 20).

Moreover, Kawamori et al. (21) have reported that celecoxib, a specific Cox-2 inhibitor suppressed both incidence and multiplicity of azoxymethane-induced colon cancer in rats by ∼93 and 97%, respectively. In a previous clinical trial, we also showed that rofecoxib, another specific Cox-2 inhibitor, significantly decreased the number and size of rectal polyps in familial adenomatous polyposis patients (22).

However, it is controversial whether Cox-2 expression in itself is a prognostic factor for local recurrence and/or survival of patients with colorectal cancer (23).

Therefore, to clarify additionally the prognostic role of Cox-2 in colorectal carcinoma and to evaluate the possible contribution of isoenzyme Cox-1, we immunohistochemically determined the expression of both proteins in a series of patients with primary tumors, who were treated at our institution. In addition, sections of adjacent normal mucosa, lymph node metastases, and hepatic metastases samples were also evaluated.

Patients and Tissue Samples.

A total of 288 consecutive patients who had undergone surgical resections for primary sporadic colorectal carcinoma at the Department of Surgical Oncology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University (Tokyo, Japan), between January 1986 and December 1996 was included in this study. There were 174 colon cancers and 114 rectal cancers; 183 males and 105 females; mean age, 61 ± 10 years. None of them had a history of hereditary colon cancer syndromes and regular use of aspirin-like drugs. There was no preoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy; however, after surgery, for both colon and rectal cancer, patients with stage III tumor received oral 5-fluorouracil, and those with stage IV tumor had 5-fluorouracil–based systemic chemotherapy without any radiation. Patients were followed up until death or December 31, 2002, with a median postoperative follow-up duration of 63 ± 33 months.

In all cases, archival H&E slides of the primary and secondary tumors were retrieved and reviewed to confirm pathological features and to select suitable tissue blocks for immunohistochemical analysis.

The samples included 288 primary tumors, 25 available lymph node metastases, 16 available hepatic metastases. In all 25 metastatic lymph nodes and 4 of 16 hepatic metastases, concurrent primary tumors were examined. Additionally, for comparison, sections of 10 adjacent normal mucosa, 10 normal lymph node, 10 normal hepatic parenchyma, were also included in this study.

The clinicopathologic findings were determined according to the International Union Against Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) classification of malignant tumors (24).

Immunohistochemical Staining.

A universal immunoenzyme polymer method was used for immunostaining. Three-μm thick sections were cut from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks and mounted on poly-lysine coated slides, dewaxed in xylene, and rehydrated through a graded series of ethanol. After deparaffinization, antigen retrieval treatment was performed at 121°C (autoclave) for 5 minutes in 10 mmol/L sodium citrate buffer (pH 6.0), then treated with 3% hydrogen peroxide in methanol solution for 20 minutes to quench endogenous peroxidase activity. Nonspecific bindings were blocked by treating slides with 10% normal goat serum for 10 minutes. To block intrinsic biotin-binding capabilities, hepatic tissue slides were treated with avidin-biotin blocking kit reagents (Vector Laboratories, Inc., Burlingame, CA) for 15 minutes. Thereafter, the slides were incubated with mouse monoclonal antibodies against human Cox-2 (dilution 1:250; Cayman Chemical Co., Ann Arbor, MI) for 2 hours at room temperature for Cox-2 and rabbit polyclonal antibodies against human Cox-1 (dilution 1:200; Cayman Chemical Co.) for 2 hours at room temperature for Cox-1. Next, slides were incubated with labeled polymer (N-Histofine Simple Stain MAX PO MULTI; Nichirei Co., Tokyo, Japan) for 30 minutes at room temperature. Color development was done with 0.02% 3,3′-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride (Sigma, Poole, United Kingdom) and 0.06% hydrogen peroxide in 50 mmol/L Tris-HCl (pH 7.6) for 5 minutes. Finally, the slides were counterstained with 1% Meyer’s hematoxylin.

As a negative control for Cox-2 and Cox-1 staining, tissue sections were treated with normal serum instead of each primary antibody.

Evaluation of Staining.

All sections were scored blind by two investigators (L.T.S. and Y.T.) under a light microscope; and, in cases of occasional scoring discrepancy, consensus was always achieved after discussion of findings. For Cox-2 and Cox-1 assessment, the entire tissue section was scanned to assign the scores. The staining intensity was scored as 0 (negative), 1 (weak), 2 (medium), and 3 (strong). Extent of staining was scored as 0 (0%), 1 (1 to 25%), 2 (26 to 50%), 3 (51 to 75%), and 4 (76 to 100%), according to the percentages of the positive staining areas in relation to the whole carcinoma area or entire section for the normal samples. The sum of the intensity and extent score was used as the final staining score (0 to 7) for Cox-2 or Cox-1. This relatively simple, reproducible scoring method that gives highly concordant results between independent evaluators has been used in past studies (14, 17).

For the purpose of statistical evaluation, tumors having a final staining score of ≥3 were considered to be positive.

Statistical Analysis.

All statistical analyses were carried out with the StatView Software (version 5.0). The correlations between expression of Cox-2 or Cox-1 and several clinicopathologic parameters were assessed with the χ2 test or the Spearman rank test as indicated. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival as a function of time, and survival differences were analyzed with the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. P < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Cox-2 and Cox-1 Expression in Normal Mucosa and Primary and Secondary Tumors.

Both cyclooxygenase proteins were mainly detected in the cytoplasm of the epithelial cells, vascular endothelial cells, and some stromal cells probably fibroblast and mononuclear cells. The allocation of staining score by the two investigators was concordant in >94% of Cox-2 samples and >96% of Cox-1 samples. In addition, as we stated in Materials and Methods, the discrepant cases were reevaluated and scored by consensus. The distribution of primary tumors according to the extent and intensity of Cox-2 and Cox-1 immunoreactivity are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

The expression of Cox-2 was positive (grade 3 to 7) in 70.8% of primary tumors, 92.0% of metastatic lymph nodes, and all of hepatic metastases (Table 3). The normal mucosa adjacent to the Cox-2–positive tumor and the normal samples showed a little or no stained for Cox-2. In contrast, the positivity rate for Cox-1 was 42.7, 84.0, 37.5, and, 80.0% in the primary tumors, metastatic lymph nodes, hepatic metastases, and normal samples, respectively (Table 3). Moreover, we found an elevated expression of both Cox-1 and Cox-2 in the normal liver tissue and biliary epithelium adjacent to the metastatic lesion, even after endogenous avidin-biotin blocking treatment. Representatives of the staining patterns are shown in Fig. 1.

When compared primary and secondary tumors versus normal samples, a significant difference was observed for Cox-2 expression: primary tumor versus normal mucosa (P < 0.0001), metastatic lymph node versus normal lymph node (P = 0.0001), and hepatic metastases versus normal hepatic parenchyma (P = 0.0016); and for Cox-1 expression, primary tumor versus normal mucosa (P = 0.0195), metastatic lymph node versus normal lymph node (P = 0.6468), and hepatic metastases versus normal hepatic parenchyma (P = 0.1069).

Correlation With Clinicopathologic Parameters.

In Table 4, the association between Cox-2 and Cox-1 expression and the clinicopathologic parameters is shown. Cox-2 expression was significantly correlated with primary tumor size (Rho = 0.411, P < 0.0001), depth of invasion (P = 0.0004), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.0312), lymphatic invasion (P = 0.0253), venous invasion (P = 0.0186), TNM stage (P = 0.0013), and tumor recurrence (P = 0.0097). There was no significant correlation between Cox-2 expression and age, gender, tumor site, and histologic type. Cox-1 was significantly correlated with only the primary tumor size (Rho = 0.208, P = 0.0004).

Correlation With Patients’ Survival.

Within a median postoperative follow-up duration of 63 ± 33 months, 57 cancer-related deaths occurred: 10 in patients with Cox-2–negative tumors and 47 in the positive group (P = 0.0311) and 30 in patients with Cox-1–negative tumors and 27 in the positive group (P = 0.4271).

In the entire cohort, the overall survival rates of patients with Cox-2–negative tumors were significantly higher when compared with those of the Cox-2–positive group (P = 0.0006, log-rank test; Fig. 2,A). The same significant difference in survival between the two groups of patients was also observed in combined stage I and stage II (P = 0.0271; Fig. 2,B) and in stage III cases (P = 0.0081; Fig. 2 C). The 5-year survival rate of Cox-2–negative and Cox-2–positive cases in stage I and stage II was 97 and 82%, respectively, and that in stage III was 88 and 67%, respectively. Stage IV was not considered alone because of the limit number of cases.

The Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated no association between Cox-1 expression status and patients survival (P = 0.4016; log-rank test).

Furthermore, in the multivariate analysis, potential prognosis factors such as age and gender of the patient, tumor site, size, depth of invasion, lymphatic invasion, venous invasion, degree of differentiation, lymph node metastasis, TNM stage, and Cox-1 and Cox-2 expression were included in the Cox proportional hazards model. The results indicated that, in addition to lymph node metastasis and TNM stage, Cox-2 expression status was an independent prognostic factor in our cohort (P = 0.0103; Table 5).

In this study of human colorectal carcinoma, the expression of Cox-2 protein showed a markedly increased from normal samples to primary tumors and metastatic samples. We found that elevated expression of Cox-2 was significantly associated with prognostically worse clinicopathologic variables, including tumor size, depth of invasion, lymph node metastases, and vessels invasion. These findings are consistent with our previous reports that tumors with higher Cox-2 gene expression grow larger and in a more invasive manner in colorectal (25) and gastric carcinoma (26). Contrary to the results from some recent studies (14, 17), we could not prove a statistically significant relationship between Cox-2 expression with the degree of tumor cells differentiation.

Interestingly, we showed a significant correlation between high-grade Cox-2 expression with a shortened survival of patients and Cox-2 status as well as lymph node metastasis and TNM stage was an independent prognostic factor.

Actually, the negative prognostic value of Cox-2 overexpression has been reported in several studies on various carcinomas such as those of colon and rectum (12, 14, 17, 27, 28), stomach (29), esophagus (30), breast (31), lung (32, 33), and ovaries (34).

However, there is a disagreement over the independent prognostic capability of Cox-2 as compared with other known prognostic factors, including tumor features and molecular characteristics (14, 27). Also, some authors that used immunohistochemical analysis method claimed that Cox-2 may be involved in tumorigenesis but lack a prognostic significance for colorectal cancer patients (18, 23, 35, 36, 37). At this point, it is considered that tumor invasiveness, frequent metastasis, and expression in larger tumors are responsible for the worse prognosis for patients bearing Cox-2–positive tumors (14). We believe that variability in population size and characteristics, antibodies, lack of consensus on and standardization of methods, and differences in the choice of cutoff levels may explain the discrepancies between the different studies. In fact, our findings were obtained by analysis of a relatively large number of consecutively resected cases in a single institution and, thus, should be of considerable interest. Moreover, the monoclonal antibodies we used have been shown in several excellent studies (13, 14, 30, 31, 38) and is considered to give the most sensitive, specific, and reproducible immunoreactivity of Cox-2 protein. Nevertheless, as proposed by Buecher et al. (28), it will be of critical importance to standardize the methods used for the evaluation of tumor Cox-2 status and to apply common interpretative criteria to allow direct comparison of results between laboratories.

To date, several molecular pathways have been postulated to elucidated the mechanism by which up-regulation of the Cox-2 gene can contribute to tumor development and progression. Among them, the hypothesis of an inhibition of apoptosis (7, 39), an increased in cell proliferation and angiogenesis (14, 15, 19, 20, 39, 40), and a local immunosuppression (16) as carcinogenic properties of Cox-2 have in the recent years received more attention. These possible pathways may all influence the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer to worse.

One distinctive feature in the present study is that cancer cells in 23 of 25 lymph node metastases and all hepatic metastases, as well as their corresponding primary tumors, were positive for Cox-2 protein. Hull et al. (37), who investigated 54 colorectal cancer liver metastases, reported that Cox-2 protein was detected in cancer cells in 100% of cases. Unfortunately, the authors were unable to obtain data regarding Cox-2 status in the corresponding primary tumors. To our knowledge, this is the first investigation in which Cox-2 protein expression is evaluated in both primary and secondary tumors. This finding may indicate that Cox-2 expression by cancer cells probably occurred before metastasis, and only Cox-2 bearing cancer cells have more of a chance to metastasize to the lymph node and the liver. Additional studies are warranted to clarify this question and, more interestingly, to assess the utility of Cox-2 inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic tumors.

In contrast to Cox-2, the possible roles of Cox-1 expression in human tumorigenesis have received less attention. Our attempt to show the clinicopathologic significance of Cox-1 expression in colorectal cancer, as has been shown in ovarian cancer (41) and testicular tumors (42), showed only an association with tumor size.

However, in conjunction with a genetic study reporting that disruption of Cox-1 gene in APCMin mice causes suppression of polyposis (43) and also given the fact that some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin that inhibit only Cox-1 can reduce colon cancer incidence and mortality (44, 45, 46), it is likely that both cyclooxygenases play critical roles in tumorigenesis at different stages. In support to this possibility, Takeda et al. (47), in studying intestinal polyp formation, suggested that, whereas Cox-2 induction is essential for polyps to expand beyond ∼1 mm, nascent polyps are likely to develop to ∼1 mm with prostaglandin E2 supplied by Cox-1 alone. Additional studies are necessary to gain more insight into the functional role of Cox-1 in the development and progression of colorectal carcinoma.

Finally, evidence from several experimental and clinical studies has shown that selective Cox-2 inhibitors possess significant antitumor activity on their own with favorable safety profile (1, 8, 21, 22, 48) and can also enhance tumor response to radiation or cytotoxic agents (49, 50). However, recent clinical studies (51, 52) with rofecoxib in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer pointed out an increased toxicity and lack of efficacy. Nevertheless, although this is an interesting observation, the few patients in those studies precludes it from being presented as a definitive conclusion. More clinical trials with more patients are needed to really assess the therapeutic benefit of Cox-2 inhibitors in human colorectal cancer.

We conclude that elevated Cox-2 expression, but not that of its isoform Cox-1, is significantly associated with reduced survival in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma. Accordingly, our results taken together with those of other prompted us to believe that assessment of Cox-2 level in colorectal cancer may be used as a marker to select not only high-risk patients group for recurrence and offer them more frequent follow-up but also patients who may likely benefit from Cox-2 inhibitors as adjuvant therapy either alone or in combination with established anti cancer drugs.

Fig. 1.

Strong (score 7) immunohistochemical staining for Cox-2 is shown in a representative section of primary tumor (A), metastatic lymph node (B), and metastatic hepatic tissue (C). The same primary tumor is shown with moderate (score 4) staining for Cox-1 (D).

Fig. 1.

Strong (score 7) immunohistochemical staining for Cox-2 is shown in a representative section of primary tumor (A), metastatic lymph node (B), and metastatic hepatic tissue (C). The same primary tumor is shown with moderate (score 4) staining for Cox-1 (D).

Close modal
Fig. 2.

The overall 10-year survival curves of patients with Cox-2 negative and Cox-2 positive are shown for the entire cohort, P = 0.0006 (A), as well as for patients with stage I/II, P = 0.0271 (B), or stage III, P = 0.0081 (C) disease.

Fig. 2.

The overall 10-year survival curves of patients with Cox-2 negative and Cox-2 positive are shown for the entire cohort, P = 0.0006 (A), as well as for patients with stage I/II, P = 0.0271 (B), or stage III, P = 0.0081 (C) disease.

Close modal

Grant support: A Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Requests for reprints: Sugihara Kenichi, Department of Surgical Oncology, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8519 Japan. Phone: 81-3-5803-5257; Fax: 81-3-5803-0138; E-mail: k-sugi.srg2@tmd.ac.jp

Table 1

Distribution of primary tumors according to the extent and intensity of staining for Cox-2

Staining intensityExtent of stainingTotal
0%1–25%26–50%51–75%76–100%
Negative 21*     21 
Weak  10* 16* 15 50 
Medium  37* 12 29 83 
Strong  11 23 14 86 134 
Total 21 58 51 28 130 288 
Staining intensityExtent of stainingTotal
0%1–25%26–50%51–75%76–100%
Negative 21*     21 
Weak  10* 16* 15 50 
Medium  37* 12 29 83 
Strong  11 23 14 86 134 
Total 21 58 51 28 130 288 
*

Cox-2–negative tumors.

Table 2

Distribution of primary tumors according to the extent and intensity of staining for Cox-1

Staining intensityExtent of stainingTotal
0%1–25%26–50%51–75%76–100%
Negative 75*     75 
Weak  31* 40* 36 111 
Medium  19* 10 30 65 
Strong  21 37 
Total 75 52 55 19 87 288 
Staining intensityExtent of stainingTotal
0%1–25%26–50%51–75%76–100%
Negative 75*     75 
Weak  31* 40* 36 111 
Medium  19* 10 30 65 
Strong  21 37 
Total 75 52 55 19 87 288 
*

Cox-1–negative tumors.

Table 3

Positivity rates for Cox-2 and Cox-1 expressions

SamplesCox-2 expressionCox-1 expression
NegativePositiveNegativePositive
Primary tumors 84 (29.2%) 204 (70.8%) 165 (57.3%) 123 (42.7%) 
Lymph node metastases 2 (8.0%) 23 (92.0%) 4 (16.0%) 21 (84.0%) 
Hepatic metastases 0 (0%) 16 (100.0%) 10 (62.5%) 6 (37.5%) 
Normal mucosa 9 (90.0%) 1 (10.0%) 2 (20.0%) 8 (80.0%) 
Normal lymph node 7 (70.0%) 3 (30.0%) 1 (10.0%) 9 (90.0%) 
Normal hepatic parenchyma 5 (50.0%) 5 (50.0%) 3 (30.0%) 7 (70.0%) 
SamplesCox-2 expressionCox-1 expression
NegativePositiveNegativePositive
Primary tumors 84 (29.2%) 204 (70.8%) 165 (57.3%) 123 (42.7%) 
Lymph node metastases 2 (8.0%) 23 (92.0%) 4 (16.0%) 21 (84.0%) 
Hepatic metastases 0 (0%) 16 (100.0%) 10 (62.5%) 6 (37.5%) 
Normal mucosa 9 (90.0%) 1 (10.0%) 2 (20.0%) 8 (80.0%) 
Normal lymph node 7 (70.0%) 3 (30.0%) 1 (10.0%) 9 (90.0%) 
Normal hepatic parenchyma 5 (50.0%) 5 (50.0%) 3 (30.0%) 7 (70.0%) 
Table 4

Correlation of clinicopathologic parameters with Cox-2 and Cox-1 expressions

Clinicopathologic parametersNumber of casesCox-2 expressionPCox-1 expressionP
NegativePositiveNegativePositive
All cases 288 84 204  165 123  
Age (y) 288 Rho = 0.066  0.2605* Rho = 0.006  0.9198* 
Gender        
 Male 183 51 132  110 73  
 Female 105 33 72 0.5224 55 50 0.2019 
Tumor site        
 Colon 174 49 125  93 81  
 Rectum 114 35 79 0.6427 72 42 0.1033 
Tumor size 288 Rho = 0.411  <0.0001* Rho = 0.208  0.0004* 
Histology        
 Well 163 45 118  86 77  
 Moderate 112 35 77  70 42  
 Poor 13 0.8012 0.1858 
Depth of invasion        
 pT1 39 17 22  23 16  
 pT2 48 21 27  28 20  
 pT3 174 45 129  98 76  
 pT4 27 26 0.0004 16 11 0.9814 
Lymph node metastasis        
 Yes 103 22 81  60 43  
 No 185 62 123 0.0296 105 80 0.8057 
Lymphatic invasion        
 Yes 197 49 148  114 83  
 No 91 35 56 0.0183 51 40 0.7711 
Venous invasion        
 Yes 211 53 158  117 94  
 No 77 31 46 0.0123 48 29 0.2957 
TNM stage        
 I 78 35 43  46 32  
 II 97 20 77  54 43  
 III 96 22 74  52 44  
 IV 17 10 0.0013 13 0.3715 
Recurrence        
 Yes 59 50  39 20  
 No 229 75 154 0.0084 126 103 0.1250 
Clinicopathologic parametersNumber of casesCox-2 expressionPCox-1 expressionP
NegativePositiveNegativePositive
All cases 288 84 204  165 123  
Age (y) 288 Rho = 0.066  0.2605* Rho = 0.006  0.9198* 
Gender        
 Male 183 51 132  110 73  
 Female 105 33 72 0.5224 55 50 0.2019 
Tumor site        
 Colon 174 49 125  93 81  
 Rectum 114 35 79 0.6427 72 42 0.1033 
Tumor size 288 Rho = 0.411  <0.0001* Rho = 0.208  0.0004* 
Histology        
 Well 163 45 118  86 77  
 Moderate 112 35 77  70 42  
 Poor 13 0.8012 0.1858 
Depth of invasion        
 pT1 39 17 22  23 16  
 pT2 48 21 27  28 20  
 pT3 174 45 129  98 76  
 pT4 27 26 0.0004 16 11 0.9814 
Lymph node metastasis        
 Yes 103 22 81  60 43  
 No 185 62 123 0.0296 105 80 0.8057 
Lymphatic invasion        
 Yes 197 49 148  114 83  
 No 91 35 56 0.0183 51 40 0.7711 
Venous invasion        
 Yes 211 53 158  117 94  
 No 77 31 46 0.0123 48 29 0.2957 
TNM stage        
 I 78 35 43  46 32  
 II 97 20 77  54 43  
 III 96 22 74  52 44  
 IV 17 10 0.0013 13 0.3715 
Recurrence        
 Yes 59 50  39 20  
 No 229 75 154 0.0084 126 103 0.1250 
*

Spearman rank test P value.

Table 5

Multivariate survival analysis: Cox proportional hazards model

ParametersβSEPRelative risk ratio95% Confidence interval
Age (<61 versus ≥61 y) 0.304 0.285 0.2870 1.355 0.775–2.370 
Gender (female versus male) 0.080 0.308 0.7963 1.083 0.592–1.982 
Tumor site (colon versus rectum) 0.249 0.277 0.3683 1.283 0.745–2.210 
Tumor size (<4.0 versus ≥4.0 cm) 0.665 0.446 0.1358 1.945 0.811–4.662 
Histology (well versus moderate, poor) −0.093 0.274 0.7346 0.911 0.532–1.560 
Depth of invasion (pT1,2versus pT3,40.869 0.634 0.1706 2.385 0.688–8.268 
Venous invasion (no versus yes) 0.694 0.561 0.2160 2.002 0.666–6.016 
Lymphatic invasion (no versus yes) 0.689 0.566 0.2240 1.991 0.656–6.045 
Lymph node metastasis (no versus yes) 0.788 0.336 0.0189 2.199 1.139–4.247 
TNM stage (I, II versus III, IV) 1.180 0.372 0.0015 3.255 1.570–6.750 
Cox-1 status (negative versus positive) 0.458 0.297 0.1234 1.581 0.883–2.830 
Cox-2 status (negative versus positive) 1.414 0.551 0.0103 4.114 1.397–12.120 
ParametersβSEPRelative risk ratio95% Confidence interval
Age (<61 versus ≥61 y) 0.304 0.285 0.2870 1.355 0.775–2.370 
Gender (female versus male) 0.080 0.308 0.7963 1.083 0.592–1.982 
Tumor site (colon versus rectum) 0.249 0.277 0.3683 1.283 0.745–2.210 
Tumor size (<4.0 versus ≥4.0 cm) 0.665 0.446 0.1358 1.945 0.811–4.662 
Histology (well versus moderate, poor) −0.093 0.274 0.7346 0.911 0.532–1.560 
Depth of invasion (pT1,2versus pT3,40.869 0.634 0.1706 2.385 0.688–8.268 
Venous invasion (no versus yes) 0.694 0.561 0.2160 2.002 0.666–6.016 
Lymphatic invasion (no versus yes) 0.689 0.566 0.2240 1.991 0.656–6.045 
Lymph node metastasis (no versus yes) 0.788 0.336 0.0189 2.199 1.139–4.247 
TNM stage (I, II versus III, IV) 1.180 0.372 0.0015 3.255 1.570–6.750 
Cox-1 status (negative versus positive) 0.458 0.297 0.1234 1.581 0.883–2.830 
Cox-2 status (negative versus positive) 1.414 0.551 0.0103 4.114 1.397–12.120 
1
Ricchi P, Zarrilli R, di Palma A, Acquaviva AM. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in colorectal cancer: from prevention to therapy.
Br J Cancer
2003
;
88
:
803
-7.
2
Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, et al Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery.
J Natl Cancer Inst (Bethesda)
2001
;
93
:
583
-96.
3
Kotake K, Honjo S, Sugihara K, et al Changes in colorectal cancer during a 20-year period: an extended report from the multi-institutional registry of large bowel cancer, Japan.
Dis Colon Rectum
2003
;
46(Suppl)
:
S32
-43.
4
Ratto C, Sofo L, Ippoliti M, Merico M, Doglietto GB, Crucitti F. Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer: literature review for clinical application.
Dis Colon Rectum
1998
;
41
:
1033
-49.
5
Kargman SL, O’Neill GP, Vickers PJ, Evans JF, Mancini JA, Jothy S. Expression of prostaglandin G/H synthase-1 and -2 protein in human colon cancer.
Cancer Res
1995
;
55
:
2556
-9.
6
Sano H, Kawahito Y, Wilder RL, et al Expression of cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 in human colorectal cancer.
Cancer Res
1995
;
55
:
3785
-9.
7
Tsujii M, DuBois RN. Alterations in cellular adhesion and apoptosis in epithelial cells overexpressing prostaglandin endoperoxidase synthase 2.
Cell
1995
;
83
:
493
-501.
8
Oshima M, Dinchuk JE, Kargman SL, et al Suppression of intestinal polyposis in APCΔ716 knockout mice by inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2).
Cell
1996
;
87
:
803
-9.
9
Tsujii M, Kawano S, DuBois RN. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression in human colon cancer cells increases metastatic potential.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
1997
;
94
:
3336
-40.
10
Williams CS, Smalley W, DuBois RN. Aspirin use and potential mechanisms for colorectal cancer prevention.
J Clin Investig
1997
;
100
:
1325
-9.
11
Eberhart CE, Coffey RJ, Radhika A, Giardiello FM, Ferrenbach S, DuBois RN. Up-regulation of cyclooxygenase-2 gene expression in human colorectal adenomas and adenocarcinomas.
Gastroenterology
1994
;
107
:
1183
-8.
12
Sheehan KM, Sheahan K, O’Donoghue DP, et al The relationship between cyclooxygenase-2 expression and colorectal cancer.
J Am Med Assoc
1999
;
282
:
1254
-7.
13
Chapple KS, Cartwright EJ, Hawcroft G, et al Localization of cyclooxygenase-2 in human sporadic colorectal adenomas.
Am J Pathol
2000
;
156
:
545
-53.
14
Masunaga R, Kohno H, Dhar KD, et al Cyclooxygenase-2 expression correlates with tumor neovascularization and prognosis in human colorectal carcinoma patients.
Clin Cancer Res
2000
;
6
:
4064
-8.
15
Cianchi F, Cortesini C, Bechi P, et al Up-regulation of cyclooxygenase-2 gene expression correlates with tumor angiogenesis in human colorectal cancer.
Gastroenterology
2001
;
121
:
1339
-47.
16
Kojima M, Morisaki T, Uchiyama A, et al Association of enhanced cyclooxygenase-2 expression with possible local immunosuppression in human colorectal carcinomas.
Ann Surg Oncol
2001
;
8
:
458
-65.
17
Yamauchi T, Watanabe M, Kubota T, et al Cyclooxygenase-2 expression as a new marker for patients with colorectal cancer.
Dis Colon Rectum
2002
;
45
:
98
-103.
18
Zhang H, Sun XF. Overexpression of cyclooxygenase-2 correlates with advanced stages of colorectal cancer.
Am J Gastroenterol
2002
;
97
:
1037
-41.
19
Tsujii M, Kawano S, Tsuji S, Sawaoka H, Hori M, DuBois RN. Cyclooxygenase regulates angiogenesis induced by colon cancer cells.
Cell
1998
;
93
:
705
-16.
20
Seno H, Oshima M, Ishikawa T, et al Cyclooxygenase-2 and prostaglandin E2 receptor EP2-dependent angiogenesis in APCΔ716 Mouse intestinal polyps.
Cancer Res
2002
;
62
:
506
-11.
21
Kawamori T, Rao CV, Seibert K, Reddy BS. Chemopreventive activity of Celecoxib, a specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, against colon carcinogenesis.
Cancer Res
1998
;
58
:
409
-12.
22
Higuchi T, Iwama T, Yoshinaga K, Toyooka M, Taketo MM, Sugihara K. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the effects of Rofecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, on rectal polyps in familial adenomatous polyposis patients.
Clin Cancer Res
2003
;
9
:
4756
-60.
23
Petersen S, Haroske G, Hellmich G, Ludwig K, Petersen C, Eicheler W. Cox-2 expression in rectal carcinoma: immunohistochemical pattern and clinical outcome.
Anticancer Res
2002
;
22
:
1225
-30.
24
Hermanek P, Sobin LH. .
UICC/TNM classification of malignant tumors
4th ed. 
1987
p. 47
-9. Springer-Verlag New York
25
Fujita T, Matsui M, Takaku K, et al Size-and invasion-dependent increase in cyclooxygenase-2 levels in human colorectal carcinomas.
Cancer Res
1998
;
58
:
4823
-6.
26
Ohno R, Yoshinaga K, Fujita T, et al Depth of invasion parallels increased cyclooxygenase-2 levels in patients with gastric carcinoma.
Cancer (Phila.)
2001
;
15
:
1876
-81.
27
Tomozawa S, Tsuno NH, Sunami E, et al Cyclooxygenase-2 over-expression correlates with tumour recurrence, especially haematogenous metastasis, of colorectal cancer.
Br J Cancer
2000
;
83
:
324
-8.
28
Buecher B, Heymann MF, Lievre A, et al Cyclooxygenase-2 over-expression in sporadic colorectal carcinoma without lymph node involvement.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2003
;
18
:
731
-40.
29
Shi H, Xu JM, Hu NZ, Xie HJ. Prognostic significance of expression of cyclooxygenase-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor in human gastric carcinoma.
World J Gastroenterol
2003
;
9
:
1421
-6.
30
Buskens CJ, Van Rees BP, Sivula A, et al Prognostic significance of elevated cyclooxygenase-2 expression in patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.
Gastroenterology
2002
;
122
:
1800
-7.
31
Denkert C, Winzer KJ, Muller BM, et al Elevated expression of cyclooxygenase-2 is a negative prognostic factor for disease free survival and overall survival in patients with breast carcinoma.
Cancer (Phila.)
2003
;
97
:
2978
-87.
32
Achiwa H, Yatabe Y, Hida T, et al Prognostic significance of elevated cyclooxygenase-2 expression in primary, resected lung adenocarcinomas.
Clin Cancer Res
1999
;
5
:
1001
-5.
33
Khuri FR, Wu H, Lee JJ, et al Cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression is a marker of poor prognosis in stage I non-small cell lung cancer.
Clin Cancer Res
2001
;
7
:
861
-7.
34
Erkinheimo TL, Lassus H, Finne P, et al Elevated cyclooxygenase-2 is associated with altered expression of p53 and SMAD4, amplification of HER-2/neu, and poor outcome in serous ovarian carcinoma.
Clin Cancer Res
2004
;
10
:
538
-45.
35
Wu AW, Gu J, Ji JF, Li ZF, Xu GW. Role of Cox-2 in carcinogenesis of colorectal cancer and its relationship with tumor biological characteristics and patients’ prognosis.
World J Gastroenterol
2003
;
9
:
1990
-4.
36
Joo YE, Kim HS, Min SW, et al Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 protein in colorectal carcinomas.
Int J Gastrointest Cancer
2002
;
31
:
147
-54.
37
Hull MA, Fenwick SW, Chapple KS, Scott N, Toogood GJ, Lodge P. Cyclooxygenase-2 expression in colorectal liver metastases.
Clin Exp Metastasis
2000
;
18
:
21
-7.
38
van Rees BP, Saukkonen K, Ristimaki A, et al Cyclooxygenase-2 expression during carcinogenesis in the human stomach.
J Pathol
2002
;
196
:
171
-9.
39
Cao Y, Prescott SM. Many actions of Cyclooxygenase-2 in cellular dynamics and in cancer.
J Cell Physiol
2002
;
190
:
279
-86.
40
Miyata Y, Koga S, Kanda S, Nishikido M, Hayashi T, Kanetake H. Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 in renal cell carcinoma: correlation with tumor cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis, expression of matrix metalloproteinase-2, and survival.
Clin Cancer Res
2003
;
9
:
1741
-9.
41
Gupta RA, Tejada LV, Tong BJ, et al Cyclooxygenase-1 is overexpressed and promotes angiogenic growth factor production in ovarian cancer.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
906
-11.
42
Hase T, Yoshimura R, Matsuyama M, et al Cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 in human testicular tumors.
Eur J Cancer
2003
;
39
:
2043
-9.
43
Chulada PC, Thompson MB, Mahler JF, et al Genetic disruption of Ptgs-1, as well as of Ptgs-2, reduces intestinal tumorigenesis in Min Mice.
Cancer Res
2000
;
60
:
4705
-8.
44
Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Heath CW, Jr. Aspirin use and reduced risk of fatal colon cancer.
N Engl J Med
1991
;
325
:
1593
-6.
45
Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Zauber AG, Warshauer ME, Stolley PD, Shapiro S. A hypothesis: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce the incidence of large-bowel cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst (Bethesda)
1991
;
83
:
355
-8.
46
Sandler RS, Halabi S, Baron JA, et al A Randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer.
N Engl J Med
2003
;
348
:
883
-90.
47
Takeda H, Sonoshita M, Oshima H, et al Cooperation of cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2 in intestinal polyposis.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
4872
-7.
48
Yao M, Kargman S, Lam EC, et al Inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 by rofecoxib attenuates the growth and metastatic potential of colorectal carcinoma in mice.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
586
-92.
49
Milella M, Gelibter A, Cosimo SD, et al Pilot study of celecoxib and infusional 5-fluorouracil as second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic carcinoma.
Cancer
2004
;
101
:
133
-8.
50
Liao Z, Milas L, Komaki R, Stevens C, Cox JD. Combination of a Cox-2 inhibitor with radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy in the treatment of thoracic cancer.
Am J Oncol
2003
;
26(4 Suppl 2)
:
S85
-91.
51
Fenwick SW, Toogood GJ, Lodge JPA, Hull MA. The effect of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor rofecoxib on human colorectal cancer liver metastases.
Gastroenterology
2003
;
125
:
716
-29.
52
Becerra CR, Frenkel EP, Ashfaq R, Gaynor RB. Increased toxicity and lack of efficacy of Rofecoxib in combination with chemotherapy for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase II study.
Int J Cancer
2003
;
105
:
868
-72.