Adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with gastric neuroendocrine carcinomas or mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved survival in patients with resectable gastric neuroendocrine carcinomas (G-NECs) or mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas (G-MANECs). METHODS: The study included patients with G-NECs or G-MANECs who underwent surgery in one of 21 centres in China between 2004 and 2016. Propensity score matching analysis was used to reduce selection bias, and overall survival (OS) in different treatment groups was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: In total, 804 patients with resectable G-NECs or G-MANECs were included, of whom 490 (60·9 per cent) received adjuvant chemotherapy. After propensity score matching, OS in the chemotherapy group was similar to that in the no-chemotherapy group. Among patients with G-NECs, survival in the fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy group and the non-5-FU-based chemotherapy group was similar to that in the no-chemotherapy group. Similarly, etoposide plus cisplatin or irinotecan plus cisplatin was not associated with better OS in patients with G-NECs. Among patients with G-MANECs, OS in the non-5-FU-based chemotherapy group was worse than that in the no-chemotherapy group. Patients with G-MANECs did not have better OS when platinum-based chemotherapy was used. CONCLUSION: There was no survival benefit in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy for G-NECs or G-MANECs.

ANTECEDENTES: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar si la quimioterapia adyuvante mejoraba la supervivencia en pacientes con carcinomas gástricos resecables neuroendocrinos (gastric neuroendocrine carcinomas, G-NECs) y carcinomas adenoneuroendocrinos mixtos (mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas, G-MANECs). MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron pacientes con G-NECs y G-MANECs tratados quirúrgicamente en 21 centros en China entre 2004 y 2016. Se utilizó un análisis de emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión para reducir el sesgo de selección y el método de Kaplan-Meier para estimar la supervivencia global (overall survival, OS) de los pacientes en los diferentes grupos de tratamiento. RESULTADOS: En total, se incluyeron en el estudio 804 pacientes con G-NECs y G-MANECs resecables y 490 pacientes (60,9%) recibieron quimioterapia adyuvante. Después del emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión, la OS del grupo con quimioterapia fue similar a la del grupo sin quimioterapia. En los pacientes con G-NECs, la supervivencia en los grupos con quimioterapia basada en 5-FU (fluorouracilo) y de quimioterapia sin 5-FU fue similar a la del grupo sin quimioterapia. Asimismo, la combinación de etopósido y cisplatino o de irinotecán y cisplatino no se asoció con una mejor OS en pacientes con G-NECs. En pacientes con G-MANECs, la OS del grupo con quimioterapia sin 5-FU fue peor que la del grupo sin quimioterapia. Los pacientes con G-MANECs no presentaron una mejor OS cuando se administró quimioterapia basada en platinos. CONCLUSIÓN: La administración de quimioterapia adyuvante en pacientes con G-NECs y G-MANECs no mejoró la supervivencia.

[Analysis of the missed diagnosis of invasive carcinoma under the microscope in HSIL diagnosed by colposcopy-guided biopsy and related influencing factors].

Objective: To observe the missed diagnosis of invasive carcinoma under the microscope (ICUM) in high grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (HSIL) , and analyze associated factors influencing missed ICUM. Methods: A retrospective study was performed on patients diagnosed with HSIL by colposcopy-guided biopsy and treated with loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, from December 2014 to December 2016. They were non-pregnant, ≤50 years old and the cervical volume without obvious enlargement and exogenous surface without and ulcerative lesions. A total of 283 cases with early cervical cytology results, never received cervical traumatic treatment or cervical biopsy in another hospital before, and their colposcopic images were clear enough to reevaluate. The ultimate pathological diagnosis was based on the higher-level pathological diagnosis between the results of cervical biopsy and LEEP to evaluate ICUM missed in HSIL and the risk factors. Results: (1) Among the 283 cases with HSIL diagnosed by colposcopy-directed biopsy, 44 cases (15.5%, 44/283) were missed diagnosis of ICUM, which consisted of 29 cases Ⅰ a1, 4 cases Ⅰ a2 and 11 cases Ⅰ b1 in the ultimate pathology. (2) Analysis of associated factors for missed ICUM: univariate analysis showed that, as the age increased, the risk of missed ICUM also increased (the rates of missed diagnosis for <30, 30-39, 40-50 years were 7.7%, 11.5%, 22.0%, respectively; χ(2)=6.254, P=0.012 by trend test) . The more the number of high-grade features, the higher risks (the rates of missed diagnosis for 1, 2, 3, 4 high-grade features were 10.2%, 17.6%, 23.8%, 30.8%, respectively; χ(2)=7.686, P=0.006 by trend test) . The locations of HSIL were only endocervical, only ectocervical and mixed, the risk increased by this sequence (2.8%, 5.1%, 28.7%; χ(2)=26.193, P<0.01 by trend test) . The rate of missed diagnosis for not completely visible squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) was higher than that of the completely visible one (22.3% vs 2.1%; χ(2)=19.680, P<0.01) . The rate of missed diagnosis was higher for existing atypical vessels than those without (60.7% vs 10.6%; χ(2)=48.279, P<0.01) . The rate of missed diagnosis for visible lesion size ≥40 mm(2) was higher than that of <40 mm(2) (27.3% vs 4.2%; χ(2)=28.921, P<0.01) . The rate of missed diagnosis for the proportion of visible lesion size in ectocervical size ≥0.75 was higher than that of <0.75 (83.3% vs 14.1%; P<0.01) . The rate of missed diagnosis for the maximum linear length of visible lesion ≥10 mm was higher than that of <10 mm (46.9% vs 9.0%; χ(2)=44.473, P<0.01) . But the different severity of cervical cytology before colposcopy was not associated with missed ICUM (P>0.05) . Multivariable analysis found that visibility of SCJ, atypical vessels, visible lesion size and maximum linear length of visible lesion were associated with missed diagnosis of ICUM (all P<0.05) . Conclusions: The diagnostic value of HSIL by colposcopy is limited. Meanwhile, for the patients who are ≤50 years old with HSIL diagnosed by cervical biopsy, invisibility of SCJ, atypical vessels, visible lesion size and maximum linear length of visible lesion evaluated by colposcopy are the independent risk factors of missed ICUM. Thereby, it is necessary to take active intervention for HSIL with these risk factors.