Surgery of gastric cancer and esophageal cancer: Does age matter?

INTRODUCTION: In the past, elderly patients with upper GI cancers were excluded from surgery or multimodal treatment only due to their advanced age. In an aging society this way of patient selection seems to be questionable. The aim of this retrospective exploratory study was to investigate how patients with upper GI cancer over the age of 70 years differ from younger patients in the postoperative course and which parameters influence overall survival in older patient populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2002 to 2012 1,005 patients underwent resection of esophageal or gastric cancer at the University of Heidelberg. 272 patients were older than 70 years and analyzed in subgroups (70-74 years: n = 146; 75-79 years: n = 82; 80 years or older: n = 44). Patients older than 70 years were compared to patients under 70 years (n = 733) with focus on differences in patients characteristics and outcome. Statistical analyses were made retrospectively on a prospective database. RESULTS: Fewer older patients were treated neoadjuvantly (< 70 years: 41.5%; > 70 years: 24.7%, P < 0.001) and extended resection (abdominothoracic approach) was applied less frequently compared to patients under 70 years (< 70 years: 38.9%; > 70 years: 19.9%, P < 0.001). The pNM-category (HR 1.41/2.56) and R-status (HR 1.78) remain the most important predictive factor for survival (all < 0.001). Female patients had a longer survival than men over the age of 70 (84.9 vs. 23.5 months, P < 0.01). Patients over 80 years had a significant shortened overall survival (> 80 years: 16.7 vs. < 70 years: 37.4 months) compared to the other subgroups (P < 0.001) and a significant increased in-hospital mortality (> 80 years: 20.5% vs. < 70 years: 6.0%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: An exclusion from surgical therapy due to advanced age in general seems not to be justified. However, the decision for a surgical resection in patients over 80 years should be made with caution. pNM-categories and R0-resection remain the most important predictive factors for overall survival in all subgroups. No survival benefit for neoadjuvant treatment in patients over 70 years was found, while women survived longer than men. However, the decision concerning a (radio) chemotherapy should be made individually in each patient.

Influence of Different Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens on Response, Prognosis, and Complication Rate in Patients with Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer, but the optimal treatment regimen remains unclear. More intensive chemotherapy may improve outcome, but also increase toxicity and complications. METHODS: A total of 843 patients were included in this retrospective study and stratified in 4 groups: doublet therapy with cisplatin or oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (groups A/B) or triplet therapy with additional epirubicin or taxane (groups C/D). The influence of the different neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens on response, prognosis, and complications was assessed. RESULTS: Clinical and pathological response were associated with longer overall survival (OS; p < 0.001). No significant differences regarding response or OS were found, but there was a trend toward better outcome in group D (taxane-containing triplet). In the subgroup of 669 patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG), patients who had received taxane-containing regimens had a significantly longer OS (p = 0.037), but taxane use was not an independent factor in multivariate analysis. Triple therapy with taxanes did not result in a higher complication rate or postoperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although no superior neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen was identified for patients with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, taxane-containing regimens should be further investigated in randomized trials, especially in patients with AEG tumors.

Exploring the validity and reliability of a questionnaire for evaluating virtual patient design with a special emphasis on fostering clinical reasoning.

BACKGROUND: Virtual patients (VPs) are increasingly used to train clinical reasoning. So far, no validated evaluation instruments for VP design are available. AIMS: We examined the validity of an instrument for assessing the perception of VP design by learners. METHODS: Three sources of validity evidence were examined: (i) Content was examined based on theory of clinical reasoning and an international VP expert team. (ii) The response process was explored in think-aloud pilot studies with medical students and in content analyses of free text questions accompanying each item of the instrument. (iii) Internal structure was assessed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and inter-rater reliability by generalizability analysis. RESULTS: Content analysis was reasonably supported by the theoretical foundation and the VP expert team. The think-aloud studies and analysis of free text comments supported the validity of the instrument. In the EFA, using 2547 student evaluations of a total of 78 VPs, a three-factor model showed a reasonable fit with the data. At least 200 student responses are needed to obtain a reliable evaluation of a VP on all three factors. CONCLUSION: The instrument has the potential to provide valid information about VP design, provided that many responses per VP are available.