4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Sequential thoracic metastasectomy prolongs survival by re-establishing local control within the chest

期刊

出版社

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mtc.2001.112822

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The value of sequential thoracic metastasectomies is unknown. We evaluate repeat metastasectomy for limited recurrences within the thorax. Methods: From July 1988 to September 1998, 54 patients underwent 2 to 6 separate sequential procedures to excise metastases after recurrence isolated to the thorax. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox modeling determined prognostic variables. Results: Thirty-three men and 21 women, 22 to 76 years underwent 2 (100%, n = 54), 3 (50%), 4 (22%), or 5 to 6 (11%) metastasectomies. Fifty-four percent of patients had carcinoma, 35% sarcoma, 9% germ cell, and 2% melanoma. There were no operative deaths; all late deaths occurred from cancer. Median follow-up was 48 months. Cumulative 5-year survival from the second procedure was 57%. After the second, third, fourth, and fifth procedures, respectively, permanent control was achieved in 15 (27%) of 54 patients, 5 (19%) of 27, 1 (8%) of 12, and 0 of 7. Recurrence amenable to additional surgery occurred in 27 (50%) of 54, 12 (44%) of 27, 6 (50%) of 12, and 1 (17%) of 6. Mean hazard fur the development of unresectable recurrence increased from 0.21 after the second procedure to 0.91 after the fifth procedure, The 5-year survival for the 27 patients undergoing only 3 metastasectomies was 60% (median not yet reached), 33% for the 15 patients undergoing only 3 metastasectomies (median 34.7 months), and 38% for the 12 patients undergoing 4 or more (median 45.6 months). From the time a recurrence was declared unresectable, patients had a 19% 2-year survival (median 8 months). Conclusions: Multiple attempts to re-establish intrathoracic control of metastatic disease is justified in carefully selected patients, but the magnitude of benefit decays with each subsequent attempt.

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