Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021
Survival advantage of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for advanced gastric cancer: experience from a Western tertiary referral center.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rosa Fausto, Galiandro Federica, Ricci Riccardo, Di Miceli Dario, Longo Fabio, Quero Giuseppe, Tortorelli Antonio Pio, Alfieri Sergio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Selection criteria and prognostic factors for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intra-operative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have not been well defined, and the literature data are not homogeneous. The aim of this study was to compare prognostic factors influencing overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in a population of patients affected by AGC with surgery alone and surgery plus HIPEC, both with curative (PCI, peritoneal carcinomatosis index > 1) and prophylactic (PCI = 0) intent.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted in patients affected by AGC from January 2006 to December 2015. Uni- and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with AGC were analyzed. A 5-year OS for surgery alone, CRS plus curative HIPEC, and surgery plus prophylactic HIPEC groups was 9%, 27% and 33%, respectively. Statistical significance was reached comparing both prophylactic HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.05), curative HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.03), and curative vs prophylactic HIPEC (p = 0.04). A 5-year DFS for surgery alone, CRS + curative HIPEC, and surgery + prophylactic HIPEC groups was 9%, 20%, and 30%, respectively. Statistical significance was reached comparing both prophylactic HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p < 0.0001), curative HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.008), and curative vs prophylactic HIPEC (p = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AGC undergoing surgery plus HIPEC had a better OS and DFS with respect to patients treated with surgery alone.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted in patients affected by AGC from January 2006 to December 2015. Uni- and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with AGC were analyzed. A 5-year OS for surgery alone, CRS plus curative HIPEC, and surgery plus prophylactic HIPEC groups was 9%, 27% and 33%, respectively. Statistical significance was reached comparing both prophylactic HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.05), curative HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.03), and curative vs prophylactic HIPEC (p = 0.04). A 5-year DFS for surgery alone, CRS + curative HIPEC, and surgery + prophylactic HIPEC groups was 9%, 20%, and 30%, respectively. Statistical significance was reached comparing both prophylactic HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p < 0.0001), curative HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.008), and curative vs prophylactic HIPEC (p = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AGC undergoing surgery plus HIPEC had a better OS and DFS with respect to patients treated with surgery alone.