Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Colorectal Dis ; 22(12): 2018-2027, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32871616

ABSTRACT

AIM: Preoperative iron is frequently used for the correction of anaemia in colorectal cancer surgery. However, enteral iron intake may promote tumour growth and progression which could influence cancer recurrence and patient survival. We explore the long-term outcomes of patients receiving either oral or intravenous iron replacement therapy as part of a previous randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The IVICA trial randomized anaemic colorectal cancer patients to receive either oral (OI, control) or intravenous (IVI, treatment) iron prior to their elective operation. Follow-up analysis of all patients recruited to this multicentre trial who underwent surgical resection with curative intent was performed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare groups. A pooled group multivariable analysis comparing patients who achieved resolution of anaemia preoperatively to those who did not was also undertaken. RESULTS: In all, 110 of the 116 patients previously enrolled were eligible for analysis (OI n = 56, IVI n = 54). Median overall follow-up duration was 61 months (interquartile range 46-67). No significant difference in 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.65-2.28, P = 0.522) or disease-free survival (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.61-1.92, P = 0.79) was observed between OI and IVI. A pooled analysis of treatment groups found that preoperative resolution of anaemia led to improved 5-year overall survival on multivariable analysis (HR 3.38, 95% CI 1.07-11.56, P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: We recommend IVI for the preoperative correction of anaemia. Route of iron therapy did not significantly influence survival. Preoperative anaemia correction may lead to an overall survival advantage following elective colorectal cancer surgery.


Subject(s)
Anemia , Colorectal Neoplasms , Anemia/complications , Anemia/drug therapy , Colorectal Neoplasms/complications , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Humans , Iron , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local , Preoperative Care
3.
Anaesthesia ; 74(6): 714-725, 2019 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30963552

ABSTRACT

Anaemia is associated with a reduction in quality of life, and is common in patients with colorectal cancer . We recently reported the findings of the intravenous iron in colorectal cancer-associated anaemia (IVICA) trial comparing haemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements following intravenous or oral iron replacement in anaemic colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery. In this follow-up study, we compared the efficacy of intravenous and oral iron at improving quality of life in this patient group. We conducted a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Anaemic colorectal cancer patients were randomly allocated at least two weeks pre-operatively, to receive either oral (ferrous sulphate) or intravenous (ferric carboxymaltose) iron. We assessed haemoglobin and quality of life scores at recruitment, immediately before surgery and at outpatient review approximately three months postoperatively, using the Short Form 36, EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia questionnaires. We recruited 116 anaemic patients across seven UK centres (oral iron n = 61 (53%), and intravenous iron n = 55 (47%)). Eleven quality of life components increased by a clinically significant margin in the intravenous iron group between recruitment and surgery compared with one component for oral iron. Median (IQR [range]) visual analogue scores were significantly higher with intravenous iron at a three month outpatient review (oral iron 70, (60-85 [20-95]); intravenous iron 90 (80-90 [50-100]), p = 0.001). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia score comprises of subscales related to cancer, fatigue and non-fatigue items relevant to anaemia. Median outpatient scores were higher, and hence favourable, for intravenous iron on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia subscale (oral iron 66 (55-72 [23-80]); intravenous iron 71 (66-77 [46-80]); p = 0.002), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia trial outcome index (oral iron 108 (90-123 [35-135]); intravenous iron 121 (113-124 [81-135]); p = 0.003) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Anaemia total score (oral iron 151 (132-170 [69-183]); intravenous iron 168 (160-174 [125-186]); p = 0.005). These findings indicate that intravenous iron is more efficacious at improving quality of life scores than oral iron in anaemic colorectal cancer patients.


Subject(s)
Anemia/drug therapy , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Iron/administration & dosage , Iron/therapeutic use , Preoperative Care/methods , Quality of Life , Aged , Anemia/etiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/complications , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infusions, Intravenous , Male , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom
4.
Br J Ind Med ; 41(1): 39-45, 1984 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-6691935

ABSTRACT

The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program abstracts records on almost all cases of cancer occurring in the county. In a study of those cases of pleural and peritoneal malignant mesothelioma (MM) that occurred from 1972 to 1979 occupational histories were obtained during interviews, and histopathology of the tumours was reviewed and classified by a member of a mesothelioma reference panel who was unaware of the exposure histories. About half the cases reviewed had likely exposure to asbestos at work. The greatest proportion of cases designated as MM by the pathologist occurred among individuals likely to have had the heaviest exposure of asbestos (42%). No upward trend of incidence over time was apparent among cases designated as MM. The age adjusted incidence rates for designated MM were lower than in other studies. The well recognised interobserver variability in diagnosing MM apparently produces raised estimates of incidence and an overestimate of trends of incidence. The interobserver variability may result from different awareness of MM occurrence, a lack of precise histopathological criteria for the diagnosis, or the influence of a history of exposure to asbestos on the interpretation. A history of exposure to asbestos may bias interpretation of histopathology and should not be used to make the histological diagnosis.


Subject(s)
Asbestos/adverse effects , Mesothelioma/pathology , Occupational Diseases/pathology , Peritoneal Neoplasms/pathology , Pleural Neoplasms/pathology , California , Diagnostic Errors , Female , Humans , Male , Mesothelioma/epidemiology , Mesothelioma/etiology , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Peritoneal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Peritoneal Neoplasms/etiology , Pleural Neoplasms/epidemiology , Pleural Neoplasms/etiology , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...