Comparison of the Clinical Features and Outcomes of Gallbladder Neuroendocrine Carcinoma with Those of Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Do MY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8471353 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSelected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.ResultsOf 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).ConclusionLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.
| S-EPMC7938843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsData 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.ResultsNCRS resulted in significant pathological benefits with more ypT0 (26.7% versus 5%; P < 0.001), more ypN0 (63.3% versus 32.1%; P < 0.001), and reduced R1/2 resection margins (7.7% versus 21.8%; P < 0.001). Analysis of short-term outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in 30-day or 90-day mortality, but increased incidence of anastomotic leak (23.1% versus 6.8%; P < 0.001) in NCRS patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in 3-year overall survival (57.9% versus 53.4%; Hazard Ratio (HR)= 0.89, 95%C.I. 0.67-1.17, P = 0.391) nor disease-free survival (52.9% versus 48.9%; HR = 0.90, 95%C.I. 0.69-1.18, P = 0.443). The pattern of recurrence was also similar (P = 0.660). There was a higher lymph node harvest in the NCS group (27 versus 14; P < 0.001), which was significantly associated with a lower recurrence rate and improved disease free survival within the NCS group.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.
| S-EPMC5391716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Gastric neoplasms containing neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) components are rare malignancies with highly aggressive behavior and a poor prognosis and include pure NEC and mixed tumors containing NEC components. We aimed to investigate whether there is a distinct difference in overall survival (OS) between gastric neoplasms containing NEC components and gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS:Surgically resected gastric neoplasms containing NEC components (n?=?180) and gastric adenocarcinomas (n?=?785) from January 2013 to December 2019 at Peking University Cancer Hospital were retrospectively analysed. Patients were categorized into a surgical group and a neoadjuvant group and adjusted using propensity score matching. In the two groups, gastric neoplasms containing NEC components were divided into pure NEC and mixed tumors with less than 30% (<?30% G-HMiNEN), between 30 and 70% (G-HMiNEN) and more than 70% (>?70% G-HMiNEN) neuroendocrine carcinoma components. OS was compared between these groups and the gastric adenocarcinoma group. RESULTS:The OS of gastric neoplasms containing neuroendocrine NEC components was poorer than that of gastric adenocarcinomas in the surgical group, regardless of whether the percentage of neuroendocrine cancer components was less than 30%, between 30 and 70%, more than 70% or 100%. Cox multivariable regression analysis suggested that tumor category (neoplasms containing NEC components or gastric adenocarcinoma) was an independent risk factor for prognosis. Interestingly, among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS:Gastric neoplasms containing any proportion of NEC components had poorer overall survival than gastric adenocarcinoma in patients treated with surgery directly, indicating that these neoplasms are more malignant than gastric adenocarcinoma. Among the patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, the difference in overall survival was not significant, which was in sharp contrast with the results of the surgery group, suggesting that neoadjuvant therapy may have a good effect in the treatment of these neoplasms.
| S-EPMC7437076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The success of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for hematological malignancies is heavily dependent on the availability of suitable donors. Haploidentical donor (HID) and matched sibling donor (MSD) are two important donor options providing faster and easier sources of stem cells, however, due to confounding factors present in most retrospective studies, the validity of comparing outcomes between these two donor types remains uncertain. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of a prospective clinical trial (trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; #ChiCTR-OCH-12002490; registered 22 February 2012; https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=7061 ) to compare outcomes of HID versus MSD peripheral blood stem cell-derived transplants in patients with hematologic malignancies between 2015 and 2022. All HID-receiving patients had antithymocyte globulin-based conditioning. Propensity score matching was employed to minimize potential confounding factors between the two cohorts. A total of 1060 patients were initially reviewed and then 663 patients were ultimately included in the analysis after propensity score matching. The overall survival, relapse-free survival, non-relapse mortality rate and cumulative incidence of relapse were similar between HID and MSD cohorts. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with positive measurable residual disease in first complete remission may have better overall survival with an HID transplant. The present demonstrated that haploidentical transplants can provide outcomes comparable to conventional MSD transplants, and HID should be recommended as one of the optimal donor choices for patients with positive measurable residual disease in first complete remission.
| S-EPMC10193779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies have classified muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) into primary (initially muscle-invasive, PMIBC) and secondary subtypes (initially non-muscle-invasive but progresses, SMIBC), for which controversial survival outcomes were demonstrated. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes between PMIBC and SMIBC patients in China.MethodsPatients diagnosed with PMIBC or SMIBC at West China Hospital from January 2009 to June 2019 were retrospectively included. Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher tests were employed to compare clinicopathological characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox competing proportional risk model were used to compare survival outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to reduce the bias and subgroup analysis was used to confirm the outcomes.ResultsA total of 405 MIBC patients were enrolled, including 286 PMIBC and 119 SMIBC, with a mean follow-up of 27.54 and 53.30 months, respectively. The SMIBC group had a higher proportion of older patients (17.65% [21/119] vs. 9.09% [26/286]), chronic disease (32.77% [39/119] vs . 22.38% [64/286]), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (19.33% [23/119] vs . 8.04% [23/286]). Before matching, SMIBC had a lower risk of overall mortality (OM) (hazard ratios [HR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.85, P = 0.005) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, P = 0.022) after the initial diagnosis. However, higher risks of OM (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.02-2.10, P = 0.038) and CSM (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.09-2.29, P = 0.016) were observed for SMIBC once it became muscle-invasive. After PSM, the baseline characteristics of 146 patients (73 for each group) were well matched, and SMIBC was confirmed to have an increased CSM risk (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.09-3.06, P = 0.021) than PMIBC after muscle invasion.ConclusionsCompared with PMIBC, SMIBC had worse survival outcomes once it became muscle-invasive. Specific attention should be paid to non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer with a high progression risk.
| S-EPMC10228478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate the impact of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) on clinical outcomes in comparison with the gold standard.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who underwent isolated AVR at the University Hospital Center Zagreb from 2010 to 2020. Patients undergoing mini-AVR were compared with patients undergoing conventional AVR (fs-AVR). The primary outcome measure was blood product consumption. Propensity score matching was used to create a balanced covariate distribution across treatment groups. Additionally, we compared the contemporary outcomes with a historical control.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 1088 patients. In the unmatched cohorts, mini-AVR patients were younger (65±12 vs 68±10 years, P<0.001) and had lower risk profiles (EuroSCORE2 2.8±2.0 vs 3.5±3.1, P=0.003). After matching, mini-AVR patients required less blood transfusion than fs-AVR patients (270 [0-790] vs 510 [0-970] mL, P=0.029). The incidences of stroke, dialysis, new AV block, and mortality were comparable. Cross-clamp times were longer in the mini-AVR group (71 [60-87] vs 66 [53-83] minutes, P=0.013). Outcomes were improved in the contemporary mini-AVR era compared with our early mini-AVR experience across multiple metrics. Blood product consumption was reduced in the latter tercile of experience (0 [0-520] vs 500 [0-1018] mL, P<0.001), and the operation was performed more expeditiously (cross-clamp times: 63 [54,80] vs 74 [62,88] minutes, P<0.001) in comparison with earlier periods.ConclusionsWe showed that mini-AVR was associated with less blood product requirement than conventional surgery. Our data supports wider adoption of minimally invasive techniques in dedicated centers of excellence.
| S-EPMC9648077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend adjuvant chemoradiation (ACR) for margin-positive (R1) and/or node-positive (N+) pancreatic cancers. Our goal was to investigate if there is evidence of superiority of adjuvant chemoradiation (ACR) over adjuvant chemotherapy (AC).MethodsWe utilized data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for N+ and/or R1 pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2012 who underwent ACR or AC. Patients who received neoadjuvant radiation, no adjuvant treatment, or adjuvant radiation alone were excluded. Propensity score nearest-neighbor 1:1 matching (PSM) was performed between ACR and AC groups based on age, sex, race, insurance, year of diagnosis, comorbidities, tumor site and size, T-stage, nodal status, margin status, grade, and treatment facility. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 8297 patients were eligible. After PSM, two well-balanced groups of 3244 patients each were analyzed. ACR resulted in superior OS compared with AC alone (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87; median OS 22 vs 19 months, P < .0001). Subset analyses demonstrated OS benefit of ACR compared with AC in N+, R0 patients (HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.88; Median OS 24 vs 20 months, P < .001) as well as N+, R1 patients (HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87; Median OS 17 vs 15 months, P < .001); but not in node-negative, R1 patients (HR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.84-1.48; Median OS 18 vs 22 months, P = .63).ConclusionThe addition of radiation to AC was associated with a clinically small but meaningful increase in survival of patients undergoing curative-intent pancreatic resections. This association was not evident in patients with microscopically positive margins but node-negative disease and larger studies will be needed.
| S-EPMC6792522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/Objectives: Previous trials reported comparable results with PASCAL and earlier MitraClip generations. Limited comparative data exist for more contemporary MitraClip generations, particularly the large MitraClip XT(R/W). We aimed to evaluate acute and 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) with one of the large devices, either PASCAL P10 or MitraClip XT(R/W) (3rd/4th generation). Methods: A total of 309 PASCAL-treated patients were matched by propensity score to 253 MitraClip-treated patients, resulting in 200 adequately balanced pairs. Procedural, clinical, and echocardiographic outcomes were collected for up to 30 days, including subgroup analysis for mitral regurgitation (MR) etiologies. Results: PASCAL and MitraClip patients were comparable regarding age (80 vs. 79 years), sex (female: 45.5% vs. 50.5%), and MR etiology (degenerative MR: n = 94, functional MR [FMR]: n = 96, mixed MR: n = 10 in each group). Technical success rates were comparable (96.5% vs. 96.0%; p > 0.999). At discharge, the mean gradient was higher (3.3 mmHg vs. 3.0 mmHg; p = 0.038), and the residual mitral valve orifice area was smaller in MitraClip patients (3.0 cm2 vs. 2.3 cm2; p < 0.001). At discharge, the reduction to MR ≤ 2+ was comparable (92.4% vs. 87.8%; p = 0.132). However, reduction to MR ≤ 1+ was more frequently observed in PASCAL patients (67.7% vs. 56.6%; p = 0.029), driven by the FMR subgroup (74.0% vs. 60.0%; p = 0.046). No difference was observed in 30-day mortality (p = 0.204) or reduction in NYHA-FC to ≤II (p > 0.999). Conclusions: Both M-TEER devices exhibited high and comparable rates of technical success and MR reduction to ≤2+. PASCAL may be advantageous in achieving MR reduction to ≤1+ in patients with FMR.
| S-EPMC11278441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPerioperative FLOT (fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) chemotherapy is a recent regimen used to treat resectable oesophagogastric (OG) adenocarcinoma, associated with improved overall survival versus earlier chemotherapy strategies. This study compared short-term perioperative morbidity in a large tertiary centre series of FLOT to a matched cohort receiving ECX/ECF (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine (X) or 5-fluorouracil (F)).MethodsConsecutive patients completing four perioperative cycles of FLOT and proceeding to surgery with resectable OG adenocarcinoma were included. This was matched to patients from a historic ECX/ECF cohort from the same institution. A propensity score was calculated, and a secondary analysis using a propensity-matched group performed.ResultsCohorts were matched by tumour location and operations performed. In total there were 129 (64.5 per cent) oesophageal and 71 (35.5 per cent) gastric resections (FLOT 57 oesophageal, 43 gastric; ECF/ECX 64 oesophageal, 36 gastric). The median length of stay after surgery was 12 days in the FLOT group versus 15 in ECF/ECX (P = 0.035). There were no significant differences in overall perioperative complications and, specifically, no difference in OG anastomotic leaks, analysed by site (gastric (FLOT 0/79 (0 per cent) versus ECX 2/79 (2.5 per cent); P = 0.123), oesophageal (FLOT 4/121 (3.3 per cent) versus ECX 5/121 (4.1 per cent); P = 0.868) or type of surgery (open FLOT 1/121 (0.8 per cent) versus ECX 3/121 (2.5 per cent); P = 0.368; minimally invasive (FLOT 3/121 (2.5 per cent) versus ECX 2/121 (1.7 per cent); P = 0.555)). There was no statistical difference in leak-related return to theatre, 30-day (FLOT 0 (0 per cent) versus ECX 3/100 (3.0 per cent); P = 0.081), or 90-day (FLOT 0 (0 per cent) versus ECX 2/100 (2.0 per cent); P = 0.155) mortality.ConclusionIn terms of surgical complications, FLOT and ECX/ECF were equally safe in patients undergoing resection for OG adenocarcinoma.
| S-EPMC8864466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the treatment of esophageal cancer, a gastric conduit is typically the first choice. However, when the stomach is not a viable option, the usual alternative is a colon conduit. This study compared the long-term surgical outcomes of gastric and colon conduits over the same interval and aimed to identify factors influencing the prognosis.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent esophagectomy followed by reconstruction for primary esophageal cancer between January 2006 and December 2020.ResultsThe study included 1,545 patients, with a gastric conduit used for 1,429 (92.5%) and a colon conduit for 116 (7.5%). Using propensity-matched analysis, 116 patients were selected from each group for comparison. No significant difference was observed in long-term survival between the gastric and colon conduit groups, irrespective of anastomosis level and pathological stage. A higher proportion of patients in the colon conduit group experienced postoperative complications compared to the gastric conduit group (57.8% vs. 25%, p<0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that age over 65 years, body mass index below 22.0 kg/m2, neoadjuvant therapy, postoperative anastomotic leakage, and renal failure were risk factors for overall survival in patients with a colon conduit. Regarding conduit-related complications, cervical anastomosis was the only significant risk factor among those with a colon conduit.ConclusionDespite the association of colon conduits with high morbidity rates relative to gastric conduits, the long-term outcomes of colon conduits were acceptable. More consideration should be given perioperatively to the use of a colon conduit, particularly in cases involving cervical anastomosis.
| S-EPMC10792377 | biostudies-literature