BMC gastroenterology · 2025
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy strategies for optimizing safety and efficacy in elderly patients with locally advanced gastric cancer.
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.
Kakiuchi Yoshihiko, Kuroda Shinji, Hanzawa Shunya, Kanaya Nobuhiko, Kashima Hajime, Kikuchi Satoru, Shigeyasu Kunitoshi, Kagawa Shunsuke, Fujiwara Toshiyoshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The completion rate of adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer (GC) is suboptimal, particularly in elderly patients. While neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for locally advanced GC has shown promise, data on elderly patients remain limited. Given the considerable physical burden of NAC, optimizing its administration is crucial. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of a modified approach for elderly patients.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 38 patients with cStage II/III GC who received NAC between November 2015 and December 2023. Additionally, 25 patients aged ≥ 75 years with cStage III who underwent upfront surgery during the same period were analyzed.
RESULTS: The NAC group was divided into non-elderly (< 75 years, n = 27) and elderly (≥ 75 years, n = 11) groups. The elderly group had poorer ECOG-PS (p = 0.016). While all non-elderly patients completed ≤ 3 cycles, more elderly patients underwent 4 cycles (p = 0.0047). However, per-cycles of S-1 (p = 0.0003) and oxaliplatin (p = 0.0018) were lower in the elderly group. Importantly, adverse events and treatment efficacy were comparable between groups. Among patients aged ≥ 75 years, the upfront surgery group had poorer ECOG-PS (p = 0.017) and underwent more frequent distal gastrectomy (p = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS: NAC can be safely administered to elderly patients by increasing cycles while reducing per-cycle dosage. It may also serve as a viable alternative to upfront surgery.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 38 patients with cStage II/III GC who received NAC between November 2015 and December 2023. Additionally, 25 patients aged ≥ 75 years with cStage III who underwent upfront surgery during the same period were analyzed.
RESULTS: The NAC group was divided into non-elderly (< 75 years, n = 27) and elderly (≥ 75 years, n = 11) groups. The elderly group had poorer ECOG-PS (p = 0.016). While all non-elderly patients completed ≤ 3 cycles, more elderly patients underwent 4 cycles (p = 0.0047). However, per-cycles of S-1 (p = 0.0003) and oxaliplatin (p = 0.0018) were lower in the elderly group. Importantly, adverse events and treatment efficacy were comparable between groups. Among patients aged ≥ 75 years, the upfront surgery group had poorer ECOG-PS (p = 0.017) and underwent more frequent distal gastrectomy (p = 0.014).
CONCLUSIONS: NAC can be safely administered to elderly patients by increasing cycles while reducing per-cycle dosage. It may also serve as a viable alternative to upfront surgery.