Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Scand J Surg ; 105(2): 97-103, 2016 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26250355

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Monitoring treatment response to preoperative chemotherapy is of utmost importance to avoid treatment toxicity, especially in non-responding patients. Currently, no reliable methods exist for tumor response assessment after preoperative chemotherapy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate dysphagia as a predictor of tumor response after preoperative chemotherapy and as a predictor of recurrence and survival. METHODS: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction, treated between 2010 and 2012, were retrospectively reviewed. Dysphagia scores (Mellow-Pinkas) were obtained before and after three cycles of perioperative chemotherapy together with clinicopathological patient characteristics. A clinical response was defined as improvement of dysphagia by at least 1 score from the baseline. The tumor response was defined as down staging of T-stage from initial computer tomography (CT) scan (cT-stage) to pathologic staging of surgical specimen (pT-stage). Patients were followed until death or censored on June 27th, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 110 included patients, 59.1% had improvement of dysphagia after three cycles of perioperative chemotherapy, and 31.8% had a chemotherapy-induced tumor response after radical resection of tumor. Improvement of dysphagia was not correlated with the tumor response in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.23). Moreover, the presence of dysphagia was not correlated with recurrence (p = 0.92) or survival (p = 0.94) in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: In our study, improvement of dysphagia was not valid for tumor response evaluation after preoperative chemotherapy and was not correlated with the tumor response. The presence of dysphagia does not seem to be a predictor of recurrence or survival.


Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/tratamento farmacológico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Transtornos de Deglutição/etiologia , Neoplasias Esofágicas/tratamento farmacológico , Esofagectomia , Junção Esofagogástrica , Adenocarcinoma/complicações , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidade , Adenocarcinoma/cirurgia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Quimioterapia Adjuvante , Transtornos de Deglutição/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Esofágicas/complicações , Neoplasias Esofágicas/mortalidade , Neoplasias Esofágicas/cirurgia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Excisão de Linfonodo , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Terapia Neoadjuvante , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Análise de Sobrevida , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Scand J Surg ; 105(2): 104-8, 2016 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26261200

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The implementation of the multidisciplinary team conference has been shown to improve treatment outcome for patients with gastric- and gastroesophageal cancer. Likewise, the staging laparoscopy has increased the detection of patients with disseminated disease, that is, patients who do not benefit from a surgical resection. The aim of this study was to compare the multidisciplinary team conference's decision in respect of M-staging with the findings of the following staging laparoscopy. METHODS: Patients considered operable and resectable within the multidisciplinary team conference in the period 2010-2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient data were retrieved by searching for specific diagnosis and operation codes in the in-house system. The inclusion criteria were as follows: biopsy-verified cancer of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction or stomach, and no suspicion of peritoneal carcinomatosis or liver metastases on multidisciplinary team conference before staging laparoscopy. Furthermore, an evaluation with staging laparoscopy was required. RESULTS: In total, 222 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most cancers were located in the gastroesophageal junction, n = 171 (77.0%), and most common with adenocarcinoma histology, n = 196 (88.3%). The staging laparoscopy was M1-positive for peritoneal carcinomatosis in eight patients (16.7%) with gastric cancer versus nine patients (5.3%) with gastroesophageal junction cancer. Furthermore, liver metastases were evident in zero patients (0.0%) and four patients (2.3%) with gastric- and gastroesophageal junction cancer, respectively. The staging laparoscopy findings regarding peritoneal carcinomatosis were significantly different between gastric- and gastroesophageal junction cancers, p = 0.01. No significant differences were found regarding T-/N-stage or histological tumor characteristics between the positive- and negative-staging laparoscopy group. CONCLUSION: The M-staging of the multidisciplinary team conference without staging laparoscopy lacks accuracy concerning peritoneal carcinomatosis. Staging laparoscopy remains an essential part of the preoperative detection of disseminated disease in patients with gastric- and gastroesophageal cancer.


Assuntos
Carcinoma/patologia , Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patologia , Laparoscopia , Tumores Neuroendócrinos/patologia , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente , Neoplasias Gástricas/patologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Carcinoma/cirurgia , Neoplasias Esofágicas/cirurgia , Junção Esofagogástrica/patologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Tumores Neuroendócrinos/cirurgia , Neoplasias Peritoneais/patologia , Neoplasias Peritoneais/secundário , Estudos Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirurgia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...