4.5 Article

Secondary cytoreductive surgery for 86 patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 127, 期 6, 页码 999-1010

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.27208

关键词

EPIC; HIPEC; HITOC; peritoneal metastases; peritonectomy; reoperation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, a secondary cytoreductive surgery may be considered if cancer progression is documented after surgery. Statistically analyzing the variables, it is found that patients who undergo a secondary cytoreductive surgery within 24 months after the initial surgery have a higher mortality rate.
BackgroundAfter patients have a surgical procedure for a gastrointestinal cancer, follow-up is indicated. If cancer progression is documented in patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma (MACA), a secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCRS) may be considered. MethodsIn patients who had a prior complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS), variables associated with the index CRS and SCRS were extracted. These variables were statistically assessed for their impact on survival. ResultsOf 198 MACA patients, 86 (43.4%) had SCRS. The median follow-up was 5.0 years and the median survival was 7 years. Significant prognostic variables associated with the index CRS by univariant analysis was histopathologic grade of MACA-Intermediate (MACA-Int) as compared to other MACA histologic subtypes (p = 0.0164). Significant prognostic variables associated with the SCRS were bowel obstruction (p = 0.0149), interval of CRS to SCRS (p = 0.0059), and completeness of cytoreduction (p = 0.0014). ConclusionsIn the analysis of variables from SCRS, the interval from CRS to SCRS <= 24 months indicates an aggressive biology of the disease. The CC score of complete versus incomplete decreased median survival from 11 to 4 years. A composite of these two variables allowed prediction of survival of 50% when patients showed these two favorable variables and only 9.1% when these variables were unfavorable.

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