Application of Ergogenic Aids to the Prehabilitation of Abdominal Cancer Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Ergogenic Aids ◽  
Cancer Surgery

VTE risk assessment in cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. 20-25
Author(s):  
I. Pabinger ◽  
C. Ay
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Ambulatory Setting ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment Models ◽  
Increased Risk

SummaryVenous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality, and its prevention is of major clinical importance. However, the VTE rates in the cancer population vary between 0.5% - 20%, depending on cancer-, treatment- and patient-related factors. The most important contributors to VTE risk are the tumor entity, stage and certain anticancer treatments. Cancer surgery represents a strong risk factor for VTE, and medical oncology patients are at increased risk of developing VTE, especially when receiving chemotherapy or immunomodulatory drugs. Also biomarkers have been investigated for their usefulness to predict risk of VTE (e.g. elevated leukocyte and platelet counts, soluble P-selectin, D-dimer, etc.). In order to identify cancer patients at high risk of VTE and to improve risk stratification, risk assessment models have been developed, which contain both clinical parameters and biomarkers. While primary thromboprophylaxis with lowmolecular- weight-heparin (LMWH) is recommended postoperatively for a period of up to 4 weeks after major cancer surgery, the evidence is less clear for medical oncology patients. Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical oncology patients is advocated, and is based on results of randomized controlled trials which evaluated the efficacy and safety of LMWH for prevention of VTE in hospitalized medically ill patients. In recent trials the benefit of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the ambulatory setting has been investigated. However, at the present stage primary thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE in these patients is still a matter of debate and cannot be recommended for all cancer outpatients.

scholarly journals Magnetic Seed (Magseed) Localisation in Breast Cancer Surgery: A Multicentre Clinical Trial

Breast Care ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Jan Žatecký ◽  
Otakar Kubala ◽  
Oldřich Coufal ◽  
Markéta Kepičová ◽  
Adéla Faridová ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Surgical Oncology ◽  
Breast Tumour ◽  
Axillary Node ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Breast Cancer Surgery ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Magnetic Marker ◽  
Magnetic Seeds

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the Magseed magnetic marker in breast cancer surgery. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Thirty-nine patients with 41 implanted Magseeds undergoing surgical treatment in 3 surgical oncology departments were included in the retrospective trial to study pilot use of the Magseed magnetic marker in the Czech Republic for localisation of breast tumours or pathological axillary nodes in breast cancer patients. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Thirty-four breast cancer and 7 pathological lymph node localisations were performed by Magseed implantation. No placement failures, or perioperative detection failures of Magseeds were observed (0/41, 0.0%), but one case of Magseed migration was present (1/41, 2.4%). All magnetic seeds were successfully retrieved (41/41, 100.0%). Negative margins were achieved in 29 of 34 (85.3%) breast tumour localisations by Magseed. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Magseed is a reliable marker for breast tumour and pathological axillary node localisation in breast cancer patients. Magseed is comparable to conventional localisation methods in terms of oncosurgical radicality and safety.

scholarly journals Anesthetics and long-term survival after cancer surgery—total intravenous versus volatile anesthesia: a retrospective study

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Boohwi Hong ◽  
Sunyeul Lee ◽  
Yeojung Kim ◽  
Minhee Lee ◽  
Ann Misun Youn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Favorable Effect ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Intravenous Anesthesia ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Number Of Patients

Abstract Background Intravenous anesthesia has been reported to have a favorable effect on the prognosis of cancer patients. This study was performed to analyze data regarding the relation between anesthetics and the prognosis of cancer patients in our hospital. Methods The medical records of patients who underwent surgical resection for gastric, lung, liver, colon, and breast cancer between January 2006 and December 2009 were reviewed. Depending on the type of anesthetic, it was divided into total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or volatile inhaled anesthesia (VIA) group. The 5-year overall survival outcomes were analyzed by log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used for sensitivity. Results The number of patients finally included in the comparison after propensity matching came to 729 in each group. The number of surviving patients at 5 years came to 660 (90.5%) in the TIVA and 673 (92.3%) in the VIA. The type of anesthetic did not affect the 5-year survival rate according to the log-rank test (P = 0.21). Variables associated with a significant increase in the hazard of death after multivariable analysis were male sex and metastasis at surgery. Conclusions There were no differences in 5-year overall survival between two groups in the cancer surgery. Trial registration Trial registration: CRIS KCT0004101. Retrospectively registered 28 June 2019.

VTE risk assessment in cancer

Phlebologie ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (03) ◽  
pp. 140-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Pabinger ◽  
C. Ay
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Ambulatory Setting ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment Models ◽  
Increased Risk

SummaryVenous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality, and its prevention is of major clinical importance. However, the VTE rates in the cancer population vary between 0.5–20 %, depending on cancer-, treatment- and patient-related factors. The most important contributors to VTE risk are the tumour entity, stage and certain anticancer treatments. Cancer surgery represents a strong risk factor for VTE, and medical oncology patients are at increased risk of developing VTE, especially when receiving chemotherapy or immunomodulatory drugs. Also biomarkers have been investigated for their usefulness to predict risk of VTE (e.g. elevated leucocyte and platelet counts, soluble P-selectin, D-dimer, etc.). In order to identify cancer patients at high risk of VTE and to improve risk stratification, risk assessment models have been developed, which contain both clinical parameters and biomarkers. While primary thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular- weight-heparin (LMWH) is recommended postoperatively for a period of up to 4 weeks after major cancer surgery, the evidence is less clear for medical oncology patients. Thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical oncology patients is advocated, and is based on results of randomized controlled trials which evaluated the efficacy and safety of LMWH for prevention of VTE in hospitalized medically ill patients. In recent trials the benefit of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in the ambulatory setting has been investigated. However, at the present stage primary thromboprophylaxis for prevention of VTE in these patients is still a matter of debate and cannot be recommended for all cancer outpatients.

Outcomes that matter to patients: The Geriatric Oncology Surgical Assessment and Functional rEcovery after Surgery (GOSAFE) study—Analysis of 471 patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11511-11511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isacco Montroni ◽  
Giampaolo Ugolini ◽  
Antonino Spinelli ◽  
Giorgio Ercolani ◽  
Michael T. Jacklitsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Functional Recovery ◽  
Functional Capacity ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
Geriatric Oncology ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Timed Up And Go ◽  
Older Cancer Patients

11511 Background: Older cancer patients value functional outcomes as much as survival but surgical studies lack functional recovery (FR) data. The international, multicenter GOSAFE study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03299270) aims to evaluate patients’ quality of life (QoL)and FR after cancer surgery and to assess predictors of FR. Methods: GOSAFE prospectively collects functional and clinical data before and after major elective cancer surgery on senior adults (≥70 years). Surgical outcomes are recorded (30 days, 90 days, and 180 dayspost-operatively) with QoL(EQ-5D-3L) and FR (Activities of Daily Living (ADL) + Timed Up and Go (TUG) + MiniCog), 28centers are prospectively enrolling patients; accrual ends February 2019. Results: 643 patients underwent major cancer surgery with curative(94%) or palliative (6%) intent (February 2017-September 2018). Median age was 78(range 70-94); 51.6% males, ASA III-IV 52%. Patients dependent (ADL < 5) were 8%. Frailty was detected by G8 > 14 in 32% and fTRST≥2 in 36% of patients. 639 (99%) lived at home, 32% lived alone, and 88% were able to go out. Major comorbidities (CCI > 6) were detected in 36% and 22% had cognitive impairment according to MiniCog (5% self-reported). 26% had > 3 kg weight loss, 30% were hospitalized in the last 90 days, 45% had ≥3 medications (6% none). For 471 patients, a 90-day comprehensive evaluation was available. Postoperative morbidity was 42% (30 day) and 63.3% (90 day), but Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications were only 11.2% and 17.6%. 90-day mortality was 7.4% (5% 30-day). QoL improved 90 days after surgery (mean EQ-5D index from 0.76 to 0.80). Patients with EQ-5D VAS score > 60 raised from 73.9% at baseline to 82.8% at 90 days. 29% had complete FR (ADL score > 4, MiniCog > 2, TUG < 20). Decreased functional capacity was seen in 23.4% of patients alive at 90-days. Conclusions: GOSAFE is the largest prospective study on older cancer patients undergoing major surgery. Interim analysis reports decreased functional capacity in a quarter of patients. The study will allow clinicians to associate clinical outcomes with individual factors of the preoperative assessment and create a user-friendly tool to predict outcomes that matter to patients.

scholarly journals Inflammation-Based Scores: A New Method for Patient-Targeted Strategies and Improved Perioperative Outcome in Cancer Patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Bugada ◽  
Massimo Allegri ◽  
Patricia Lavand'homme ◽  
Marc De Kock ◽  
Guido Fanelli
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Perioperative Period ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Prognostic Scores ◽  
Perioperative Outcome ◽  
After Cancer ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Anti Inflammation

Systemic inflammatory response (SIR) has actually been shown as an important prognostic factor associated with lower postoperative survival in several types of cancer. Thus, the challenge for physicians is to find specific, low-cost, and highlyreliable inflammatory markers, clearly correlated with prognosis and able to preoperatively stratify patient’s risk. Inflammation is a promising target to improve perioperative outcome, and data show that anti-inflammation techniques have a great potential in the perioperative period of cancer surgery. Inflammation scores could be useful to stratify patients with a potential better response to anti-inflammation strategies. Furthermore, inflammation scores could prevent failure of clinical trials by a better definition of patients to be included in such trials; inflammation scoring could clarify the real role of different drugs and techniques on outcome after cancer surgery, defining if different therapies are required for different patients. The role of this review is to focus on the currently available scores, in order to clarify their rationale and to analyze the actual evidence and limits, providing physicians with an updated overview of the possible inflammation-based prognostic scores for cancer patients undergoing surgery.

scholarly journals Effect of volatile and intravenous anesthesia on long-term survival of cancer surgery patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Gong ◽  
Chao Dong ◽  
Qian Cai ◽  
Wen Ouyang
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Prognosis ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The impact of volatile anesthesia (INHA) and total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on the long-term survival of patients after oncology surgery is a subject of controversy. The purpose of this study was to make overall evaluation of the association between these two anesthetic techniques and long-term prognosis of oncology patients after surgery. Methods Databases were searched according to the PRISMA guidelines up to September 30, 2018. Hazard ratios (HRs) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated after multivariable analyses and propensity score (PS) adjustments. Eight retrospective cohort articles reporting data on overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were included. An inverse variance random effects meta-analysis was conducted. The Newcastle Scale was used to assess methodological quality and bias. Results In total, about 18922 cancer patients observed were included in the meta-analysis, of which 10433 cases were available for analysis in INHA and 8489 in TIVA group. Compared to TIVA, INHA showed a shorter OS (HR =1.27, 95% CI 1.069 to 1.516, p=0.007), with a medium heterogeneity (Q-test p=0.003, I-squared=67.6%). However, no significant differences were identified between INHA and TIVA group (HR =1.10, 95% CI 0.729 to 1.659, p=0.651) concerning RFS albeit from a limited data pool. When a subgroup analysis was performed by race, the association was more likely to be observed in the Asian studies (HR=1.46, 95%CI 1.19–1.8, p =0.00), with a much lower heterogeneity (Q-test p=0.148, I-squared=44%). When comparison was done only in breast cancer patients, no significant differences were found for OS (HR=1.625, 95%CI 0.273-9.67, p=0.594) between INHA and TIVA. Conclusion TIVA for cancer surgery might be associated with better OS compared to INHA. The effect of INHA and TIVA on OS and RFS in the perioperative setting remains uncertain, cancer-specific, and has low-level evidence at present. Randomized controlled trials are required in future work. Registry number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (Registration NO.CRD42018109341).

scholarly journals The Impact of COVID-19 on Gastric Cancer Surgery: A Single-center Retrospective Study Based on Real-world Data from China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-xuan Li ◽  
Chang-zheng He ◽  
Yi-chen Liu ◽  
Peng-yue Zhao ◽  
Xiao-lei Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Waiting Times ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Gastric Cancer Surgery ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Backgrounds: A respiratory epidemic defined as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is becoming unstoppable and has been declared a pandemic. Patients with cancer are more likely to develop COVID-19. Based on our experience during the pandemic period, we propose some surgery strategies for gastric cancer patients under the COVID-19 situation. Methods We defined the ‘COVID-19’ period as occurring between 2020-01-20 and 2020-03-20. All the enrolled patients were divided into two groups, pre-COVID-19 group (PCG) and COVID-19 group (CG). A total of 109 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled in this study. Results The waiting times before admission increased by 4 days in CG(PCG:4.5 [IQR: 2, 7.8] vs. CG:8.0 [IQR: 2,20]; P = 0.006). More patients had performed chest CT scan besides abdominal CT before admission during COVID-19 period(PCG:22[32%]vs. CG:30[73%], p = 0.001). After admission, during COVID period, the waiting time before surgery was longer(3[IQR: 2,5] vs. 7[IQR: 5,9]; P < 0.001),more laparoscopic surgery were performed(PCG: 51[75%] vs. CG: 38[92%],p = 0.021), and hospital stay after surgery was longer (7[IQR: 6,8] vs.9[IQR:7,11] ; P < 0.001). The total cost of hospitalization increased during COVID period, (9.22[IQR:7.82,10.97] vs. 10.42[IQR:8.99,12.57]; p = 0.006). Conclusion Since no data is available yet on the impact of COVID-19 on gastric cancer patients,our own experience with COVID-19 in gastric cancer surgery has hopefully provided an opportunity for colleagues to reflect on their own service and any contingency plans they have to tackle the crisis.

scholarly journals Cancer surgery induces inflammation, immunosuppression and neo-angiogenesis, but is it influenced by analgesics?

F1000Research ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrice Forget ◽  
Olivier Simonet ◽  
Marc De Kock
Keyword(s):  
Immune Response ◽  
Inflammatory Response ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Main Part ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Rapid Disease Progression ◽  
Taking Care

Surgery remains a main part of the treatment of most solid tumors. Paradoxically, rapid disease progression may be a consequence of surgery in patients presenting with a dysregulated inflammatory response, and increased angiogenesis consequent to a suppressed antitumoral immune response. Physicians taking care of cancer patients should be aware of the important findings that indicate that analgesic techniques could play a role in these phenomena.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document