scholarly journals Is there a difference in utilization of a perioperative treatment approach for gastric cancer between safety net hospitals and tertiary referral centers?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael K. Turgeon ◽  
Rachel M. Lee ◽  
Jessica M. Keilson ◽  
Michelle R. Ju ◽  
Matthew R. Porembka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Treatment Approach ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Tertiary Referral ◽  
Perioperative Treatment

scholarly journals Poor compliance with perioperative treatment in patients with resectable gastric cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. iii17
Author(s):  
Margreet van Putten ◽  
Valery Lemmens ◽  
Hanneke van Laarhoven ◽  
Hans Pruijt ◽  
Grard Nieuwenhuijzen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Poor Compliance ◽  
Perioperative Treatment ◽  
Resectable Gastric Cancer

scholarly journals Perioperative treatment of gastric cancer- short review

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 103-107
Author(s):  
Josipa Flam ◽  
Luka Perić ◽  
Mirela Šambić-Penc ◽  
Maja Kovač-Barić ◽  
Darko Kotromanović ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Short Review ◽  
Perioperative Treatment

scholarly journals Trastuzumab with FLOT Regimen for the Perioperative Treatment of Resectable HER2 + Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 12 ◽  
pp. 2481-2489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gangling Tong ◽  
Shuluan Li ◽  
Lin Lin ◽  
Lirui He ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Perioperative Treatment

Trends in multimodality therapy for gastric cancer post-MAGIC.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 148-148
Author(s):  
Yvonne Sada ◽  
Brandon George Smaglo ◽  
Hop Sanderson Tran Cao ◽  
Mehmet Akce ◽  
Henry Mok ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Postoperative Treatment ◽  
Trend Test ◽  
Treatment Sequence ◽  
Nodal Staging ◽  
Perioperative Treatment ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
National Practice

148 Background: Althoughmultimodality therapy (MMT) is recommended for most patients with resectable gastric cancer, no single approach has been established as standard. As such, little is known about current national practice patterns and MMT treatment sequencing for patients with gastric cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of ≥ T2 and/or node positive gastric cancer patients treated with MMT using the National Cancer Database (2006-2012). Patients were categorized based on type of MMT (chemotherapy, concurrent chemoradiation (cXRT), or both chemotherapy and cXRT) and treatment sequence (preoperative, postoperative, or perioperative). Accuracy of pre-treatment clinical nodal staging was ascertained by comparison to pathologic nodal staging in patients treated with upfront surgery. Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate the association between overall risk of death and MMT type and sequence. Results: Among 4,857 patients, 14.1% were treated perioperatively, 48.0% preoperatively, and 37.9% postoperatively. Rates of chemotherapy, cXRT, and both chemotherapy and cXRT were 32.1%, 53.4%, and 14.5%. Among patients treated with upfront surgery, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of clinical nodal staging were 70.7%, 88.8%, 92.1%, and 62.2%, respectively. Over the study period, use of cXRT decreased (61.8% 2006 vs 52.0% 2012; trend test, p < 0.001) while use of chemotherapy increased (23.6% vs 35.7%; trend test, p < 0.001) and use of both chemotherapy and cXRT did not change. There was an increase in the use of perioperative treatment (8.1% vs 17.4%; trend test, p < 0.001) while postoperative treatment decreased (44.4% vs 31.1%; trend test, p < 0.001). After multivariable modeling, neither type of MMT nor treatment sequence was associated with risk of death. Conclusions: Although current national practice patterns favor pre- and perioperative treatment, one third of patients were treated with upfront surgery. Survival was not associated with MMT type or sequence. However, given the high false negative rate of clinical nodal staging and high non-completion rate of postoperative treatment (50% in MAGIC trial), efforts to improve gastric cancer outcomes should focus on increasing use of preoperative therapy.

Epstein-Barr virus associated gastric carcinoma at the United States-Mexico border: A single institution study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 440-440
Author(s):  
Sumit Gaur ◽  
Ramadevi Subramani ◽  
Meghan Mcalice ◽  
Osvaldo Padilla ◽  
Brenda Sofia Castillo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
In Situ Hybridization ◽  
Epstein Barr Virus ◽  
El Paso ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Routine Testing ◽  
Barr Virus ◽  
Epstein Barr ◽  
H Pylori

440 Background: Globally, gastric cancer (GC) is the fourth most prevalent cancer, and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths. Epstein-Barr virus is implicated in the pathogenesis of 5-10% of gastric cancers. Based upon the results obtained from of the cancer genome atlas, EBV related GC is characterized by promoter hypermethylation, PIK3CA mutations (80%) and increased expression of PD-1 and PD-L1, making it an attractive target for molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapeutic options. As such, a case can be made for routine testing for EBV in all GC patients. University medical center, El Paso is a tax payer funded safety net health system in El Paso country, TX. We conducted a pilot study to characterize the prevalence of EBV associated gastric cancer seen at this facility. Methods: After obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval, we identified cases of GC that were diagnosed between January 1, 2008- and December 31-2017. A total of 104 cases were identified of which 17 samples were randomly selected. Pathology specimens were reviewed to identify grade, subtype (intestinal vs diffuse), degree of lymphocytic infiltration and presence/absence of H. pylori. Representative sections from archived tumors were used to perform in-situ hybridization to look for the presence of Epstein-Barr virus. Samples were analyzed using the Rembrandt In situ Hybridization and Detection Universal RISH& HRP Detection Kit for Epstein-Barr early RNA. Results: The median age of the 17 patients is 63 years with 59% being males. 95% self identified as Hispanic. 41% were smokers, 18% used alcohol. The mean BMI was 27.3. Forty one percent of gastric cancer cases were found in the body, 29% in the antrum, 12% in the cardia, and 6% in the fundus. Forty one percent of cases were Stage IV, 24% stage II, 17% Stage III and 17% Stage I. 95% of cases were high grade, 53% of them had signet ring features. 18% of samples were H. pylori positive. None of the seventeen samples tested positive for EBV. Conclusions: EBV does not seem to contribute significantly to the pathogenesis of gastric cancer in our local population. As such routine testing for EBV in all gastric cancer patients may not be a cost effective utilization of resources at our hospital.

scholarly journals Impact of perioperative treatment on survival of resectable gastric cancer patients after D2 lymphadenectomy: a single European centre propensity score matching analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-255
Author(s):  
Tomaz Jagric ◽  
Bojan Ilijevec ◽  
Vaneja Velenik ◽  
Janja Ocvirk ◽  
Stojan Potrc
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Perioperative Chemotherapy ◽  
D2 Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Perioperative Treatment ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients

Abstract Background To determine the effects of perioperative treatment of gastric cancer patients, we conducted an analysis with propensity score matched patient groups to determine the role of perioperative chemotherapy in patients after D2 lymphadenectomy. Patients and methods From our database of 1563 patients, 482 patients were selected with propensity score matching and divided into two balanced groups: 241 patients in the surgery only group and 241 patients in the perioperative group. The long-term results of treatment were compared between the two groups. Results Most of the included patients received radio-chemotherapy with capecitabine (n = 111; 46%) and perioperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, oxalliplatin and capecitabine (n = 91; 37.7%). 92.9% of the patients received a D2 lymph node dissection. Perioperative morbidity was similar between surgery only (18.3%) and perioperative treatment groups (20.7%) (p = 0.537). The perioperative mortality was not influenced by perioperative treatment. A pathological response was observed in 12.5% of patients. The overall 5-year and median survivals were significantly higher in the perioperative treatment group (50.5%; 51.7 moths) compared to surgery only group (41.8%; 34.9 months; p = 0.038). The subgroup analysis revealed that only patients with the TNM stages T3 (p = 0.028), N2 (p = 0.009), N3b (p = 0.043), and UICC stages IIIb (p = 0.003) and IIIc (p = 0.03) significantly benefit from perioperative treatment. Conclusions Perioperative treatment in radically resected gastric cancer patients after D2 lymphadenectomy was beneficial in stages IIIb and IIIc. The effects of perioperative treatment in lower stages could be negated by the effects of the radical surgery in lower stages and in higher stages by the biology of the disease.

Outcomes of patients with nonmetastatic gastric adenocarcinoma according to perioperative treatment strategy: a real-world, population-based study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (15) ◽  
pp. 1143-1151
Author(s):  
Omar Abdel-Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Treatment Strategy ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Perioperative Chemotherapy ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Perioperative Treatment

Aim: To assess the survival outcomes of patients with nonmetastatic gastric cancer according to the type of perioperative treatment strategy used (surgery-only, adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, perioperative chemotherapy) in a population-based setting. Materials & methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results research-plus database was explored, and patients with nonmetastatic gastric cancer who were treated with an oncologic surgery were reviewed. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to examine the impact of treatment strategy on overall and cancer-specific survival. Results: A total of 11,526 patients were found to be eligible and they were included in the current analysis. Looking at the percentages of different treatment strategies throughout the study years (2006–2017), the use of the following strategies increased: adjuvant chemotherapy (20.1 vs 10.6%), and perioperative chemotherapy (21.3 vs 0.5%); while the use of the following strategies decreased: surgery only (36.2 vs 58.2%), and adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (22.4 vs 30.6%). Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, the following factors were associated with worse overall survival: older age (hazard [HR]: 1.021; 95% CI: 1.018–1.023), males (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04–1.14), Black race (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04–1.19), cardia subsite (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02–1.17), grade 3–4 (HR:1.32; 95% CI: 1.25–1.40), diffuse histology (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.35–1.58), clinically node positive (HR:1.43; 95% CI: 1.34–1.53), total gastrectomy (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13–1.28), and surgery-only approach (HR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.55–1.75). Conclusion: Among patients with localized gastric cancer, patients who were treated with surgery-only, and to a less extent, patients who were treated with surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy have worse survival outcomes; while those treated with perioperative chemotherapy have the best survival outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document