侵犯浆膜层合并淋巴结转移胃癌术后辅助腹腔联合全身静脉化疗的生存分析

目的针对侵犯浆膜层合并淋巴结转移的胃癌术后患者辅助全身静脉化疗比较加用与不加用腹腔化疗的长期疗效。方法将66位患者随机分为腹腔联合静脉化疗组（治疗组）和单纯静脉化疗组（对照组）,进行6周期的辅助治疗。治疗组前2周期为腹腔联合全身静脉化疗,对照组为静脉化疗。观察无病生存期（DFS）和总生存期（OS）和不良反应。结果治疗组比对照组的DFS明显延长,中位DFS分别为18．2个月和15．4个月,两组OS分别为24．7个月和25个月,无差异。结论加强局部治疗有助于延长患者的无病生存时间。总生存期的改善可能还有赖于全程疗效的提高。     

局部晚期胃癌术后辅助腹腔化疗的临床观察

目的探讨局部晚期胃癌术后辅助腹腔化疗的疗效和不良反应。方法采用对比研究方法,对我院2006年1月至2009年12月200例局部晚期胃癌术后患者随机分为腹腔灌注化疗联合静脉化疗组（治疗组n=87）和单纯静脉化疗组（对照组n=113）,观察两组的生存时间和化疗的毒副反应。结果两组随访,腹腔化疗联合静脉化疗组中位生存时间分别为28.00个月,单纯静脉化疗组中位生存时间为11.24个月,局部晚期胃癌术后加用腹腔化疗组较单纯静脉化疗组延长了生存时间,不良反应无显著差异。结论局部晚期胃癌术后静脉联合腹腔化疗,较单纯静脉化疗,延长生存时间,疗效较好,且耐受性较好。     

Ⅲa期单站纵隔淋巴结肿大NSCLC患者术后生存分析

目的 分析单站N2-Ⅲa期非小细胞肺癌患者的预后因素。方法 回顾性分析2010年1月至2013年12月同济大学附属肺科医院的术后病理确诊为单站纵膈淋巴结转移的N2-Ⅲa期非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC)患者341例。收集所有患者的基本临床病理资料及术后治疗,并进行生存随访;采用Kaplan-Meier方法绘制生存曲线,Cox比例风险模型对无病生存期(disease free survival, DFS)和总生存期(overall survival, OS)进行多因素分析。结果 所有患者的中位DFS及中位OS分别为28个月和52个月。多因素分析显示肿瘤最大径≤3cm(P=0.010)、未侵及脏层胸膜(P=0.009)以及辅助化疗≥3周期(P=0.001)是单站N2-ⅢA期NSCLC患者无病生存的有利因素;而女性患者(P=0.046)、腺癌患者(P=0.004)、辅助化疗≥3周期(P=0.000)、单纯胸腔内复发(P=0.002)和复发后接受抗肿瘤治疗(P=0.000)是单站N2-Ⅲa期NSCLC的独立生存预后因素。结论肿瘤最大径≤3cm、未侵及脏层胸膜及辅助化疗≥3周期是单站N2-ⅢA期NSCLC患者复发预测因素;而女性、腺癌、辅助化疗≥3周期、单纯胸腔内复发及复发后接受抗肿瘤治疗是单站N2-Ⅲa期NSCLC患者的独立生存预后因素。     

KLF3在胃癌组织中的表达及临床意义

目的 探讨KLF3在胃癌组织中的表达情况及其与临床病理、预后的相关性。方法 基于KM数据库评估KLF3 mRNA与胃癌预后的关系,收集130例胃癌患者临床病理及预后信息,免疫组化检测胃癌组织中KLF3的表达情况。结果 KM数据库分析显示,与低表达相比,KLF3 mRNA高表达患者具有较长的总生存时间、首次疾病进展时间和首次复发后生存时间。130例胃癌中KLF3蛋白高表达与良好的病理因素相关,如肿瘤体积更小,pT分期、pN分期更早以及Ki-67更低。同样,KLF3蛋白高表达患者的无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)明显长于KLF3低表达的患者(P<0.01)。多因素Cox回归分析发现KLF3表达量是DFS(HR=0.581,95%CI=0.343-0.852,P=0.019)和OS(HR=0.617,95%CI=0.445-0.937,P=0.011)的独立影响因素。结论 KLF3蛋白高表达与良好的临床病理因素相关,是胃癌患者良好预后的独立影响因素,KLF3可能在胃癌中起抑癌作用。     

局部进展期胃癌术后雷替曲塞腹腔灌注化疗联合静脉化疗的临床研究

目的:探讨术后雷替曲塞腹腔灌注化疗联合静脉化疗与术后单纯静脉化疗对局部进展期胃癌患者的临床疗效。方法:根据治疗方法不同将46例局部进展期胃癌根治术后患者分为联合化疗组(n=25)和静脉化疗组(n=21),联合化疗组行腹腔灌注化疗联合静脉化疗,静脉化疗组行单纯静脉化疗。比较两组患者术后肝功能(ALT)、肾功能(Cr)、血细胞(RBC、WBC、PLC)、腹腔引流时间及胃肠功能平均恢复时间、围手术期并发症及不良反应发生率、术后复发率、转移率、3年生存率。结果:术前1 d和术后3、7 d,两组的ALT、Cr、RBC、PLC比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05);术前1 d和术后7 d,两组的WBC比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05),但术后3 d,联合化疗组的WBC低于静脉化疗组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组术后腹腔引流时间及胃肠功能平均恢复时间比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。两组围手术期并发症及不良反应发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。联合化疗组患者术后局部复发率、腹腔广泛转移率均低于静脉化疗组,差异均有统计学意义(字2=4.271、4.654,P=0.042、0.037);两组的远处转移率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。联合化疗组的3年生存率高于静脉化疗组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:局部进展期胃癌根治术后患者行联合化疗安全可靠,联合化疗可显著降低局部进展期胃癌根治术后患者局部复发率、腹腔转移率,并延长患者生存率。     

进展期胃癌术后化疗同步适形放疗的近期疗效观察

目的比较胃癌术后单纯化疗和同步放化疗的急性毒副作用及近期疗效。方法61例Ib～IUC期胃癌根治术后患者,对照组33例术后接受单纯FOLFOX4方案化疗4～6周程;观察组28例先接受1次静脉化疗,同步化疗采用每天口服卡培他滨,放疗采用等中心分野适形技术,同步放化疗结束后再给静脉化疗1～3周程,静脉化疗药物参照FOLFOX4方案。结果同步放化疗组的胃肠道及血液学Ⅲ～Ⅳ级毒副作用显著增高,但患者均能耐受;同步放化疗组的总生存率（OS）明显高于术后单纯化疗组（P=0．04）,1年和3年无复发生存率（DFS）也有高于单纯化疗组的趋势（P=0．05）。结论Ib～ⅢC期胃癌根治术后口服卡培他滨同步放疗加FOLFOX4方案辅助化疗,较术后单纯FOLFOX4方案化疗有更高的近期生存率,毒副作用较高但临床可耐受。     

局部进展期胃癌D2根治术后同步放化疗与单纯化疗的疗效比较

目的 比较局部进展期胃癌D2根治术后同步放化疗与单纯化疗的疗效和不良反应.方法 选取接受根治术的局部进展期胃癌患者79例(R0切除,D2淋巴结清扫),随机分为2组.试验组40例,采用放疗同步卡培他滨化疗序贯4周期奥沙利铂联合卡培他滨(XELOX)方案化疗.对照组39例,术后仅予以6周期奥沙利铂联合卡培他滨(XELOX)方案化疗.比较两组患者局部复发率、3年无病生存率、3年总生存率及不良反应.结果 与对照组比较,试验组局部复发率降低[64.1％(25/39) vs 40.0％ (16/40),P=0.032],3年无病生存率和3年总生存率比较有所增高,但差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);试验组和对照组淋巴结阳性患者3年生存率分别为45.2％(14/31)和18.5％(5/27)(P=0.049),中位无病生存期分别为26个月和19个月(P=0.024).试验组血液毒性和胃肠道反应发生率较高.结论 局部进展期胃癌根治术后同步放化疗序贯化疗较单纯化疗可以降低局部复发率,对于淋巴结阳性患者有改善生存的趋势.主要不良反应为血液毒性及胃肠道反应.     

乳腺癌术后辅助化疗开始时间与预后相关性研究

目的研究乳腺癌术后开始化疗的时间与预后的相关性,探索更适当的开始辅助化疗时机。方法回顾性分析接受辅助化疗的303例I-III期乳腺癌患者,分析其无病生存期（DFS）和总生存期（OS）。以手术后开始第1个周期化疗时间为起点时间,按起点时间不同方法分析,阶段时间为界：1～14d化疗组（1组）;15～21d化疗组（2组）;22～28d化疗组（3组）;29～35d化疗组（4组）;≥36d化疗组（5组）。结果无病生存期,在各组中无病生存期整体比较有差别（P=0.024）。各组的5年无病生存期分别为76.0%,85.2%,86.7%,63.8%,64.9%。总生存期整体比较无统计学意义。独立的预后因素中,年龄、肿瘤的大小、腋淋巴结转移数目、化疗药物四个自变量与无病生存相关;X2=11.316,P=0.023。结论乳腺癌术后需要接受术后辅助化疗的患者,术后在≤28d开始辅助化疗有益于无病生存期延长。术后辅助化疗最佳区间22～28d。其中年龄、肿瘤的大小、腋淋巴结转移数目、化疗药物四个自变量与病生存相关。     

Ⅲ期胃癌D2根治术后辅助放化疗患者长期预后的影响因素：基于10年随访数据

背景局部进展期胃癌主要包括Ⅲ期胃癌,以综合治疗为主,患者术后复发是影响患者预后的关键因素。目的 探究Ⅲ期胃癌D2根治术后辅助放化疗患者长期预后的影响因素。方法 选取2009—2014年在复旦大学附属中山医院放疗科行D2根治术后辅助放化疗的胃癌患者为研究对象,病理结果根据国际癌症联合会（UICC）和美国肿瘤联合会（AJCC）第八版胃癌TNM分期系统进行分期,明确诊断Ⅲ期胃癌。术后所有患者在第1年每3个月随访1次,之后2年内每6个月随访1次,而后每年随访1次。随访截止日期为2021-12-15。采用Log-rank检验比较生存率的差异,采用Cox比例风险回归分析探究患者总生存时间（OS）和无病生存时间（DFS）的影响因素,列线图预测临床病理特征对预后的影响,Kaplan-Meier法比较不同pTNM分期、年龄、转移淋巴结率（LNR）、胃切除方式患者生存差异。结果 共纳入行术后辅助放疗的Ⅲ期胃癌患者135例,中位随访时间10.48年。5年内复发70例,死亡62例,5年无病生存率、总生存率分别为48.1%(65/135)、54.1%(73/135);10年内复发74例,死亡74例,10年无病生...     

K-ras基因突变对Ⅲ期大肠癌术后辅助化疗疗效的预测意义

目的 探讨K-ras基因突变与接受术后辅助化疗的Ⅲ期大肠癌患者预后的关系.方法 收集2005年1月-2010年12月在我院接受手术治疗及术后辅助化疗的Ⅲ期大肠癌病例40例,采用PCR扩增和DNA测序技术检测K-ras第12、13位密码子的突变情况,分析患者临床病理特征、分子特征与生存规律的关系.结果 K-ras基因突变率为15％(6/40),性别、年龄、病灶部位、病理分级、病理类型、T分期、N分期与K-ras基因突变无相关性.截至2010年12月31日,34例(85％)出现复发转移,9例(22.5％)死亡,中位总生存期(overall survival,OS)48.460个月,中位无疾病生存期(disease-free survival,DFS) 11.992个月,1年、3年、5年生存率分别为97％、73％、51％.单因素分析显示K-ras野生组较突变组DFS显著延长(P＜0.001),而其余病理特征对DFS无明显影响;年龄(P=0.037)、病理分级(P=0.015)及1年内是否复发转移(P=0.010)是影响OS的预后因素,而其余病理特征及K-ras基因状态对OS无影响.COX多因素分析显示K-ras基因状态(P＜0.001)是DFS的独立预后因素;年龄(P=0.010)和1年内是否复发转移(P=0.006)是OS的独立预后因素.结论 对于接受手术治疗及以氟尿嘧啶为基础的术后辅助化疗Ⅲ期大肠癌患者,K-ras野生型患者的DFS优于突变型患者,提示K-ras基因可能是预测Ⅲ期大肠癌患者术后辅助化疗疗效的指标.     

高危Ⅰ期子宫内膜癌术后辅助化疗的临床意义

目的探讨具有高危因素的Ⅰ期子宫内膜癌术后辅助化疗的临床意义。方法对95例Ⅰ期子宫内膜癌患者的临床病理资料进行回顾性分析,比较高危组患者与低危组患者的复发及生存情况,分析化疗对Ⅰ期子宫内膜癌患者预后的影响。结果 95例患者中有20例（21.1%）行术后辅助化疗。高危组中14例（14/24,58.3%）行术后辅助化疗。95例患者治疗后复发10例（10.5%）,其中高危组4例（4/24,16.7%）,低危组6例（6/71,8.5%）,两组比较无显著性差异（P〉0.05）;高危组的中位复发时间为13个月（11~23）,低危组的中位复发时间为36个月（9~77）,两组比较有显著性差异（P﹤0.05）。行术后辅助化疗的高危组患者复发1例（7.1%）,为盆腔复发;未行术后辅助化疗的高危组患者复发3例（30%）,均为盆腔合并远处转移（P〉0.05）。高危组患者的5年无瘤生存率为79.5%,低危组患者为90.4%（P〉0.05）。高危组患者的5年总生存率为64.9%,低危组患者为97.1%（P=0.005）。行术后辅助化疗的高危组患者的3年无瘤生存率和3年总生存率分别为90.0%、88.9%,优于未行术后辅助化疗的高危组患者（分别为64.8%、83.3%）。结论具有高危因素的Ⅰ期子宫内膜癌患者术后应给予恰当的辅助治疗。化疗有利于减少高危Ⅰ期子宫内膜癌的远处转移。     

Ⅰ～Ⅲ期胃癌术后影响预后的相关因素分析

目的总结接受根治性手术的Ⅰ~Ⅲ期胃癌病例的临床病理特点,术后治疗特点及生存规律。方法回顾性分析2003年1月-2008年12月在我院行胃癌根治术且随访资料完整的Ⅰ~Ⅲ期病例827例,分析其临床病理特征、治疗特点与生存预后的关系。结果 827例中位随访期58.2个月,出现复发或转移507例,死亡457例,中位无疾病生存期为26.6个月,中位生存期为39.7个月;5年无疾病生存率和总生存率为37.9%和43.8%。单因素分析示：全胃切除、切缘阳性、含印戒细胞癌、Lauren分型弥漫型及混合型、低/中低分化、脉管癌栓、神经浸润、肿瘤直径≥5 cm、肿瘤淋巴结转移（tumorlymph node metastasis,TNM）分期晚及未行辅助化疗者较胃部分切除、切缘阴性、不含印戒细胞癌、Lauren分型肠型、中/中高/高分化、无脉管癌栓、无神经浸润、肿瘤直径〈5 cm、TNM分期较早及接受辅助化疗者的中位无疾病生存期和中位生存期显著缩短（P〈0.05）。COX多因素生存分析提示：是否全胃切除、切缘是否阳性、是否辅助化疗、TNM分期均是无疾病生存期和总生存期的独立预后因素。结论辅助化疗可显著改善胃癌术后患者的无疾病生存期和总生存期。     

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stages II and III breast cancer

Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been used as a primary treatment for locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer, and recently extended to operable breast cancer. However, only a few studies have published data concerning the outcomes of patients with stages II and III breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods This study retrospectively investigated the clinical value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stages II and III breast cancer. The patients in Group 1 （n=54） were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by definitive surgery and adjuvant therapy. The patients in Group 2 （n=-43） initially received definitive surgery, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and other therapies. The operability rates for breast conservation and dermatoplasty were observed in Group 1 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After follow-up, the recurrence and overall and disease-free survival rates of the two groups were analyzed. Results Neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased the operability rates for breast conservation from 17.1% to 40.0% in stage II （P=0.034） and 0% to 12.6% in stage III （P=0.016）, and decreased the dermatoplasty rates from 17.1% to 2.8% in stage II （P=0.046） and 28.1% to 8.1% in stage Ill （P=0.026）. After a median follow-up of 46.8 months, there were 11 deaths and 13 recurrences in Group 1, and 15 deaths and 19 recurrences in Group 2. The overall and disease-free survival rates of stage III disease were significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 （68.4% vs 31.2%, P=0.028, and 63.2% vs 25.0%, P=0.024, respectively）. There were no significant differences in the overall and disease-free survival rates of stage II disease for Group 1 compared with Group 2 （85.7% vs 85.2%, P=0.953, and 80.6% vs 74.1%, P=0.400, respectively）. Conclusions Neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in increased operability for breast conservation and decreased dermatoplasty. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy exhibited better recurrence control, and overall and disease-free survival rates in stage III disease. However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not confer greater survival on stage II disease.     

II、III期乳腺癌的新辅助化疗

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been used as a primary treatment for locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer, and recently extended to operable breast cancer. However, only a few studies have published data concerning the outcomes of patients with stages II and III breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: This study retrospectively investigated the clinical value of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stages II and III breast cancer. Group 1 (n=54) were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by definitive surgery and adjuvant therapy. Group 2 (n=43) initially received definitive surgery, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and other therapies. The operability rates for breast conservation and dermatoplasty were observed in Group 1 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After follow-up, the recurrence and overall and disease-free survival rates of the two groups were analyzed. Results: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased the operability rates for breast conservation from 17.1% to 40.0% in stage II (P=0.034) and 0% to 12.6% in stage III (P=0.016), and decreased the dermatoplasty rates from 17.1% to 2.8% in stage II (P=0.046) and 28.1% to 8.1% in stage III (P=0.026). After a median follow-up of 46.8 months, there were 11 deaths and 13 recurrences in Group 1, and 15 deaths and 19 recurrences in Group 2. The overall and disease-free survival rates of stage III disease were significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (68.4% vs. 31.2%, P=0.028, and 63.2% vs. 25.0%, P=0.024, respectively). There were no significant differences in the overall and disease-free survival rates of stage II disease for Group 1 compared with Group 2 (85.7% vs. 85.2%, P=0.953, and 80.6% vs. 74.1%, P=0.400, respectively). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy resulted in increased operability for breast conservation and decreased dermatoplasty. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy exhibited better recurrence control, and overall and disease-free survival rates in stage III disease. However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not confer greater survival on stage II disease.     

Intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy as adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer patients with serosal invasion

BackgroundTo evaluate hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as an adjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients with serosal invasion.MethodsPatients who received radical surgery and palliative surgery between January 2002 and December 2010 were retrospectively examined. Patients were divided into two groups, namely, one group that underwent surgery and another group that underwent surgery with HIPEC. All patients who received HIPEC had suspected serosal invasion on an abdominal computed tomography or by the surgeon's assessment during the operation.ResultsThe prophylactic groups included 83 patients who underwent gastrectomy alone. A total of 29 patients underwent gastrectomy with HIPEC. The 5-year survival rates were 10.7% and 43.9%, respectively. The 5-year mean survival times were 22.66 (17.55–25.78) and 34.81 (24.97–44.66) months (p = 0.029), respectively. There were 52 patients who had a recurrence of carcinomatosis among 133 patients who had resections (52/133, 39.1%). The 3-year disease-free survival rate for carcinomatosis was 28.87% in the group that received surgery alone, whereas it was 66.03% in the group that received HIPEC. There was no significant difference in the rate of complication between the two groups in the prophylactic group (p = 0.542). Thus, curative surgery with HIPEC had a better prognosis for AGC with serosal invasion. The carcinomatosis recurrence time was longer in patients who underwent gastrectomy with HIPEC and received R0 resection.ConclusionThe survival benefit of HIPEC as an adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer patients with serosal invasion should be validated in a large cohort.     

以健脾为基础的复方辨证治疗对老年胃癌患者生存期的影响

背景：胃癌是最常见的恶性肿瘤之一,中医药已广泛用于胃癌的临床治疗,但尚未见到较大样本临床对照研究对其疗效进行评价。目的：通过对220例老年胃癌预后的分析,研究以健脾为基础的中药复方辨证治疗对老年胃癌预后的影响。设计、场所、受试者和干预措施：采用前瞻性同期病例对照研究方法,将65岁及以上老年胃癌病例（来自上海龙华医院肿瘤一科、瑞金医院消化外科和仁济医院普外科）分为接受中药复方辨证治疗的中药组和未接受中药治疗的非中药组。主要结局指标：依据临床病理分期,是否接受根治性手术和化疗进行分层。运用单因素及Cox多因素回归分析方法分析两组病例的临床病理因素及手术、化疗以及中药治疗对预后的影响。结果：共有220例病例纳入研究。中药组89例,非中药组131例。总体220例病例的Cox多因素回归分析表明,影响老年胃癌患者生存的独立的预后因素分别是临床病理分期、手术方式、化疗和中药治疗（P〈0．01）。服用中药的相对危险度为0．322,95％可信区间在0．212～0．489。中药组中位总生存期为41．129个月,1、3、5年生存率分别为85．2％、55．6％、45．7％;非中药组中位总生存期为17．195个月。1、3、5年生存率分别为63．9％、26．9％、21．9％。对未手术或术后复发转移的晚期胃癌分层研究,Cox多因素回归分析示,中药治疗和化疗是影响老年晚期胃癌患者总生存期独立的保护性因素（P〈0．01）,服用中药的相对危险度为0．421,95％可信区间在0．255～0．693;晚期中药组（36例）中位总生存期为17．819个月,晚期非中药组（60例）中位生存期为8．548个月。对临床病理分期为Ib—IV（T4N1-3M0、T1—3N3M0）接受根治性手术（R0）且接受3个及以上周期术后辅助化疗病例的分层研究结果显示,术后中药组和术后非中药组的无病生存期和总生存期均未达到中位数,故未作Cox多因素回归分析;术后中药组（33例）1、3、5年无病生存率分别为97．0％、59．9％、50．4％,1、3、5年生存率分别为100．0％、74．1％、61．49／6;术后非中药组（69例）1、3、5年无病生存率分别为82．6％、51．1％、51．1％,1、3、5年生存率分别为86．9％、55．6％、55．6％。结论：以健脾为基础的中药复方辨证治疗可改善老年胃癌的总体预后,是老年晚期胃癌预后的有效保护性因子,对老年根治性胃癌术后无病生存期和总生存期的影响需要继续随访评价。     

腹腔镜与同期开腹直肠癌切除术后长期肿瘤学结果的对比研究

目的比较腹腔镜及同期开腹直肠癌切除术术后的长期肿瘤学结果。方法回顾性分析南方医院自2003年1月~2008年12月收治的514例病人的临床随访资料,对186例腹腔镜组和328例开腹组病人术后复发类型及长期生存结果进行了比较。结果两组病人的中位随访时间为(48.54±28.76)月,两组间远处转移(3.9%vs 5.5%;P=0.284)、5年累积总生存率(69.5%vs 61.7%;P=0.085)和5年无病生存率(67.7%vs 60.7%;P=0.110)的差异无统计学意义。IV期病例中腹腔镜组5年累计总生存率和5年无进展生存率均高于开腹组(P<0.05)。结论腹腔镜直肠癌切除术可以获得不劣于开腹手术的长期肿瘤学结果。     

Adjuvant chemotherapy following radical surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized study on 70 patients

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy after radical surgery for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Seventy patients with NSCLC (stages Ⅰ-Ⅲ) undergoing radical surgery were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n=35): combination group, which received adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2), vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2), adriamycin 50 mg/m(2), and lomustine 50 mg/m(2)on day 1, and cisplatin 20 mg/m(2)on days 1-5. The treatment was repeated every 4-6 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by oral administration of ftorafur (FT-207) 600-900 mg/d for 1 year. Group 2 (n=35): surgery group, which received surgical treatment only. Results The overall 5-year survival rate was 48.6% in the combination group versus 31.4% in the surgery group, and difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (χ(2)=3.09,P&gt;0.05). The 5-year survival rate for patients with stage Ⅲ disease was 44% and 20.8% in the combination and surgery groups, respectively, showing a statistically significant difference (χ(2)=5.28,P&lt;0.025). The 5-year survival rates of patients in stages Ⅰ-Ⅱ in the two groups were 60.0% and 54.5%, respectively, and were not significantly different (χ(2)=0.03,P&gt;0.75). Conclusion Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy provides statistically significant improvement in the 5-year survival rate only in patients with stage Ⅲ NSCLC.     

Clinicopathological and prognostic features of hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach

Background  Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach (HAS) is a rare type of gastric carcinoma, which has its unique clinicopathological features and poorer prognosis than that of the ordinary gastric adenocarcinoma. At present, there is still a lack of understanding about this disease. The current study aimed to summarize and discuss the clinical, pathological, immunohistochemical, and prognostic features of this disease.

Methods  A total of 20 patients of HAS were retrospectively studied. All the patients were treated in Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences between March 1998 and October 2009. Statistical analysis, including the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test and Cox model, were performed by the SPSS 15.0 software.

Results  Seventeen patients (85%) had at least 1 lymph node metastases; 17 patients (85%) received postoperative immunohistochemical examinations, with an alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) positive rate of 94.1% (16/17); 14 patients had distant metastases (including 12 liver metastases, 1 lung metastasis, and 1 celiac widespread metastases), and one simultaneously had anastomotic recurrence and liver metastases. The overall survival time was 2–99 months (median: 12.0 months). The 3-year survival rate of the 20 patients was 17.2%. The 3-year survival rate of patients with complete hepatocyte-like regions and those with both hepatocellular carcinoma and adenocarcinoma regions was 20.0% and 17.5%, respectively (P=0.361). The survival difference among the radical surgery group, palliative surgery group and no surgery group was statistically significant (P=0.022). The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test showed that surgery, pTNM stages, and adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with prognosis (P <0.05). The Cox model only confirmed that the pTNM stages and adjuvant chemotherapy had statistical significance for the prognosis of HAS (P <0.05) due to the limited cases.

Conclusions  HAS is a special type of gastric carcinoma and has a poor prognosis. The pTNM stage is an independent risk factor for HAS. Multidisciplinary therapy, including surgery and chemotherapy, may improve the prognosis of HAS.