局部治疗在直肠癌盆腔侧方淋巴结转移中的作用北大核心CSCD

盆腔侧方淋巴结(LPLN)转移是直肠癌预后不佳因素, 在低位、T3-T4期、直肠系膜淋巴结阳性情况下更常见, 但无准确预测转移的因素。高分辨率MRI是目前诊断LPLN转移的首选手段, 但阈值选择仍不明确。局部进展期直肠癌的侧方淋巴结转移治疗模式在全球存在分歧, 欧美国家主张放化疗联合直肠全系膜切除术, 而日本推荐直肠全系膜切除术联合LPLN清扫。放疗与手术联合可取得很好的局控, 利用放疗前、后MRI的侧方淋巴结信息, 可筛选出高危患者进行强化治疗, 如放化疗后行LPLN清扫或LPLN区放疗推量。目前各种手段在治疗LPLN转移方面的作用仍缺乏高质量证据, 尚需更多的研究来改善治疗策略。     

直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫的研究进展与相关争议

盆腔侧方淋巴结（lateral pelvic lymph node,LPLN）是中低位直肠癌常见的淋巴回流通路,有14%～30%的局部中晚期直肠癌患者同时合并LPLN转移。然而,术前诊断的遗漏和不规范的治疗是导致术后LPLN复发的常见原因,同时也是诊疗中的难点之一。目前,侧方淋巴结清扫术（lateral pelvic lymph node dissection,LPLND）的价值与意义,在国际上尚存争议。近些年来,新辅助放化疗（neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy,nCRT）与LPLND相互替代的治疗模式趋于融合,逐渐形成了一套精确化、个体化的治疗策略。同时,随着外科器械设备的更新与淋巴结示踪剂技术的不断发展,使得以往制约LPLND的因素逐渐消失,可逐渐在临床推广开展。但针对直肠癌LPLN转移的治疗策略、nCRT后LPLND的适应证、预后价值、有效清扫范围、安全性仍存在诸多问题,需深入研究。      

102例直肠癌侧方淋巴结转移患者临床病理特点及生存预后分析

Objective To investigate the therapeutic effect and prognostic significance of lateral lymph node dissection (LPLND) in patients with lateral lymph node (LPLN) metastasis. Methods The clinicopathological data of rectal cancer patients who underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) combined with LPLND and pathologically confirmed as LPLN metastasis after operation were retrospectively analyzed. The clinicopathological characteristics and metastasis rules of patients with LPLN metastasis were discussed, and the survival prognosis after LPLND was analyzed. Results A total of 102 rectal cancer patients with pathologically confirmed LPLN metastasis were included. The common sites of LPLN metastasis were internal iliac vessels lymph nodes (n=68, 66.7%), followed by obturator lymph nodes (n=44, 43.1%), and common iliac vessels or external iliac vessels lymph nodes (n=12, 11.8%). There were 10 patients (9.8%) with bilateral LPLN metastases, and the mean number of LPLN metastases was 2.2±2.4, among which 16 patients (15.7%) had LPLN metastases number≥2. The 3-year OS (66.8% vs. 7.7%, P<0.001) and DFS (39.1% vs. 10.5%, P=0.012) of patients with LPLN metastases to the external iliac or common iliac lymph node were significantly lower than those with metastases to the internal iliac or obturator lymph node. The multivariate analysis showed that LPLN metastasis to external iliac or common iliac lymph node was an independent risk factor both for OS (HR=3.53; 95%CI: 1.50-8.31; P=0.004) and DFS (HR=2.40; 95%CI: 1.05-5.47; P=0.037). Conclusion LPLN mainly metastasizes to the internal iliac or obturator lymph node areas. The survival of patients with metastasis to the external iliac or common iliac lymph node cannot be improved by LPLND, and thus systemic comprehensive treatment is often the optimal treatment option. © 2023, CHINA RESEARCH ON PREVENTION AND TREATMENT. All rights reserved.     

立体定向放疗用于结直肠癌肝与肺寡转移的研究进展

寡转移是肿瘤从局部区域病变进展到远处广泛转移过程中存在的一种中间状态,通过局部治疗有获得长期生存的可能。体部立体定向放疗(SBRT)单次剂量高、分割次数少,是一种高精准的局部消融治疗手段。结直肠癌有近一半患者会发生转移,主要转移部位为肝和肺。本文主要阐述SBRT治疗结直肠癌肝、肺寡转移灶的安全性、近期疗效及其影响因素,同时也总结了SBRT具体实施的要点。SBRT在严格的呼吸运动管理和放疗质控下是治疗结直肠癌寡转移的有效手段。     

肺癌合并眼部转移:单中心回顾性研究并文献综述

背景与目的 眼部转移(ocular metastasis)是肺癌少见转移之一,影响患者生活质量.本研究旨在探讨肺癌合并眼转移患者的临床特征及预后.方法 回顾性分析肺癌合并眼部转移9例患者的临床资料,回顾近10年文献报道共42例患者的临床特点.结果 9例患者的中位年龄为51岁(范围:41岁-61岁),其中7例诊断为非小细胞肺癌(包括腺癌6例);1例为小细胞肺癌;1例病理不详.眼转移部位方面,脉络膜8例,虹膜1例.文献回顾中,小细胞肺癌占21.4%(n=9),腺癌占47.6%(n=20),脉络膜是最常见的眼转移部位(66.7%,n=28).肺癌合并眼转移患者,系统化疗的疾病控制率仅为28%,联合眼部局部治疗可有效控制眼部症状.结论 肺癌合并眼部转移以肺腺癌多见,脉络膜转移是肺癌眼部转移的最常见转移部位.眼部局部治疗可控制局部症状,但系统性化疗疗效差.     

局部复发性骨肉瘤56例患者的预后因素分析

目的:探讨影响局部复发性骨肉瘤患者预后的相关因素.方法:2002年1月-2009年12月本科共收治并确诊骨肉瘤患者339例,回顾性分析其中56例局部复发性骨肉瘤患者的临床资料,并对其预后进行随访,随访时间为13～130个月,平均45.1个月.以性别、年龄、肿瘤部位、肿瘤大小、手术方式、新辅助化疗、第1次术后辅助化疗次数、肺转移、其他部位远处转移和局部复发后治疗这10项因素作为变量,应用Kaplan-Meier法计算患者总生存率和复发后生存率,应用log-rank检验进行预后的单因素分析,应用COX回归模型进行预后的多因素分析.结果:56例局部复发性骨肉瘤患者局部复发后的中位生存时间29个月(95％可信区间:24.5～33.5),总的中位生存时间为51个月(95％可信区间:29.3～72.7),累计2年和3年生存率分别为78.6％和46.4％.单因素分析显示,性别、肿瘤大小、肺以外其他部位转移和局部复发后治疗方案是局部复发性骨肉瘤的预后因素(P＜0.05);多因素分析显示,肺以外其他部位转移和局部复发后治疗方案是影响预后的独立相关因素(P＜0.05).年龄、肿瘤部位、手术方式、新辅助化疗、第1次术后辅助化疗和肺转移与复发性骨肉瘤的预后无关(P＞0.05).结论:肺以外其他部位转移和局部复发后治疗是影响局部复发性骨肉瘤患者预后的独立影响因素,对局部复发灶和远处转移灶采用积极的外科治疗能够有效地提高局部复发性骨肉瘤患者的生存率.     

非小细胞肺癌寡转移的立体定向放射治疗研究

非小细胞肺癌(Non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)是除小细胞肺癌以外所有类型的肺癌,脑、骨、肝及肾上腺为最常见的远处转移部位。在NSCLC远处转移患者中,并非都是多发的、广泛的,有近7%的患者表现为肺外孤立性转移。这种特殊形式的晚期肿瘤转移状态称之为NSCLC寡转移。寡转移的治疗以局部治疗为主,局部治疗主要措施包括立体定向放疗、手术切除、射频消融等。本文主要探讨立体定向放射治疗(Stereotactic radiotherapy,SRT)对NSCLC在常见远处转移脏器寡转移的作用。     

乳腺癌根治术局部复发后影响预后的相关因素分析

目的研究乳腺癌根治术局部复发后影响预后的相关因素,探讨乳腺癌根治术后局部复发的最佳治疗方案。方法回顾性分析天津肿瘤医院1975年1月至2003年1月期间收治的1067例乳腺癌根治术后复发患者,采用χ2检验或秩和检验对患者年龄、绝经情况、原发瘤临床分期、腋窝淋巴结转移情况、无病间期、复发部位、胸壁复发灶数目及其最大直径、雌激素受体(ER)或孕激素受体(PR)表达、人类表皮生长因子受体2(HER-2)表达等临床病理特征以及不同治疗方案与局部复发治疗的近期疗效和远处转移率之间的关系进行单因素分析;使用Kaplan-Meier法及COX回归模型对乳腺癌根治术复发后影响5年生存率的相关因素进行单因素与多因素分析。结果对全部1067例病例进行随访,778例(72.9%)出现远处转移,复发后5年总生存率为42.4%。复发部位、胸壁复发灶数目及其最大直径、有无放射治疗、放射治疗范围、有无化疗、有无手术切除或切除活检等因素的不同亚组间局部控制率的差异有统计学意义(P0.050);腋窝淋巴结转移情况、无病间期、ER或PR表达、HER-2表达以及再治疗中有无化疗等因素的不同亚组间远处转移率的差异有统计学意义(P0.050);无病间期、复发部位、胸壁复发灶数目、ER或PR表达、HER-2表达、治疗方法等因素的不同亚组间5年总生存率的差异有统计学意义(P0.050);无病间期≤2年、复发部位多、治疗方案单一、局部控制率低及ER、PR均阴性是导致复发性乳腺癌预后差的独立因素(P0.050)。结论多部位复发、胸壁多发结节及胸壁复发灶最大直径3cm者局部控制不佳,局部扩大野放射治疗结合化疗和(或)手术是改善局部控制率的较好模式;有腋窝淋巴结转移、2年内复发、ER、PR均阴性以及HER-2阳性表达的乳腺癌复发后容易发生远处转移,复发再治疗中化疗能减少远处转移的发生;对于复发性乳腺癌采取综合治疗方案可以提高复发患者的生存率;无病间期长,多部位复发,ER或PR阴性者提示预后不良。     

EGFR敏感突变阴性非小细胞肺癌脑转移患者临床特征

除少见的间变性淋巴瘤激酶(anaplastic lymphoma kinase, ALK)及原癌基因-1受体酪氨酸激酶(c-ros oncogene 1-receptor tyrosine kinase, ROS1)阳性敏感融合外,非表皮生长因子受体(epidermal growth factor receptor,EGFR)敏感突变的非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC)脑转移患者目前无有效的全身治疗药物,整体预后较差。由于传统药物血脑屏障透过率低,脑转移的局部治疗尤其是放疗具有非常重要作用。为了更好地认识EGFR突变阴性NSCLC脑实质转移的特点,本文从脑转移的发病率、发病时间、发病部位、病灶数目及大小、发病症状、治疗疗效和病情演变等方面综述了EGFR突变阴性NSCLC脑实质转移的临床特征以及治疗,为脑实质转移局部治疗的介入时机以及局部治疗技术选择提供参考。     

局部晚期乳腺癌根治术疗效及患者术后生活质量和负性情绪

目的探讨局部晚期乳腺癌根治术的疗效及患者术后生活质量和负性情绪。方法选择2011年9月至2015年2月间收治的局部晚期乳腺癌手术患者80例,其中Ⅲ期70例,Ⅳ期10例。部分患者行术前新辅助化疗,同时在无瘤区植入扩张器,行新辅助化疗时同时扩张周围正常皮肤,在化疗缩小病灶后,对其中40例(20例周围皮瓣转移,20例植入扩张器扩张周围皮肤)患者在根治术中提供足够的皮肤软组织供胸壁缺损修复,观察40例患者在接受胸壁大面积皮肤缺损修复方法治疗后的临床效果。结果局部晚期乳腺癌患者治疗后躯体功能、心理功能得分及生活质量总分均高于治疗前,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分治疗后明显低于治疗前,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。对乳腺癌患者的随访结果显示,术后3年内80例乳腺癌患者中有6例出现局部区域复发,10例出现转移,主要转移部位为内乳淋巴结转移、锁骨上淋巴结转移,患者3年后生存68例。结论胸壁大面积皮肤缺损修复方法对局部晚期乳腺癌患者的治疗效果明显,可提高局部晚期乳腺癌患者的生活质量,有效地缓解患者术后焦虑与抑郁情绪,且术后患者转移复发率较低,生存率高。     

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in the management of locally advanced low rectal cancer: Summary of the current evidence

Lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPLN) are a major site for local recurrence following curative resection for low locally advanced rectal cancer. Ongoing advances in imaging techniques have improved predicting LPLN metastasis (LPLNM) during pre-operative staging. However, there is ongoing debate on optimal management of this subgroup of patients with variation between guidance of different societies. In Japan, LPLNM is considered as local disease and addressed by lateral pelvic node dissection (LPLND) in addition to total mesorectal excision (TME). However, in the west, LPLNM is considered as metastatic disease and those patients are offered neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by TME surgery. The potential surgical risks and morbidity associated with LPLND as well as the uncertainty of the oncological outcome have raised the concern that patients with locally advanced low rectal cancer with LPLNM could be over or under-treated.A comprehensive review of literature was performed, summarizing the current evidence on available modalities for predicting LPLNM, the role of LPLND in the management of advanced low rectal cancer and the available surgical approaches with their impact on surgical and oncological outcomes.LPLND is associated with increased operative time, blood loss and post-operative morbidity. The potential benefits for local disease control and survival still awaits high quality studies. There has been increasing number of reports of the use minimally invasive approaches in LPLND in an attempt to reduce post-operative complications.There is need for high quality evidence to define the role of LPLND in management of patients with advanced low rectal cancer.     

What Is the Role of Lateral Lymph Node Excision in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Who Received Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy?

In the era of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for rectal cancer, the role of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) has become much more complicated because preoperative CRT affects both the lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPLN) and the main tumor. Most previous studies do not demonstrate the benefits of LPLND following preoperative CRT in comparison with total mesorectal excision, although some authors have argued that selective LPLND is beneficial. LPLN treatment strategies differ depending on whether the disease was considered systemic metastatic disease or local disease which can be treated using surgical resection. The role of LPLND in rectal cancer is better evaluated on the basis of its oncologic impact rather than technical feasibility. Here, we review LPLN metastasis status in rectal cancer, whether LPLN metastasis is systemic or local disease, and studies on the use of LPLND to treat rectal cancer.     

Controversy about treatment of colorectal cancer in view of surgeon--lymph node dissection for colorectal surgery (lateral lymph node dissection and TME)

Lateral lymph node dissection is technique for reducing local recurrence rate after resection of rectal cancer. In this study, we will report a decade experience for lateral lymph node dissection of rectal cancer in 491 cases. Lateral lymph node metastases occurred in 15.4% of rectal cancer which was below peritoneal reflection and through muscularis propria into non-peritoneal. It is a problem that it has never been well designed study of lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer. On the other hand, TME has also contributed reducing local recurrence rate. But, distant margin for resection of rectal cancer is controversial.     

A case of lateral pelvic lymph node recurrence after TME for submucosal rectal carcinoma successfully treated by lymph node dissection with en bloc resection of the internal iliac vessels

In Japan, lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is generally performed for the treatment of T3-4 lower rectal carcinoma, and not for T1 lower rectal carcinoma, because of a low positive rate in patients with T1 lesion. We experienced a rare case of lateral pelvic lymph node recurrence after total mesorectal resection for T1 lower rectal carcinoma, successfully treated by LLND with en bloc resection of the internal iliac vessels. There is no guideline for the treatment of patients with isolated lateral lymph node recurrence; however, surgery should be considered for such patients.     

Predictive factors of pathological lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients without clinical lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis (clinical stage II/III): The analysis of data from the clinical trial (JCOG0212)

BackgroundMesorectal excision (ME) is the standard surgical procedure for lower rectal cancer. However, in Japan, total or tumor-specific ME with lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LLND) is the standard surgical procedure for patients with clinical stages II or III lower rectal cancer, because lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis occasionally occurs in these patients. The aim of study was to elucidate the predictive factors of pathological lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients without clinical lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis.MethodsData form the clinical trial (JCOG0212) was analyzed. The JCOG0212 was a randomized controlled trial to confirm the non-inferiority of mesorectal excision alone to mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for clinical stage II/III patients who don't have clinical lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in terms of relapse free survival. This study was conducted at a multitude of institution33 major hospitals in Japan. Among the 351 patients who underwent lateral lymph node dissection in the JCOG0212 study, 328 patients were included in this study. Associations between pathological lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis and preoperative and postoperative factors were investigated. The preoperative factors were age, sex, clinical stage, tumor location, distance from anal verge, tumor size, and short-axis diameter of lateral pelvic lymph node on computed tomography and the postoperative factors were pathological T, pathological N, and histological grade.ResultsAmong the 328 patients, 24 (7.3%) had pathological lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis. In multivariable analysis of the preoperative factors, patient age (p = 0.067), tumor location (p = 0.025), and short-axis diameter of lateral pelvic lymph node (p = 0.002) were significantly associated with pathological lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis.ConclusionsPatient age, tumor location, and short-axis diameter of lateral pelvic lymph node were predictive factors of pathological lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis.     

Lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer: State of the art review

Half of the local regional recurrences from rectal cancer are nowadays located in the lateral compartments, most likely due to lateral lymph node (LLN) metastases. There is evidence that a lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) can lower the lateral local recurrence rate. An LLND without neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with or without suspected LLN metastases has been the standard of care in the East, while Western surgeons believed LLN metastases to be cured by neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision (TME) only. An LLND in patients without enlarged LLNs might result in overtreatment with low rates of pathological LLNs, but in patients with enlarged LLNs who are treated with (C)RT and TME only, the risk of a lateral local recurrence significantly increases to 20%. Certain Eastern and Western centers are increasingly performing a selective LLND after neoadjuvant treatment in the presence of suspicious LLNs due to new scientific insights, but (inter)national consensus on the indication and surgical approach of LLND is lacking. An LLND is an anatomically challenging procedure with intraoperative risks such as bleeding and postoperative morbidity. It is therefore essential to carefully select the patients who will benefit from this procedure and where possible to perform the LLND in a minimally invasive manner to limit these risks. This review gives an overview of the current evidence of the assessment of LLNs, the indications for LLND, the surgical technique, pitfalls in performing this procedure and the future studies are discussed, aiming to contribute to more (inter)national consensus.     

Extent of lymph node dissection in rectal carcinoma

Basing on 170 specimens of advanced rectal cancers radically resected, metastatic rule and extent of lymph node dissection were studied in order to guide future surgical treatment. In 170 cases, 77 had lymph node metastases. The lymph node metastatic rate was 45.3% and metastatic degree was 8.9% (527/5 912). Metastasis of the rectal cancer, according to the lymphatic anatomy, can be divided into upward, lateral and downward drain. Because the rectal cancer at any site can lead to the upward metastasis, the upward lymph node dissection, up to the base of inferior mesenteric artery (the third line of lymph nodes), must be done in all rectal cases, otherwise, 10% of patients would have residual cancer. In view of the lateral metastasis occurring only in rectal cancers under the peritoneal reflection, for which lateral lymph node dissection is necessary or one eighth of patients would have residual lesion. Generally, no lateral lymph node dissection is needed in cancers above the peritoneal reflection. Pathologic factor influencing the lymphatic metastasis is the form of tumor growth, such as poorly differentiated and mucoid adenocarcinomas aggressively growing deeply and extensively resulting in a higher lymph node metastatic rate, for which lymph node dissection must be performed.