Adenokarzinom des ösophagogastralen Übergangs: Retrospektive Analyse von Therapieansätzen

M. Stahl
{"title":"Adenokarzinom des ösophagogastralen Übergangs: Retrospektive Analyse von Therapieansätzen","authors":"M. Stahl","doi":"10.1159/000535381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The FLOT protocol and the CROSS trimodality regimen represent current standards in the management of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. In the absence of published Randomised Controlled Trial data, this propensity-matched comparison evaluated tolerance, toxicity, impact on sarcopenia and pulmonary physiology, operative complications, and oncologic metrics. Methods: Two hundred and twenty-two patients, 111 in each arm, were included from 2 high-volume centers. Computed tomography-measured sarcopenia, and pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in first second/forced vital capacity/diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide) were compared pretherapy and posttherapy. Operative complications were defined as per the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) criteria, and severity per Clavien-Dindo. Tumor regression grade and R status were measured, and survival estimated per Kaplan-Meier. Results: A total of 83% were male, cT3/cN+ was 92%/68% for FLOT, and 86%/60% for CROSS. The full prescribed regimen was tolerated in 40% of FLOT patients versus 92% for CROSS. Sarcopenia increased from 16% to 33% for FLOT, and 14% to 30% in CROSS (P <0.01 between arms). Median decrease in diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide was -8.25% (-34 to 25) for FLOT, compared with -13.8% (-38 to 29), for CROSS (P = 0.01 between arms). Major pathologic response was 27% versus 44% for FLOT and CROSS, respectively (P = 0.03). In-hospital mortality, respectively, was 1% versus 2% (P = 0.9), and Clavien Dindo >III 22% versus 27% (P =0.59), however, respiratory failure was increased by CROSS, at 13% versus 3% (P <0.001). Three-year survival was similar at 63% (FLOT) and 60% (CROSS) (P =0.42).","PeriodicalId":413988,"journal":{"name":"Kompass Onkologie","volume":"127 42","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kompass Onkologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000535381","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The FLOT protocol and the CROSS trimodality regimen represent current standards in the management of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. In the absence of published Randomised Controlled Trial data, this propensity-matched comparison evaluated tolerance, toxicity, impact on sarcopenia and pulmonary physiology, operative complications, and oncologic metrics. Methods: Two hundred and twenty-two patients, 111 in each arm, were included from 2 high-volume centers. Computed tomography-measured sarcopenia, and pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in first second/forced vital capacity/diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide) were compared pretherapy and posttherapy. Operative complications were defined as per the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) criteria, and severity per Clavien-Dindo. Tumor regression grade and R status were measured, and survival estimated per Kaplan-Meier. Results: A total of 83% were male, cT3/cN+ was 92%/68% for FLOT, and 86%/60% for CROSS. The full prescribed regimen was tolerated in 40% of FLOT patients versus 92% for CROSS. Sarcopenia increased from 16% to 33% for FLOT, and 14% to 30% in CROSS (P <0.01 between arms). Median decrease in diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide was -8.25% (-34 to 25) for FLOT, compared with -13.8% (-38 to 29), for CROSS (P = 0.01 between arms). Major pathologic response was 27% versus 44% for FLOT and CROSS, respectively (P = 0.03). In-hospital mortality, respectively, was 1% versus 2% (P = 0.9), and Clavien Dindo >III 22% versus 27% (P =0.59), however, respiratory failure was increased by CROSS, at 13% versus 3% (P <0.001). Three-year survival was similar at 63% (FLOT) and 60% (CROSS) (P =0.42).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
食管胃交界处腺癌:治疗方法回顾性分析
背景:FLOT方案和CROSS三位一体方案代表了局部晚期食管腺癌管理的当前标准。在没有发表的随机对照试验数据的情况下,这种倾向匹配的比较评估了耐受性、毒性、对肌肉减少症和肺生理的影响、手术并发症和肿瘤学指标。方法:222例患者,每组111例,来自2个大容量中心。比较治疗前和治疗后计算机断层扫描测量的肌肉减少症和肺功能(第一秒用力呼气量/用力肺活量/一氧化碳弥散量)。根据食管并发症共识组(ecgg)标准定义手术并发症,根据Clavien-Dindo标准定义严重程度。测量肿瘤消退等级和R状态,并根据Kaplan-Meier估计生存率。结果:男性占83%,FLOT cT3/cN+为92%/68%,CROSS为86%/60%。40%的FLOT患者耐受完整的处方方案,而92%的CROSS患者耐受。FLOT组肌肉减少症从16%增加到33%,CROSS组从14%增加到30% (P =0.59),然而,CROSS组呼吸衰竭增加,分别为13%和3% (P <0.001)。三年生存率相似,分别为63% (FLOT)和60% (CROSS) (P =0.42)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Molekulare Diagnostik und innovative Therapien beim Mammakarzinom: Ein Wechselspiel mit Potential und Herausforderungen Triple-negativer Brustkrebs: Mit Pembrolizumab die Lebensqualität im metastasierten Stadium verbessern Mammakarzinom: Axilladissektion nicht immer nötig bei Sentinel-Metastasen Einbindung von Patient Reported Outcomes und künstlicher Intelligenz als zentrale Technologien im Gesundheitswesen Onkologie im Aufbruch: Wie KI und Digitalisierung die Zukunft gestalten
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1