4.4 Article

Histological evaluations of primary lesions are independently associated with prognosis in patients with gastric cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy

期刊

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 4892-4896

出版社

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.6040

关键词

gastric cancer; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; histological evaluation; overall survival progression-free survival

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (GC). To explore useful predictive factors for the response of advanced GC to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, tumor responses were assessed using computed tomography (CT) with histological based criteria. A total of 78 patients with advanced GC undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. CT-based response assessment was performed following 2 courses of treatment. Histological evaluation of resected specimens was also performed according to the Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma. Grade 1b, 2 and 3 (viable tumor cells remaining in <2/3 of the tumorous area) were defined as histological responders. The results were associated with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The majority of the cases underwent tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil based preoperative chemotherapy as the first line of treatment (n=76, 96%). A total of 25 (32%) and 29 (37%) cases were considered to be CT and histological responders, respectively. CT-based evaluation was not associated with OS or PFS, while histological evaluation was significantly associated with OS and PFS. Histological based evaluation was not associated with CT and GI X-ray or endoscopy-based evaluation of primary lesions. Multivariate survival analysis using Cox's regression model demonstrated that histological non-response was an independent prognostic factor for predicting worse OS. Histological-based evaluation of primary lesions was independently associated with prognosis in patients with GC who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

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

4.4
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