scholarly journals Evaluating Long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer using parametric non-mixture cure rate models

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (120) ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Elahe Zaeran ◽  
Mehdi Azizmohammad Looha ◽  
Payam Amini ◽  
Tara Azimi ◽  
Mahmoud Mahmoudi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Cure Rate Models ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

scholarly journals Analyzing the Long-Term Survival of Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Study Using Parametric Non-Mixture Cure Rate Models

2018 ◽  
Vol In Press (In Press) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehdi Azizmohammad Looha ◽  
Elaheh Zarean ◽  
Mohamad Amin Pourhoseingholi ◽  
Seyyed Vahid Hosseini ◽  
Tara Azimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Cure Rate Models ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

scholarly journals The Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Immunotherapy for Gastric Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and Literature Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 107327482199743
Author(s):  
Ke Chen ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Liu Yang ◽  
Zheling Chen
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
And Control

Background: Treatment options for advanced gastric esophageal cancer are quite limited. Chemotherapy is unavoidable at certain stages, and research on targeted therapies has mostly failed. The advent of immunotherapy has brought hope for the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer. The aim of the study was to analyze the safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy and the long-term survival of patients who were diagnosed as gastric esophageal cancer and received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Method: Studies on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy of advanced gastric esophageal cancer published before February 1, 2020 were searched online. The survival (e.g. 6-month overall survival, 12-month overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR)) and adverse effects of immunotherapy were compared to that of control therapy (physician’s choice of therapy). Results: After screening 185 studies, 4 comparative cohort studies which reported the long-term survival of patients receiving immunotherapy were included. Compared to control group, the 12-month survival (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.12, P < 0.0001) and 18-month survival (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.81, P = 0.0001) were significantly longer in immunotherapy group. The 3-month survival rate (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.36 to 3.06, P = 0.92) and 18-month survival rate (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.98 to 2.12, P = 0.07) were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group. The ORR were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.65 to 3.66, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis pointed out that in the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 sub group population, the immunotherapy could obviously benefit the patients in tumor response rates (OR = 3.80, 95% CI: 1.89 to 7.61, P = 0.0002). Conclusion: For the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer, the therapeutic efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy was superior to that of chemotherapy or palliative care.

scholarly journals Genetic Alterations in Patients With Esophageal Cancer With Short- and Long-Term Survival Rates After Curative Esophagectomy

1997 ◽  
Vol 226 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutaka Shimada ◽  
Masayuki Imamura ◽  
Ichio Shibagaki ◽  
Hisashi Tanaka ◽  
Tokiharu Miyahara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Genetic Alterations ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
Curative Esophagectomy

Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi ◽  
Joonas H. Kauppila ◽  
Fredrik Mattsson ◽  
Mats Lindblad ◽  
Magnus Nilsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

623 MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN MCKEOWN FOR PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Zheng ◽  
Wenqun Xing ◽  
Xianben Liu ◽  
Haibo Sun
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Group 14 ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgery Department

Abstract   McKeown Minimally invasive esophagectomy(McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy(McKeown-OE). However, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer(EC) patients. Methods We used a prospective database of the Thoracic Surgery Department at our Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC during January 1, 2015, to January 6, 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival(OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared. Results We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, P &lt; 0.001) in OE group. The 30-day and in hospital mortality were 0 and no difference for 90-day mortality (P = 0.116). The postoperative stay was shorter in MIE group, 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups(P &lt; 0.001). The OS at 32 months was 76.82% and 64.31% in the MIE and OE groups (P = 0.001); hazard ratio(HR) (95% CI): 2.333 (1.384–3.913). Conclusion These results showed the McKeown-MIE group was associated with a better long-term survival, compared with open-MIE for patients with resectable EC.

723 TWO- VS. THREE-FIELD LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OUTCOMES.

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Clara Lucato Santos ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Extended Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Short And Long Term

Abstract   Nowadays, there is still no consensus about the benefits of adding neck lymphadenectomy to the traditional two-fields esophagectomy. An extended lymphadenectomy could potentially increase operation time and the risks for postoperative complications. However, extended lymphadenectomy allows resection of cervical nodes at risk for metastases, potentially increasing long-term survival rates. This study aims to estimate whether cervical prophylactic lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences short- and long-term outcomes through a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central, and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare two-field vs. three-field esophagectomy; (2) adults (&gt;18 years); (3) articles that analyze short- or long-term outcomes; and (4) clinical trials or cohort studies. The results were summarized by forest plots, with effect size (ES) or risk difference (RD) and 95% CI. Results Twenty-five articles were selected, comprising 8,954 patients. Three-field lymphadenectomy was associated to higher operation time (ES: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18) and higher blood loss (ES: -0.24; 95%CI: −0.37, −0.11). Also, neck lymphadenectomy inputs additional risk for pulmonary complications (RD: 0.03; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.05). No difference was noted for morbidity (RD: 0.01; 95%CI: −0.01, 0.03); leak (−0.02; 95%CI: −0.07, 0.03); postoperative mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.01), and hospital stay (ES: -0.05; 95%CI -0.20, 0.10). Three-field lymphadenectomy allowed higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18), but did not increase the overall survival (HR: 1.11; 95%CI: 0.96, 1.26). Conclusion Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution once it is associated with poorer short-term outcomes compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival. Future esophageal cancer studies should determine the subgroup of patients who could benefit from prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy in long-term outcomes.

Extent of Lymphadenectomy and Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi ◽  
Joonas H. Kauppila ◽  
Fredrik Mattsson ◽  
Jakob Hedberg ◽  
Jan Johansson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

scholarly journals Assessing Long-Term Survival Benefits of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Using the Net Survival Benefit

2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (11) ◽  
pp. 1186-1191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Péron ◽  
Alexandre Lambert ◽  
Stephane Munier ◽  
Brice Ozenne ◽  
Joris Giai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Cure Rate ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Delayed Treatment ◽  
Net Survival ◽  
Log Rank Test

Abstract Background The treatment effect in survival analysis is commonly quantified as the hazard ratio, and tested statistically using the standard log-rank test. Modern anticancer immunotherapies are successful in a proportion of patients who remain alive even after a long-term follow-up. This new phenomenon induces a nonproportionality of the underlying hazards of death. Methods The properties of the net survival benefit were illustrated using the dataset from a trial evaluating ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma. The net survival benefit was then investigated through simulated datasets under typical scenarios of proportional hazards, delayed treatment effect, and cure rate. The net survival benefit test was computed according to the value of the minimal survival difference considered clinically relevant. As comparators, the standard and the weighted log-rank tests were also performed. Results In the illustrative dataset, the net survival benefit favored ipilimumab [Δ(0) = 15.8%, 95% confidence interval = 4.6% to 27.3%, P = .006]. This favorable effect was maintained when the analysis was focused on long-term survival differences (eg, >12 months, Δ(12) = 12.5% (95% confidence interval = 4.4% to 20.6%, P = .002). Under the scenarios of a delayed treatment effect and cure rate, the power of the net survival benefit test compared favorably to the standard log-rank test power and was comparable to the power of the weighted log-rank test for large values of the threshold of clinical relevance. Conclusion The net long-term survival benefit is a measure of treatment effect that is meaningful whether or not hazards are proportional. The associated statistical test is more powerful than the standard log-rank test when a delayed treatment effect is anticipated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document