scholarly journals Selective Gastric Cancer Patients with Peritoneal Seeding Benefit from Gastrectomy after Palliative Chemotherapy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 2231-2237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shu-Qiang Yuan ◽  
Run-Cong Nie ◽  
Shi Chen ◽  
Xiao-Jiang Chen ◽  
Yong-Ming Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Peritoneal Seeding ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients

Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 on survival in patients with type 4 and large type 3 gastric cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 98-98
Author(s):  
Hayato Omori ◽  
Sanae Kaji ◽  
Rie Makuuchi ◽  
Tomoyuki Irino ◽  
Yutaka Tanizawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Large Type ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
The Impact

98 Background: The prognosis of patients with linitis plastica (type 4) and large ulcero-invasive-type (type 3) gastric cancer is reported to be extremely poor. In stage II/III gastric cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 is a standard treatment in Japan. However, the efficacy of postoperative chemotherapy with S-1 in these types of patients with dismal prognosis is unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 on survival in type 4 and large type 3 gastric cancer patients. Methods: A total of 152 patients with clinically resectable type 4 and large type 3 gastric cancer who underwent R0 or R1 surgery from 2002 to 2014 were included. The survival outcome between patents with surgery alone and patients who received adjuvant S-1 was compared using a 1:1 propensity score matching method. Results: Patients with adjuvant S-1 were significantly younger (67 vs 74 y, p = 0.009), had higher incidence of T4 (90 vs 62%, p < 0.001), N2-3 (84 vs 63%, p = 0.008), and cytology positive (52 vs 29%, p = 0.006) than in surgery alone patients. Before matching, median survival time (MST) was not different in surgery alone (n = 52) and adjuvant S-1 (n = 100) (31.3 vs 35.8 months, p = 0.41). Propensity score matching yielded 48 patients (24 patients in each group). After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. Survival in patients with adjuvant S-1 was significantly better than in surgery alone patients (MST: 50.3 vs 15.4 months, p = 0.002). Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed adjuvant S-1 treatment was selected as independent prognostic factor (HR: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.18-0.76, p = 0.006), as well as lavage cytology (HR: 3.9, 95%CI: 1.8-8.9, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 may have a strong impact on survival in type 4 and large type 3 gastric cancer patients. The efficacy of this treatment will be further demonstrated in the future clinical trials.

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.

scholarly journals Appraisal of Long-time Outcomes After Curative Surgery in Elderly Patients with Gastric Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomoyuki Matunaga ◽  
Ryo Ishiguro ◽  
Wataru Miyauchi ◽  
Yuji Shishido ◽  
Kozo Miyatani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Disease Specific Survival ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients ◽  
Disease Specific

Abstract Background: This study was conducted to assess the long-term outcomes of elderly patients among propensity-score-matched gastric cancer patients after curative gastrectomy and to propose the proper management of elderly gastric cancer patients.Methods: We enrolled 626 patients with gastric cancer who underwent curative gastrectomy at our institution between January 2004 and December 2015. To minimize selection bias among 2 groups, propensity score matching was performed.Results: Patients were divided into an elderly group over 75 years old (EP group; n=186) and a non-elderly group (NEP group; n=440). After propensity score matching, patients were divided into EP group (n=186) and NEP group (n=186). Five-year overall survival was significantly lower in the EP group than in the NEP group, consistent with a subgroup analysis of each stage. However, the 5-year disease-specific survival among all enrolled patients and those with stage I and II disease did not differ significantly. Moreover, in the subgroup of stage III patients, 5-year disease-specific survival was significantly lower in the EP group (23.0%) than in the NEP group (59.4%; P=0.004). Because elderly patients with stage III disease had an extremely poor prognosis, we decided to compare the two groups with stage III. The EP group contained significantly fewer patients with D2 lymphadectomy (P=0.002) and adjuvant chemotherapy (P<0.001) than the NEP group. Multivariate analysis revealed that older age and lymphatic invasion were independent prognostic factors. C-reactive protein to albumin ratio was significantly higher in patients in the EP group than in the NEP group (P=0.046), and the prognostic nutritional index was significantly lower in EP group patients than NEP group patients (P=0.045). Conclusions: Elderly gastric cancer patients with stage III disease showed poorer disease-specific survival compared with non-elderly patients, which may be due to fewer D2 lymphadenectomies, a lack of adjuvant chemotherapy, and a poorer nutritional and inflammatory background. The safe induction of standard lymphadenectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy with perioperative aggressive nutritional support may improve the prognosis of elderly gastric cancer patients with stage III disease.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document