4.6 Article

Surgical treatment of liver metastases from non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine carcinomas

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-021-03631-5

关键词

Non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastases; Surgery; Survival

类别

资金

  1. Thuringische Gesellschaft fur Chirurgie

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study retrospectively analyzed data from 637 patients between 1995 and 2018, finding that different factors affect the survival rates of patients with different tumor entities, and the Adam score can identify risk factors for most but not all tumor entities.
Introduction In the literature, results after surgical treatment of non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastases (NCNNLM) are reported that are often inferior to those from colorectal liver metastases. The selection of patients with favorable tumor biology is currently still a matter of discussion. Materials/methods The retrospective data analysis was based on data that were collected for the multicenter study Role of surgical treatment for non-colorectal liver metastases in county Thuringia. Results For the study, 637 patients were included from 1995 to 2018. 5 and 10-year survival of R0 resected patients were 33% and 19%, respectively. In the multi-variate analysis of the entire group, sex, timing, disease-free interval, number of metastases, R-classification as well as lymph node status of the primary lesion showed an independent statistical influence on the 5-year survival. In the group of R0 resected patients, disease-free interval, number of metastases and lymph node status of the primary lesion influenced the 5-year survival in the multi-variate analysis. In kidney malignancies, R-classification, timing and number of liver metastases were statistically significant in the multi-variate analysis of the 5-year survival, in mamma carcinomas only the R-classification. Conclusion The Adam score identifies some risk factors which influence prognosis in most but not in all tumor entities. For kidney cancer and breast cancer it can be simplified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据