Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPapaxoinis, Georgios
dc.contributor.authorKamposioras, K
dc.contributor.authorWeaver, Jamie M
dc.contributor.authorKordatou, Zoe
dc.contributor.authorStamatopoulou, Sofia
dc.contributor.authorGermetaki, Theodora
dc.contributor.authorNasralla, Magdy
dc.contributor.authorOwen-Holt, Vikki
dc.contributor.authorAnthoney, A
dc.contributor.authorMansoor, Was
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-04T12:32:43Z
dc.date.available2019-03-04T12:32:43Z
dc.date.issued2019en
dc.identifier.citationPapaxoinis G, Kamposioras K, Weaver JMJ, Kordatou Z, Stamatopoulou S, Germetaki T, et al. The role of continuing perioperative chemotherapy post surgery in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 Jan 22.en
dc.identifier.pmid30671799en
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11605-018-04087-8en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/621565
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: The aim of this cohort study was to assess the benefit that patients with lower esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) adenocarcinoma receive by continuing perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery. METHODS: Three hundred twelve patients underwent radical tumor surgical resection after preoperative chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was mainly ECX (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery vs. no postoperative treatment. RESULTS: Two hundred ten patients (67.3%) had GEJ and 102 (32.7%) lower esophageal adenocarcinoma. Microscopically clear surgical margins (R0), according to the Royal College of Pathologists, were achieved in 208 patients (66.7%). In total, 225 patients (72.1%) continued perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery. PSM was used to create two patient groups, well-balanced for basic epidemiological, clinical, and histopathological characteristics. The first included 148 patients who continued perioperative chemotherapy after surgery and the second 86, who did not receive postoperative treatment. The first group had non-significantly different median time-to-relapse (TTR 22.2 vs. 25.7 months, p?=?0.627), overall survival (OS 46.1 vs. 36.7 months, p?=?0.199), and post-relapse survival (15.3 vs. 8.7 months, p?=?0.122). Subgroup analysis showed that only patients with microscopically residual disease after surgery (R1 resection) benefited from continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery for both TTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.556, 95% CI 0.330-0.936, p?=?0.027) and OS (HR 0.530, 95% CI 0.313-0.898, p?=?0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery was not associated with improved outcome in patients with E/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients with microscopically residual disease post-surgery might receive a potential benefit from adjuvant chemotherapyen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.urlhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-04087-8en
dc.titleThe role of continuing perioperative chemotherapy post surgery in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, 550 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, UKen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Gastrointestinal Surgeryen
dc.description.noteen]


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record