4.5 Article

Predictors and significance of histologic response to neoadjuvant therapy for gastric cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 123, 期 8, 页码 1716-1723

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.26458

关键词

gastric adenocarcinoma; histologic response; neoadjuvant therapy; perioperative therapy; treatment effect grade

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that 46% of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer did not have a histologic response to therapy. Histology of signet ring cell carcinoma and possibly race were associated with treatment effect grade.
Background Perioperative therapy is the standard-of-care for locally-advanced gastric cancer but many patients do not respond. There are currently no known factors that predict response to therapy. Methods This was a retrospective study aimed to evaluate treatment effect grade (TEG) in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgery at a single center. Ordinal logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of TEG, scaled from 0 to 3. Results Fifty patients were identified. The majority were male (n = 33) and 50% were Hispanic. The most common regimens given were: 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (n = 23, 46%), epirubicin, cis- or oxaliplatin, and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or Xeloda (n = 8, 16%), and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and oxaliplatin (n = 9, 18%). Twenty-seven patients (55%) had complete or partial response to therapy (TEG 0-2), and 23 patients (46%) had no response (TEG 3). Of numerous variables analyzed, only race and SRC histology were associated with TEG. TEG was associated with disease free, but not disease specific survival. Conclusions In this cohort, 46% of patients had no histologic response to therapy. SRC histology, and possibly race, should be considered in determination of optimal multidisciplinary regimens and in amount of therapy to be given upfront, as patients with SRC histology and those of non-Asian race are less likely to respond to standard regimens.

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

4.5
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