Dataset Information

Multimodality treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma: multi-center propensity-score matched study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The primary aim of this study was to compare survival from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (NCRS) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (NCS) for the treatment of esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. The secondary aims were to compare pathological effects, short-term mortality and morbidity, and to evaluate the effect of lymph node harvest upon survival in both treatment groups.

Methods

Data were collected from 10 European centers from 2001 to 2012. Six hundred and eight patients with stage II or III oesophageal or oesophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinoma were included; 301 in the NCRS group and 307 in the NCS group. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.

Results

NCRS resulted in significant pathological benefits with more ypT0 (26.7% versus 5%; P?ConclusionThe survival differences between NCRS and NCS maybe modest, if present at all, for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. Future large-scale randomized trials must control and monitor indicators of the quality of surgery, as the extent of lymphadenectomy appears to influence prognosis in patients treated with NCS, from this large multi-center European study.

SUBMITTER: Markar SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5391716 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multimodality treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma: multi-center propensity-score matched study.

Markar S R SR Noordman B J BJ Mackenzie H H Findlay J M JM Boshier P R PR Ni M M Steyerberg E W EW van der Gaast A A Hulshof M C C M MCCM Maynard N N van Berge Henegouwen M I MI Wijnhoven B P L BPL Reynolds J V JV Van Lanschot J J B JJB Hanna G B GB

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology 20170301 3

<h4>Background</h4>The primary aim of this study was to compare survival from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (NCRS) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (NCS) for the treatment of esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. The secondary aims were to compare pathological effects, short-term mortality and morbidity, and to evaluate the effect of lymph node harvest upon survival in both treatment groups.<h4>Methods</h4>Data were collected from 10 European centers from 2001 to 2012 ...[more]

PMID: 28039180

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the prospective, longitudinal outcome after arthroscopically assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AORIF) and to compare the results with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in complex ankle fractures.MethodsAcute, closed, bimalleolar equivalent, bimalleolar, or trimalleolar ankle fractures were included. The AORIF cohort was enrolled prospectively. The ORIF group was identified from a retrospective database. The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The only difference was the additional arthroscopy in the AORIF cohort. The patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) following AORIF was assessed at 1 and 4 years of follow-up using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and Tegner activity scale (TAS). The AORIF cohort was propensity score matched (nearest-neighbor matching) to the ORIF database. The OMAS and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) were compared between the resulting groups. Nonparametric statistics were applied; values are presented as median (interquartile range). Twenty-six AORIF patients had a prospective 4-year follow-up.ResultsNo significant differences (1 year vs 4 years) were identified for the OMAS (90 [10] vs 90 [11]) and TAS (4 [2] vs 5 [2]). The severity of the cartilage lesions (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grade <4 vs ICRS of 4) had no significant influence on the PROMs. Twenty-five patients per cohort (AORIF vs ORIF) were matched. The OMAS (90 [13] vs 75 [40]; P = .008) and FAAM Activities of Daily Living (ADL; 96 [11] vs 88 [30]; P = .034) revealed significantly better outcomes for AORIF. More patients in the AORIF cohort returned to sport (96% vs 77%; P = .035), with a higher FAAM Sports score (88 [37] vs 56 [47]; P = .008).ConclusionAORIF for complex ankle fractures led to consistently good to excellent results. The propensity score-matched analysis revealed a significantly better outcome 4 years after surgery for AORIF compared with ORIF.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective comparative study.

Project description:PurposeIt is not clear whether vasopressin versus norepinephrine changed mortality in clinical practice in the Vasopressin and Septic Shock Trial (VASST) coordinating center hospital after VASST was published. We tested the hypothesis that vasopressin changed mortality compared to norepinephrine using propensity matching of vasopressin to norepinephrine-treated patients in the VASST coordinating center hospital before (SPH1) and after (SPH2) VASST was published.MethodsVasopressin-treated patients were propensity score matched to norepinephrine-treated patients based on age, APACHE II, respiratory, renal, and hematologic dysfunction, mechanical ventilation status, medical/surgical status, infection site, and norepinephrine dose. The propensity score estimated the probability that a patient would have received vasopressin given baseline characteristics. For sensitivity analysis, we then excluded patients who had underlying severe congestive heart failure. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.ResultsVasopressin- and norepinephrine-treated patients were similar after matching in SPH1 (pre-VASST); vasopressin-treated patients (n =?158) had a significantly higher mortality than norepinephrine-treated patients (n =?158) (60.8 vs. 46.2%, p =?0.009). In SPH2 after matching, the 28-day mortality rates were not significantly different; 31.2% and 26.9% in the vasopressin (n =?93) and norepinephrine (n =?93) groups, respectively (p =?0.518). The day 1 vasopressin dose in SPH1 vs. SPH2 was 0.036 units/min (SD 0.009) vs. 0.032 units/min (SD 0.005), p?=?0.001, significantly lower in SPH2 after VASST.ConclusionsBefore VASST, vasopressin use was associated with increased mortality compared to norepinephrine in the VASST coordinating center hospital. After VASST, there was no difference in mortality between vasopressin- and norepinephrine-treated patients. This may be the first retrospective propensity-matched cohort study of a sepsis treatment in a center that had previously coordinated a large pivotal randomized controlled trial of that treatment and could be a useful approach for other sepsis therapies.Trial registrationRegistration: ISRCTN94845869.

Dataset Information

Multimodality treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma: multi-center propensity-score matched study.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Multimodality treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma: multi-center propensity-score matched study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure