3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Factors predicting survival after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy with mitomycin C after cytoreductive surgery for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 138, 期 1, 页码 26-33

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.138.1.26

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: Certain clinicopathologic factors predict improved survival after cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis. Design: Prospective clinical trial. Setting: Surgical oncology service at a university academic hospital. Patients: A population of 109 consecutive patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated between December 1991 and November 1997. Intervention: All patients underwent resection of gross disease followed by 2-hour intraoperative perfusion of mitomycin C (20-40 mg) into the peritoneal cavity at a temperature of 40.5degreesC. Main Outcome Measures: Clinicopathologic factors that independently predicted improved overall survival rates. Results: Overall survival at 1 and 3 years was 61% and 33%, respectively. With median follow-up of 52 months, median overall survival was 16 months. Four factors were significant independent predictors of improved survival by multivariate analysis: nonadenocarcinoma histologic features (P=.001), the appendix as a primary site (P=.003), the absence of hepatic parenchymal metastases (P=.01), and complete resection of all gross disease (R1/0 resection) (P<.001). Patients with an R1/0 resection vs an incomplete resection of gross disease (R2 resection) had 3-year overall survival of 68% vs 21% (P<.001). Conclusions: Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis have a uniformly poor prognosis. However, in select patients, the natural history of this disease condition may be altered by using the multimodality approach of cytoreductive surgery and intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemotherapy. These results require confirmation in prospective randomized studies.

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

3.9
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