Effect of opioids on cancer survival in patients with chronic pain: a propensity score-matched population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of opioid analgesic use before cancer diagnosis on survival in patients with chronic pain is unclear. Therefore, we designed a propensity score-matched population-based cohort study to compare overall and cancer-related survival of patients with chronic pain who received long-term opioid analgesic treatment with that of those who did not receive such treatment. METHODS: We included patients with chronic pain and categorised them into the following two groups according to their analgesic use: patients with cancer and chronic pain who were prescribed ≥180 defined daily doses of opioid analgesics per year >3 months before cancer diagnosis comprised the case group, and those who were prescribed <28 defined daily doses of opioid analgesics per year before cancer diagnosis comprised the control group. Patients in both groups were matched at a ratio of 1:5. The primary outcome was overall long-term survival. RESULTS: The matching process yielded a final cohort of 1716 patients (286 and 1430 in the case and control groups, respectively) who were eligible for further analysis. The adjusted hazard ratio for overall survival in patients receiving long-term opioids was 3.53 (95% confidence interval: 3.03-4.11; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term opioid analgesic use before cancer diagnosis might be associated with poor overall survival in patients with chronic pain compared with such patients who did not receive long-term opioid analgesics.

Sarcopenia as an Independent Risk Factor for Specific Cancers: A Propensity Score-Matched Asian Population-Based Cohort Study.

Purpose: Whether preexisting sarcopenia is an independent risk factor for cancer incidence remains unclear. Therefore, we performed this propensity score (PS)-matched (PSM) population-based cohort study to compare the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of specific cancers between patients with and without sarcopenia. Patients and Methods: The patients were categorized into two groups according to the presence or absence of sarcopenia, matched at a 4:1 ratio. Results: PS matching yielded a final cohort of 77,608 patients (15,527 in the sarcopenia and 62,081 nonsarcopenia groups) eligible for further analysis. In our multivariate Cox regression analysis, compared with the nonsarcopenia group, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR; 95% confidence interval (CI)) for cancer risk in the sarcopenia group was 1.277 (1.10 to 1.36; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the adjusted IRRs (95% CIs) for sarcopenia patients were pancreatic cancer 3.77 (1.79 to 4.01), esophageal cancer 3.38 (1.87 to 4.11), lung cancer 2.66 (1.15 to 2.90), gastric cancer 2.25 (1.54 to 3.23), head and neck cancer 2.15 (1.44 to 2.53), colorectal cancer 2.04 (1.77 to 2.30), hepatocellular carcinoma 1.84 (1.30 to 2.36), breast cancer 1.56 (1.12 to 1.95), and ovarian cancer 1.43 (1.10 to 2.29), respectively. Conclusions: Sarcopenia might be a significant cancer risk factor for lung, colorectal, breast, head and neck, pancreas, gastric, esophageal, and ovarian cancer, as well as hepatocellular carcinoma.

Survival Impact of Long-Term Tramadol Use on Breast Cancer for Patients with Chronic Pain: A Propensity Score-Matched Population-Based Cohort Study.

Purpose: The impact of tramadol analgesic use before breast cancer diagnosis on survival in patients with chronic pain is unclear. Therefore, we designed a propensity score-matched population-based cohort study to compare the breast cancer-related survival of patients with chronic pain who received long-term tramadol analgesic treatment with that of those who did not receive such treatment. Patients and Methods: We included patients with chronic pain and categorized them into two groups according to their analgesic use, comparing their breast cancer-related survival; patients with breast cancer and chronic pain who were prescribed ≥180 defined daily doses (DDDs) of tramadol analgesics per year >3 months before breast cancer diagnosis comprised the case group, and those who were prescribed non-tramadol analgesics before breast cancer diagnosis comprised the control group. Patients in both groups were matched at a ratio of 1:5. Results: The matching process yielded a final cohort of 624 patients (104 and 520 in the case and control groups, respectively) who were eligible for further analysis. According to both univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause death in the case group compared with in the control group was 3.45 (95% confidence interval = 2.36−5.04; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Long-term tramadol analgesic use prior to breast cancer diagnosis might be associated with poor overall survival in patients with chronic pain compared with such patients that did not receive long-term tramadol analgesic treatment.

Anesthesia With Propofol Sedation Reduces Locoregional Recurrence in Patients With Breast Cancer Receiving Total Mastectomy Compared With Non-Propofol Anesthesia.

Purpose: We examined locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving total mastectomy (TM) under propofol-based paravertebral block-regional anesthesia (PB-RA) versus sevoflurane-based inhalational general anesthesia (INHA-GA) without propofol. All-cause death and distant metastasis were secondary endpoints. Patients and Methods: Patients with breast IDC receiving TM were recruited through propensity score matching and categorized into INHA-GA with sevoflurane and PB-RA with propofol groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the adjusted HR (aHR; 95% CI) of LRR for the PB-RA with propofol group was 0.52 (0.28-0.96) compared with the INHA-GA with sevoflurane group. The aHRs of LRR for differentiation grade II, grade III, the American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage II, stage III, pathological tumor (pT) stage 2, pT stage 3-4, pathological nodal (pN) stage 1, and pN stage 2-3 were 1.16 (1.04-2.08), 1.28 (1.07-2.12), 3.71 (1.82-7.59), 4.67 (1.65-13.18), 1.09 (1.02-1.21), 1.17 (1.03-2.16), 1.10 (1.03-1.33), and 1.22 (1.06-2.41), respectively, compared with differentiation grade I, clinical stage I, pT1, and pN0. The aHR of LRR for adjuvant RT was 0.88 (0.64-0.94) compared with that for no adjuvant RT. Conclusion: PB-RA with propofol might be beneficial for reducing LRR in women with breast IDC receiving TM compared with INHA-GA without propofol.

Pathologic response rates for breast cancer stages as a predictor of outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by breast-conserving surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine easy-to-use predictors of overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) in patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by breast-conserving surgery (BCS), we obtained pathologic response rates (PRRs) for combined primary and nodal diseases (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stages) from clinical and pathologic reports, and we used these as predictors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled patients with IDC who had received NACT followed by BCS. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) for the patients' PRRs; other independent predictors were controlled for or stratified in the analysis. RESULTS: We analyzed 1047 patients with IDC (611, 260, and 176 patients in clinical stages IIB, IIIA, and IIIB-C, respectively) receiving NACT and BCS. After multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted HRs (aHRs; 95% CI) in patients with pathologic complete response (ypT0N0) were 0.26 (0.13-0.56), 0.36 (0.15-0.85), and 0.15 (0.08-0.31) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively. The aHRs (95% CI) in patients with downstaging of AJCC stages were 0.55 (0.35-0.89), 0.91 (0.62-0.96), and 0.63 (0.43-0.91) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively. The aHRs (95% CI) in patients with upstaging of AJCC stages were 1.77 (1.06-2.24), 1.08 (1.03-1.82), and 1.19 (1.07-2.01) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM, respectively. CONCLUSION: The impacts of AJCC-stage PRRs are useful predictive tools and strong predictors for OS, LRR, and DM in patients with breast IDC receiving NACT followed by BCS.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Endocrine Therapy for Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast With High Hormone Receptor Positivity and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Negativity.

Importance: Although neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is an alternative to chemotherapy for strongly hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2)-negative breast cancer, evidence is currently lacking regarding the probable survival outcomes of NET in comparison with those of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for this cancer. Objective: To evaluate all-cause mortality among patients with strongly HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer treated with NET vs NACT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with a diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) with strong HR positivity and ERBB2 negativity, treated between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, with follow-up from the index date (ie, date of IDC diagnosis) to December 31, 2018. The data came from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database. Data were analyzed from January to November 2020. Exposures: NET vs NACT for IDC with strong HR positivity and ERBB2 negativity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was performed, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze all-cause mortality among patients undergoing different neoadjuvant treatments. Results: A total of 640 patients (297 [46.4%] aged 20-49 years) undergoing NET (145 patients [22.7%]) or NACT (495 patients [77.3%]) were eligible for further analysis. In the multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for all-cause mortality among the NET cohort compared with the NACT cohort was 2.67 (95% CI, 1.95-3.51; P < .001). The aHRs for age were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.03-2.24), 1.25 (95% CI, 1.13-2.45), and 1.37 (95% CI, 1.17-3.49) for all-cause mortality among patients aged 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 years or older, respectively, compared with those aged 20 to 49 years (P = .002); the aHR for all-cause mortality among premenopausal women was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.13-1.56) compared with postmenopausal women (P < .001); and that of patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 2 or greater was 1.77 (1.37-2.26) compared with those with a score of 0 (P < .001). The aHRs of all-cause mortality for clinical tumor stage 2, 3, and 4 compared with 1 were 1.84 (95% CI, 1.07-3.40), 1.97 (95% CI, 1.03-3.77), and 2.49 (95% CI, 1.29-4.81), respectively (P = .009). The aHRs for all-cause mortality by clinical nodal (cN) stages were 1.49 (95% CI, 1.13-1.99) and 1.84 (95% CI, 1.31-2.61) for cN stage 1 and cN stages 2 or 3, respectively, compared with cN stage 0 (P = .005); those for differentiation were 1.77 (95% CI, 1.24-2.54) and 2.31 (95% CI, 1.61-3.34) for differentiation grade 2 and differentiation grade 3, respectively, compared with differentiation grade 1 (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that for patients with strongly HR-positive and ERBB2-negative IDC, NACT may be considered the first choice for neoadjuvant treatment.

Long-term oncologic outcomes of breast conserving surgery with propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia or volatile inhalational general anesthesia without propofol: a propensity score-matched, population-based cohort study.

To estimate oncologic outcomes (overall survival [OS], locoregional recurrence [LRR], and distant metastasis [DM]) in patients with breast intraductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving breast conserving surgery (BCS) under propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or volatile inhalational (INHA) general anesthesia (GA) without propofol. Patients with breast IDC receiving BCS were recruited through propensity score matching and categorized by anesthesia techniques into propofol-based TIVA-GA and non-propofol-based INHA-GA groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis was performed to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR; 95% CI) of all-cause mortality for TIVA-GA with propofol compared with INHA-GA without propofol was 0.94 (0.83-1.31). The aHR (95% CI) of LRR for TIVA-GA with propofol group compared with INHA-GA without propofol was 0.77 (0.58-0.87). The aHR (95% CI) of DM for TIVA-GA with propofol compared with INHA-GA without propofol was 0.91 (0.82-1.24). Propofol-based TIVA-GA might be beneficial for reducing LRR in women with breast IDC receiving BCS compared with non-propofol-based INHA-GA.

Paravertebral block in regional anesthesia with propofol sedation reduces locoregional recurrence in patients with breast cancer receiving breast conservative surgery compared with volatile inhalational without propofol in general anesthesia.

PURPOSE: We examined locoregional recurrence (LRR) in patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) receiving breast conservative surgery (BCS) under propofol-based paravertebral block-regional anesthesia (PB-RA) versus sevoflurane-based inhalational general anesthesia (INHA-GA) without propofol. All-cause death and distant metastasis were secondary endpoints. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with breast IDC receiving BCS were recruited through propensity score matching and categorized into INHA-GA with sevoflurane and PB-RA with propofol groups. Cox regression analysis was performed to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the adjusted HR (aHR; 95% CI) of LRR for the PB-RA with propofol group was 0.67 (0.46-0.99) compared with the INHA-GA with sevoflurane group. The aHRs of LRR for differentiation grade II, grade III, the American Joint Committee on Cancer clinical stage II, stage III, pathological tumor (pT) stage 2, pT stage 3-4, pathological nodal (pN) stage 2-3, and Her-2 positivity were 1.87 (1.03-3.42), 2.31 (1.20-4.44), 1.67 (1.09-2.56), 2.43 (1.18-4.97), 1.17 (1.03-1.19), 1.28 (1.13-2.24), 1.20 (1.05-2.22), and 1.59 (1.01-2.51), respectively, compared with those for differentiation grade I, clinical stage I, pT1, pN0, and HER-2 negativity. The aHR of LRR for adjuvant radiotherapy was 0.60 (0.38-0.97) compared with that for no adjuvant radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: PB-RA with propofol might be beneficial for reducing LRR in women with breast IDC receiving BCS compared with INHA-GA without propofol.

Effect of pathologic stages on postmastectomy radiation therapy in breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and total mastectomy: A Cancer Database Analysis.

PURPOSE: To use pathologic indicators to determine which patients benefit from postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) for breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and total mastectomy (TM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 4236 patients with breast invasive ductal carcinoma who received NACT followed by TM. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals; independent predictors were controlled for or stratified in the analysis. RESULTS: After multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted HRs derived for PMRT for all-cause mortality were 0.65 (0.52-0.81, P < 0.0001) and 0.58 (0.47-0.71, P < 0.0001) in postchemotherapy pathologic tumor stages T2-4 (ypT3-4) and postchemotherapy pathologic nodal stages N2-3 (ypN2-3), respectively. Moreover, adjusted HRs derived for PMRT with all-cause mortality were 0.51 (0.38-0.69, P < 0.0001), 0.60 (0.40-0.88, P = 0.0096), and 0.64 (0.48-0.86, P = 0.0024) in pathological stages IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC, respectively. Additionally, the PMRT group showed significant locoregional control irrespective of the pathologic response, even ypT0, ypN0, or pathological complete response (pCR), compared with the No-PMRT group. The multivariate analysis showed no statistical differences between the PMRT and No-PMRT groups for distant metastasis-free survival in any pathologic response of ypT0-4, ypN0-3, and pathologic American Joint Committee on Cancer stages pCR to IIIC. CONCLUSION: For patients with breast cancer ypT3-4, ypN2-3, or pathologic stages IIIA-IIIC receiving NACT and TM, benefit from PMRT if it is associated with OS benefits, regardless of the clinical stage of the disease. Compared with No-PMRT, PMRT improved locoregional recurrence-free survival, even pCR, in patients with breast cancer receiving NACT and TM.

Outcome of post-mastectomy radiotherapy after primary systemic treatment in patients with different clinical tumor and nodal stages of breast cancer: a cohort study.

To evaluate the effect of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) stratified by clinical tumor (T) or nodal (N) staging and determine predictors of overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis, and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and total mastectomy (TM), we enrolled patients who received a diagnosis of breast invasive ductal carcinoma who received NACT followed by TM. Cox regression analysis was employed to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses indicated that non-PMRT, Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 2, advanced clinical T or N stage, pathologic partial response, pathologic stationary disease, or pathologic progression disease were poor prognostic factors for OS. Well-differentiated tumor grade, pathologic complete response, and positive hormone receptors were better independent prognostic factors for OS. Adjusted HRs derived from PMRT for breast cancer after NACT and TM were 0.69 (0.53-0.89) and 0.74 (0.59-0.93) in clinical T3 and T4, respectively. aHRs derived from PMRT for breast cancer after NACT and TM were 0.67 (0.45-0.99), 0.75 (0.62-0.92), and 0.77 (0.60-0.98) in clinical N0, N1, N2-3, respectively. The aHRs (95% CI) of the PMRT group to the non-PMRT group for LRR-free survival and DFS were improved significantly. Our study indicated that PMRT significantly improved OS in clinical T3N0-T4N3 and for LRR-free survival and DFS in clinical T2N0-T4N3 from those of non-PMRT patients regardless of pathologic response and other predictors.

Breast-conserving surgery with or without irradiation in women with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast receiving preoperative systemic therapy: A cohort study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of adjuvant whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast (breast IDC) receiving preoperative systemic therapy (PST) and breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and their prognostic factors, considering overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), and disease-free survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed as having breast IDC and receiving PST followed by BCS were recruited and categorized by treatment into non-breast radiation therapy [BRT] (control) and WBRT (case) groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Multivariate Cox regression analyses indicated that non-BRT, cN3, and pathologic residual tumor (ypT2-4) or nodal (ypN2-3) stages were poor prognostic factors for OS. The adjusted HRs (aHRs; 95% CIs) of the WBRT group to non-BRT group for all-cause mortality were 0.14 (0.03-0.81), 0.32 (0.16-0.64), 0.43 (0.23-0.79), 0.23 (0.13-0.42), 0.52 (0.20-1.33), and 0.34 (0.13-0.87) in the ypT0, ypT1, ypT2-4, ypN0, ypN1, and ypN2-3 stages, respectively. The aHRs (95% CIs) of the WBRT group to non-BRT group for all-cause mortality were 0.09 (0.00-4.07), 0.46 (0.26-0.83), 0.18 (0.06-0.51), 0.28 (0.06-1.34), 0.25 (0.10-0.63), 0.47 (0.23-0.88), and 0.32 in the cT0-1, cT2, cT3, cT4, cN0, cN1, and cN2-3 stages, respectively. The WBRT group exhibited significantly better LRR-free and DM-free survival than the non-BRT group, regardless of the clinical T or N stage or pathologic response after PST. CONCLUSION: WBRT might lead to superior OS and LRR-free and DM-free survival compared with the non-BRT group, regardless of the initial clinical TN stage or pathologic response.

Pathologic response as predictor of recurrence, metastasis, and survival in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and total mastectomy.

To determine easy-to-use predictors of overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) in breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and total mastectomy (TM), we used the pathologic response (PR) of primary breast diseases (T stages), nodal diseases (N stages), and combined primary and nodal diseases (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] stages) based on existing clinical and pathologic reports as predictors. We enrolled patients with IDC who received NACT followed by TM. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) of PR; other independent predictors were controlled for or stratified in the analysis. We analyzed 3654 IDC patients (1031, 1215, 1003, and 405 patients with clinical stages IIB, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC, respectively) receiving NACT and TM. After multivariate Cox regression analyses, the adjusted HRs (aHRs) (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, LRR, and DM were noted to be 0.21 (0.13-0.34), 0.19 (0.08-0.48), and 0.33 (0.23-0.47), respectively, for pCR; 0.56 (0.48-0.65), 0.67 (0.51-0.89), and 0.61 (0.52-0.70), respectively, for AJCC downstaging; and 1.85 (1.56-2.18), 1.17 (0.84-1.62), and 1.61 (1.36-1.90), respectively, for AJCC upstaging. The PR parameters used in the study are easily applied because they are based on existing staging records, and they can strongly predict OS, LRR, and DM in IDC patients receiving NACT and TM, regardless of clinical stage. The results can be used to guide adjuvant treatment.

Experience of applying cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian teratoma with malignant transformation and peritoneal dissemination.

OBJECTIVES: The prognosis of ovarian teratoma with malignant transformation and peritoneal dissemination (PD) is poor. This condition is rare but associated with a high recurrence rate even after aggressive debulking surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. In the present paper, we describe our experience of using cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for this condition. METHODS: The data of ten female patients having ovarian teratoma with malignant transformation and PD between June 2007 and June 2017 were collected and reviewed retrospectively. CRS-HIPEC was performed according to the standard protocol. Patient characteristics, pathological reports, tumor markers, perioperative operative parameters, postoperative events, and disease status during the follow-up period were recorded. RESULTS: The primary ovarian neoplasms were pure mature cystic teratoma with malignant transformation (n=6, including 5 of mucinous adenocarcinoma), mixed germ cell tumor with mature cystic teratoma and yolk sac tumor (YST) (n=1), pure immature teratoma (n=1), immature teratoma with growing teratoma syndrome (GTS) (n=1), and immature teratoma mixed YST with GTS (n=1). The mean levels of tumor markers, including carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and CA125, were markedly elevated. The recurrence rate was 10%. The median and mean disease-free survival (DFS) after CRS-HIPEC were 22.3 and 36.2 months, respectively, and the 5-year DFS rate is 88%. CONCLUSION: CRS-HIPEC is a safe therapeutic option for reducing the recurrence rate in selected patients with PD originating from ovarian teratoma with malignant transformation.

Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy improve survival in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma receiving surgery: adjuvant chemotherapy alone is insufficient in the era of intensity modulation radiation therapy.

In the era of intensity modulation radiation therapy (IMRT), no prospective randomized trial has evaluated the efficacy of adjuvant therapies such as adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), adjuvant sequential chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CT-RT), and adjuvant CT alone in resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA). Through propensity score matching, we designed a nationwide, population-based, head-to-head cohort study to determine the effects of dissimilar adjuvant treatments on resectable PA. We minimized the confounding of various adjuvant treatment outcomes among the following resectable PA groups of patients from the Taiwan Cancer Registry database: group 1, adjuvant CCRT; group 2, adjuvant sequential CT-RT; and group 3, adjuvant CT alone. All the studied techniques are IMRTs. The matching process yielded a final cohort of 588 patients (196, 196, and 196 patients in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). In both univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs; 95% confidence interval [CI]) of death derived for the adjuvant CCRT and adjuvant sequential CT-RT cohorts compared with the adjuvant CT alone cohort were 0.398 (0.314-0.504) and 0.307 (0.235-0.402), respectively. A combination of adjuvant IMRT and CT for resectable PA treatment improves survival to a greater extent than does adjuvant CT alone.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for appendiceal goblet cell carcinomas with peritoneal carcinomatosis: results from a single specialized center.

BACKGROUND: Goblet cell carcinomas (GCCs) of the appendix are rare and aggressive malignancies with early peritoneal dissemination. The aim of the present article is to describe our experience in the management of GCCs with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) through cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and to determine the impact of multiple clinical characteristics on the prognosis. METHODS: From a prospectively maintained database of patients receiving CRS and HIPEC for peritoneal surface malignancy, the data of 15 patients with GCC and PC were collected. Neo-adjuvant laparoscopic HIPEC was performed if indicated. CRS and HIPEC with mitomycin-C or 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin were performed. Adjuvant chemotherapy was also arranged if suitable for the patient's condition. RESULTS: Nine males and six females with a mean age of 52.4 years were enrolled. The estimated median survival after the diagnosis of GCC with PC and after definitive CRS-HIPEC was 28 and 17 months, respectively. The 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-year survival rates were 86%, 69%, 57%, and 24%, respectively. Log-rank test revealed that the significant independent risk factors for more favorable outcomes were age >50 years, peritoneal cancer index (PCI) <27, postoperative PCI <20, administration of HIPEC, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariate analyses confirmed that administration of HIPEC played a crucial role in providing prognostic benefit. CONCLUSION: The management of GCC with PC remains challenging. We recommend CRS and HIPEC, followed by adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, as a promising strategy to improve survival, especially in selected patients with low PCI and possibility to achieve complete cytoreduction.

Experiences with cytoreduction surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in Taiwan.

Our hospital was the first institution to offer cytoreduction surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Taiwan. Therefore, we report our experience and outcomes among patients who underwent HIPEC.Since 2002, 164 eligible patients underwent HIPEC, and we excluded cases of laparoscopic or prophylactic HIPEC. The cases were categorized according to whether they were treated before 2012 (Period 1: 80 cases) or after 2012 (Period 2: 84 cases).The rates of surgical morbidity were 46.3% during Period 1 and 20.2% during Period 2 (P < .01), and the rates of severe complications were 25% during Period 1 and 9.5% during Period 2 (P < .01). The 5-year overall survival rate was 35.8%, with rates of 13.4% for gastric cancer, 27.3% for colon cancer, 70.0% for appendiceal cancer, and 52.4% for ovarian cancer (median follow-up: 34 months). The survival rate was 42.1% when we achieved a cytoreduction score of 0/1, compared with 21.1% in the group with a cytoreduction score of 2/3 (P < .01). Severe complications were associated with a 5-year survival rate of 23.4%, compared with 37.9% among cases without severe complications (P = .01). Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 78.6% of the patients if they underwent their first surgery at our hospital.We have become an experienced hospital for CRS plus HIPEC. Although our complication rate for CRS plus HIPEC was high, it was within the acceptable range. Long-term survival was achieved in a few cases.