4.6 Article

Impact of Comorbidities, Sarcopenia, and Nutritional Status on the Long-Term Outcomes after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer in Elderly Patients Aged ≥ 80 Years

期刊

CANCERS
卷 13, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13143598

关键词

early gastric cancer; elderly; endoscopic submucosal dissection; prognostic nutritional index; Charlson comorbidity index

类别

资金

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI18C1216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a safe and effective treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC) in elderly patients, with good overall survival rates. However, sarcopenia is associated with lower survival rates. Prognostic nutritional index and Charlson comorbidity index are significant factors affecting the overall survival of elderly patients undergoing ESD.
Simple Summary The average human life expectancy is increasing worldwide, which is leading to increases in the proportion of elderly patients (>= 80 years) with gastric cancer. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely regarded as a safe and effective treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC), even in aged or high-risk patients. We investigated the oncologic outcomes in elderly patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) by focusing on the impact of comorbidities, sarcopenia, and nutritional status. Over a median follow-up period of 70.5 months, the 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 89.5% and 77.1%, respectively; of the114 patients who died, only four (3.5%) were due to gastric cancer. A total of 173 (61.8%) had sarcopenia, and they had lower rates of 3-year (88.4% vs. 91.4%) and 5-year (73.1% vs. 84.0%; p = 0.046) OS than did those without sarcopenia. In multivariable analyses, prognostic nutritional index (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.98; p = 0.002) and Charlson comorbidity index (HR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.03-1.37; p = 0.018) showed that ESD was a feasible and safe therapeutic method to use in elderly patients, whose long-term survival was significantly associated with nutritional status and comorbidities. Background/Aim: We investigated the oncologic outcomes in elderly patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) by focusing on the impact of comorbidities, sarcopenia, and nutritional status. Methods: Between 2005 and 2016, 280 patients aged >= 80 years with 289 EGCs underwent ESD at a tertiary care center. The short- and long-term survival outcomes were assessed. Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with survival, including clinicopathologic factors and abdominal muscle area measured by computed tomography. Results: The rates of en bloc, R0, and, curative resection were 99.3%, 90.0%, and 69.2%, respectively. The rates of post-ESD bleeding and perforation rates were 2.1% and 3.1%, respectively, and no cases showed significant life-threatening adverse events. Over a median follow-up period of 70.5 months, the 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 89.5% and 77.1%, respectively; of the114 patients who died, only four (3.5%) were due to gastric cancer. A total of 173 (61.8%) had sarcopenia, and they had lower rates of 3-year (88.4% vs. 91.4%) and 5-year (73.1% vs. 84.0%; p = 0.046) OS than did those without sarcopenia. In multivariable analyses, prognostic nutritional index (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.98; p = 0.002) and Charlson comorbidity index (HR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.03-1.37; p = 0.018) were significant factors associated with overall survival. Conclusions: ESD was a feasible and safe therapeutic method to use in elderly patients, whose long-term survival was significantly associated with nutritional status and comorbidities. These results suggest the need for a possible extension of the curative criteria for ESD in elderly patients with EGC.

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