4.6 Article

Locally advanced esophageal cancer: What becomes of 5-year survivors?

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.10.096

关键词

esophageal cancer; disease-free survival; en bloc resection; recurrence

资金

  1. Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College [UL1-TR000457-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the long-term outcomes of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) who underwent esophagectomy and survived at least 5 years, and the predictors of disease-free survival (DFS) beyond 5 years. Methods: This was a retrospective review of a prospective database to identify patients with clinical stage T2N0M0 or higher LAEC. Medical records were reviewed to obtain demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics, as well as data on recurrence and survival. Multivariable analysis of predictors of DFS beyond 5 years was performed using a Cox regression model. Results: Between 1988 and 2009, 355 of 500 patients underwent esophagectomy for cT2N0M0 or higher disease. Of these 355 patients, 126 were alive and disease-free at the 5-year follow-up, for an actuarial 5-year DFS of 33%. Recurrent esophageal cancer developed in 8 patients after 5 years. Among the 126 surviving patients, the actuarial overall survival was 94% at 7 years and 80% at 10 years. On multivariable analysis, the sole significant predictor of DFS after the 5-year time point was non-en bloc resection at the original operation (P = .006). Pulmonary-related deaths accounted for 10 out of 22 noncancer deaths. A second primary cancer developed in 23 of the 126 surviving patients. Conclusions: Prolonged survival can be obtained in one-third of patients with LAEC. An en bloc resection at the original operation is the most significant predictor of prolonged survival. Survivors experience a high rate of second primary cancer and an apparently high rate of deaths from pulmonary disease. Careful follow-up is necessary for these patients, even after the 5-year mark.

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