scholarly journals Clinicopathologic characteristics, laboratory parameters, treatment protocols, and outcomes of pancreatic cancer: a retrospective cohort study of 1433 patients in China

PeerJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. e4893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuisheng Zhang ◽  
Xiaozhun Huang ◽  
Yuan Tian ◽  
Saderbieke Aimaiti ◽  
Jianwei Zhang ◽  
...  

Objectives The prognosis of people with pancreatic cancer is extremely unfavorable. However, the prognostic factors remain largely undefined. We aimed to perform comprehensive analyses of clinicopathologic characteristics, laboratory parameters, and treatment protocols for exploring their role as prognostic factors of pancreatic cancer. Methods Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and hospitalized at the China National Cancer Center between April 2006 and May 2016 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Clinicopathologic characteristics, laboratory parameters, and treatment protocols were compared among patients at different stages of the disease. The association between these factors and overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Results The present study included 1,433 consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer. Median OS was 10.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.8–11.3 months), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 43.7%, 14.8%, and 8.8%, respectively. Cox multivariate analysis findings identified the following factors as independent predictors of OS: gender (female vs male, hazard ratio 0.72, 95% CI [0.54–0.95]); elevated total bilirubin (TBil; 1.82, 1.34–2.47); elevated carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9; 1.72, 1.17–2.54); tumor being located in pancreatic body and tail (1.52, 1.10–2.10); advanced T stage (T3-4 vs T1-2, 1.62, 1.15–2.27); lymph node metastasis (1.57, 1.20–2.07); distant metastasis (1.59, 1.12–2.27); the presence of surgical resection (0.53, 0.34–0.81); and the presence of systemic chemotherapy (0.62, 0.45–0.82). Conclusions Being male, elevated TBil and carcinoembryonic antigen, tumor being located in pancreatic body and tail, advanced T stage, lymph node and distant metastasis, the absence of surgical resection, and the absence of systematic chemotherapy were associated with worse OS in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Author(s):  
Hao-Long Zeng ◽  
Qing-Bin Lu ◽  
Qing Yang ◽  
Xu Wang ◽  
Dao-Yuan Yue ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience a wide clinical spectrum, with over 2% developing fatal outcome. The prognostic factors for fatal outcome remain sparsely investigated. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed in a cohort of patients with confirmed COVID-19 in one designated hospital in Wuhan, China, from 17 January–5 March 2020. The laboratory parameters and a panel of cytokines were consecutively evaluated until patients’ discharge or death. The laboratory features that could be used to predict fatal outcome were identified. Results Consecutively collected data on 55 laboratory parameters and cytokines from 642 patients with COVID-19 were profiled along the entire disease course, based on which 3 clinical stages (acute stage, days 1–9; critical stage, days 10–15; and convalescence stage, day 15 to observation end) were determined. Laboratory findings based on 75 deceased and 357 discharged patients revealed that, at the acute stage, fatality could be predicted by older age and abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), urea, lymphocyte count, and procalcitonin (PCT) level. At the critical stage, the fatal outcome could be predicted by age and abnormal PCT, LDH, cholinesterase, lymphocyte count, and monocyte percentage. Interleukin 6 (IL-6) was remarkably elevated, with fatal cases having a more robust production than discharged cases across the whole observation period. LDH, PCT, lymphocytes, and IL-6 were considered highly important prognostic factors for COVID-19–related death. Conclusions The identification of predictors that were routinely tested might allow early identification of patients at high risk of death for early aggressive intervention.


2021 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. 132-138
Author(s):  
Sumadi Lukman Anwar ◽  
Roby Cahyono ◽  
Heru Yudanto Budiman ◽  
Widya Surya Avanti ◽  
Wirsma Arif Harahap ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Bemer ◽  
Olivia Peuchant ◽  
Hélène Guet-Revillet ◽  
Julien Bador ◽  
Charlotte Balavoine ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Recent studies report very low adherence of practitioners to ATS/IDSA recommendations for the treatment of nontuberculous mycobacteria pulmonary disease (NTM-PD), as well as a great variability of practices. Type of management could impact prognosis. Methods To evaluate management and prognosis of patients with NTM-PD cases with respect to ATS recommendations, we conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study (18 sentinel sites distributed throughout France), over a period of six years. We collected clinical, radiological, microbiological characteristics, management and outcome of the patients (especially death or not). Results 477 patients with NTM-PD were included. Respiratory comorbidities were found in 68% of cases, tuberculosis sequelae in 31.4% of patients, and immunosuppression in 16.8% of cases. The three most common NTM species were Mycobacterium avium complex (60%), M. xenopi (20%) and M. kansasii (5.7%). Smear-positive was found in one third of NTM-PD. Nodulobronchiectatic forms were observed in 54.3% of cases, and cavitary forms in 19.1% of patients. Sixty-three percent of patients were treated, 72.4% of patients with smear-positive samples, and 57.5% of patients with smear-negative samples. Treatment was in adequacy with ATS guidelines in 73.5%. The 2-year mortality was 14.4%. In the Cox regression, treatment (HR = 0.51), age (HR = 1.02), and M. abscessus (3.19) appeared as the 3 significant independent prognostic factors. Conclusion These findings highlight the adequacy between French practices and the ATS/IDSA guidelines. Treatment was associated with a better survival.


Head & Neck ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 536-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
José F. Carrillo ◽  
Liliana C. Carrillo ◽  
Ana Cano ◽  
Margarita C. Ramirez-Ortega ◽  
Jorge G. Chanona ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document