ABSTRACT
This paper reports a case of pancreatic tail cancer with peritoneal carcinosis that showed a good response to gemcitabine hydrochloride. A 52-year-old man, who had undergone a gastrojejunostomy for pancreatic tail cancer with peritoneal carcinosis, was referred to our hospital for anticancer therapy. Laboratory data on admission disclosed hypoalbuminemia and a high level of serum CA19-9 (156 IU/ml). These findings indicated that the patient was in a cancer cachexic condition. Gemcitabine hydrochloride treatment (1,000 mg/m2/week x 3/4 weeks) was started. Ascites disappeared after 2 courses of treatment, and the tumor was reduced (62% of the reduction rate) after 5 courses of treatment. Furthermore, the serum CA19-9 level and serum albumin value returned to normal, and performance status was improved to grade 1. The patient has been well for 15 months after the diagnosis of pancreatic tail cancer with peritoneal carcinosis. Gemcitabine hydrochloride may have not only reduced the tumor volume and improved cancer cachexic condition, but also prolonged the survival time in this case.
Subject(s)
Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic/therapeutic use , Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives , Deoxycytidine/therapeutic use , Pancreatic Neoplasms/complications , Peritonitis/drug therapy , Ascitic Fluid/drug therapy , Ascitic Fluid/etiology , Disease-Free Survival , Drug Administration Schedule , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Peritonitis/etiology , GemcitabineABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving therapy has been widely utilized as a treatment option for women with early breast cancer. However, no randomized study comparing modified radical mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy has been conducted in Japan. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-eight Japanese women with early breast cancer enrolled in the Gunma Breast Conserving Therapy Study between 1991 and 1994 were examined to determine whether there is any difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between radical mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy. After informed consent was obtained, a total of 119 patients underwent breast-conserving therapy and 109 underwent mastectomy. RESULTS: Mastectomy was a more frequently utilized treatment than breast-conserving therapy in patients with clinical stage II lesions, older age, larger tumor size or shorter distance between tumor and nipple. The mean follow-up period for all patients was 81 months (median 86 months). There was no significant difference in overall survival or disease-free survival between breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy even after adjusting for the clinical stage of the disease. A multivariate analysis of tumor size, lymph node status, estrogen receptor status and operation method using the Cox proportion hazard model confirmed that only lymph node status was an independent prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Breast-conserving therapy is comparable to modified radical mastectomy in overall survival and disease-free survival.
