Title |
Prophylactic effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer patients with postoperative complications
|
---|---|
Published in |
Gastric Cancer, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s10120-017-0781-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kojiro Eto, Naoki Hiki, Koshi Kumagai, Yoshiaki Shoji, Yasuo Tsuda, Yosuke Kano, Itaru Yasufuku, Yasuhiro Okumura, Masahiro Tsujiura, Satoshi Ida, Souya Nunobe, Manabu Ohashi, Takeshi Sano, Toshiharu Yamaguchi |
Abstract |
The occurrence of postoperative complications may have a significant negative impact on the prognosis of patients with gastrointestinal cancers. The inflammatory response releases systemic cytokines, which may induce residual cancer cell growth. Recently, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) was found to improve the prognosis of advanced gastric cancer (GC). We hypothesize that when postoperative complications occur after gastrectomy, NAC treatment of micrometastases can prevent residual cancer cell growth. This study included 101 patients who underwent curative resection after NAC for GC from 2005 to 2015. Clinical data, including intraoperative parameters, were collected retrospectively. Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were compared between the patients with complications and those without complications. Of the 101 patients, 35 (34.7%) had grade 2 or higher complications. Among those with complications, the 3- and 5-year OS rates were 63.5 and 58.2% and the 3- and 5-year RFS rates 41.7 and 41.7%, respectively. Among those without complications, the 3- and 5-year OS rates were 65.9 and 56.3% and the 3- and 5-year RFS rates 51.1 and 43.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference in prognosis between the patients with complications and those without complications. Our study is the first to demonstrate the potential of NAC to abolish the poor prognosis induced by postoperative complications after curative resection for GC. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 4 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
Researcher | 2 | 8% |
Other | 5 | 21% |
Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 38% |
Design | 2 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 9 | 38% |