scholarly journals Macroscopic tumor size as an independent prognostic factor for stage II/III gastric cancer patients who underwent D2 gastrectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Aoyama ◽  
Takaki Yoshikawa ◽  
Takafumi Watanabe ◽  
Tsutomu Hayashi ◽  
Takashi Ogata ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shi Chen ◽  
Li-Ying Ou-Yang ◽  
Run-Cong Nie ◽  
Yuan-Fang Li ◽  
Jun Xiang ◽  
...  

Aim.To investigate whether tumor size is a reasonable indication for adjuvant chemotherapy for T3-4aN0M0 gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy.Method. We performed a retrospective study of 269 patients with a histological diagnosis of T3-4aN0M0 stage gastric cancer who underwent D2 radical surgery at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center or the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University between January 2006 and December 2010. The follow-up lasted until June of 2015. Chi-square tests and Kaplan-Meier methods were employed to compare the clinicopathological variables and prognoses.Result. For this group of patients, univariate analyses revealed that tumor size (p<0.001), pathological T stage (p<0.001), and tumor location (p=0.025) were significant prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy did not exhibit prognostic benefits. For patients with tumors larger than 5 cm, univariate analysis revealed that tumor location (p=0.007), Borrmann type (p=0.039), postoperative chemotherapy (p=0.003), and pathological T stage (p<0.001) were significant prognostic factors. Multivariate analysis revealed that postoperative chemotherapy and pathological T stage were independent prognostic factors.Conclusion. Our results imply that tumor size should be a critical factor in the decision to utilize adjuvant chemotherapy for T3-4aN0M0 gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy. Additional randomized controlled trials are required before this conclusion can be considered definitive.


2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1568-1574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Aoyama ◽  
Takaki Yoshikawa ◽  
Tsutomu Hayashi ◽  
Hiroshi Kuwabara ◽  
Yo Mikayama ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
Toru Aoyama ◽  
Takaki Yoshikawa ◽  
Tsutomu Hayashi ◽  
Hiroshi Kuwabara ◽  
Yo Mikayama ◽  
...  

56 Background: In patients with stage II/III gastric cancer, tumors often recur even after curative D2 gastrectomy followed by adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy. The objective of this retrospective study was to clarify the prognostic factors in these patients that might be useful for future patients. Methods: Overall survival was examined in 82 gastric cancer patients who underwent curative D2 surgery, were diagnosed with stage IIA, II B, IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC pathologically, and received adjuvant S-1 after surgery between June of 2002 and March of 2010. Results: When overall survival was compared by the log-rank test, a significant difference was observed with regard to macroscopic tumor diameter and the depth of tumor invasion. A macroscopic tumor diameter greater than 70mm was regarded as a critical point of classification considering the survival. Uni- and muliti-variate Cox’s proportional hazard analyses demonstrated that macroscopic tumor diameter was the only significant independent prognosticator. The five-year survival was 64.9% in patients with a macroscopic tumor diameter <70mm, and 33.1% in patients with a macroscopic tumor diameter ≥70mm (P=0.022). Conclusions: The macroscopic tumor diameter was the most important prognostic factor for survival in patients with stage II/III gastric cancer who underwent D2 gastrectomy followed by adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy. Prognostic factors can be affected by adjuvant chemotherapy.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15076-e15076
Author(s):  
Xiaofeng Chen ◽  
Dong Pei ◽  
Oluf D. Røe ◽  
Jing Qian ◽  
Fang Zhu ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 98-98
Author(s):  
Junji Kawada ◽  
Hiroshi Imamura ◽  
Jin Matsuyama ◽  
Junichi Fukui ◽  
Kazuhiro Nishikawa ◽  
...  

98 Background: Postoperative weight loss after gastrectomy causes deterioration in patient’s quality of life and tolerance for adjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer patients. Nutritional support may prevent postoperative weight loss and chemotherapy related adverse effects to improve compliance of adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: Clinical stage II/III gastric cancer patients received R0 resection were registered in the first stage of the present study. Those patients were qualified and enrolled in the second stage who could intake more than 60% of elemental diet (Elental, 300 kcal/day for 14 days) in the postoperative period and were proven pathological stage II/III. Enrolled patients were planned to receive a total of 300 kcal/day of Elental for 24 weeks and additional courses was permitted up to 365 days. The primary endpoint was compliance of S-1: percent of patients who accomplish S-1 adjuvant for one year with more than 70% relative performance (RP). The secondary endpoints were nutritional parameters (body weight, BMI, s-albumin, s-protein, s-cholesterol), RP of 8 courses of S-1, adverse effects of S-1, RP of Elental and ratio of patients who were enrolled to the second stage. Results: From January 2012 to September 2014, 149 patients were registered in the first stage and 82 patients were enrolled in the second stage: including 50 men; 32 women; median age of 70 years (range, 42-85 years); and performance status were zero in 45 and one in 37 patients. Compliances of S-1 were 60.5% (95%CI: 49.0, 71.2) in 81 eligible patients and 69% (95%CI: 56.9, 79.5) in eligible patients without recurrence. In 81 eligible patients, RP of 8 courses of S-1 was 87.3 % (95%CI: 88.3, 85.9), and the body weight loss was 1.80kg (95%CI: -0.38, 4.48). Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia 12%, anemia 4%, anorexia 4% and diarrhea 4%. Conclusions: Nutritional support for gastric cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy contributes to increase compliance of S-1 and potential effect on survival may be expected. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006872.


2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 2743-2750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ju-Hee Lee ◽  
Kang Nyeong Lee ◽  
Hyun-Il Kim ◽  
Min Gyu Kim ◽  
Tae Kyung Ha ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document