Dataset Information

Overall Survival of Elderly Patients Having Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Is Comparable to Younger Patients: Results from a South Asian Population.

ABSTRACT: There has been a continuous debate on whether elderly patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) fair worse. The aim of this study is to assess the thirty-day mortality (TDM) and overall survival (OS) of elderly patients undergoing surgery for CRC.OS between two groups (≥70 versus <70 years) having surgery for CRC was analyzed. Demographics, tumour characteristics, and serological markers were considered as independent factors. Multivariable analysis was done using the Cox proportional hazard model. We also compared overall survival in the elderly versus those <60 and <50 years.477 patients, 160 elderly (55% male; median age 75, range 70-89) and 317 younger patients (49% male; median age 55, range 16 to 69), were studied. Overall survival in CRC patients ≥70 is comparable to <70 (P = 0.45) and <60 years (P = 0.08). Poor OS was observed in the ≥70 versus <50 years (P = 0.03). TDM in the elderly was poor (P < 0.05). Postoperative cardiac complication was the only determinant affecting survival in the elderly (P = 0.01).OS in elderly CRC patients having surgery is not worse compared to <70 and <60 years although the TDM was higher. Postoperative cardiac complications significantly affected OS in those ≥70 compared to those <50 years. Chronological age alone should not negatively influence surgical decision-making in the elderly.

SUBMITTER: Chandrasinghe PC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5547707 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Management of diabetes in elderly subjects is complex and careful management of glucose levels is of particular importance in this population because of an increased risk of diabetes-related complications and hypoglycaemia.The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of insulin degludec (IDeg), a basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action, in elderly subjects with type 1 diabetes compared with younger adults.This trial was a randomised, double-blind, two-period, crossover trial conducted in a single centre and included both inpatient and outpatient periods. Subjects were men and women aged 18-35 years inclusive (younger adult group) or ?65 years (elderly group) with type 1 diabetes who received IDeg (0.4 U/kg) via subcutaneous injection in the thigh once-daily for six days. Following 6-day dosing, a 26-hour euglycaemic glucose clamp procedure was conducted to evaluate the steady-state pharmacodynamic effects of IDeg. Blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis up to 120 h post-dose. Pharmacokinetic endpoints included the total exposure of IDeg, ie the area under the IDeg serum concentration curve during one dosing interval at steady state (AUC(IDeg,?,SS)) (? = 0-24 h, equal to one dosing interval) and the maximum IDeg serum concentration at steady state (C(max,IDeg,SS)). Pharmacodynamic endpoints included the total glucose-lowering effect of IDeg, ie the area under the glucose infusion rate (GIR) curve at steady state (AUC(GIR,?,SS)), and the maximum GIR at steady state (GIR(max,IDeg,SS)).Total exposure (AUC(IDeg,?,SS)) and maximum concentration (C(max,IDeg,SS)) of IDeg were comparable between elderly subjects and younger adults. Estimated mean age group ratios (elderly/younger adult) for AUC(IDeg,?,SS) and C(max,IDeg,SS) and corresponding two-sided 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.04 (95 % CI 0.73-1.47) and 1.02 (95 % CI 0.74-1.39), respectively. Mean AUC(IDeg,0-12h,SS)/AUC(IDeg,?,SS) was 53 % in both younger adult and elderly subjects, showing that in both age groups IDeg exposure was evenly distributed across the first and second 12 h of the 24-hour dosing interval. No statistically significant differences were observed between younger adult and elderly subjects with regard to AUC(GIR,?,SS) (the primary endpoint of this study) and GIR(max,IDeg,SS). Estimated mean age group ratios (elderly/younger adult) for AUC(GIR,?,SS) and GIR(max,IDeg,SS) and corresponding two-sided 95 % CIs were 0.78 (95 % CI 0.47-1.31) and 0.80 (95 % CI 0.54-1.17), respectively. Duration of action was beyond the clamp duration of 26 h in all subjects.The exposure of IDeg at steady state during once-daily dosing was similar in younger adult and elderly subjects. The glucose-lowering effect of IDeg was numerically lower in elderly subjects compared with younger adults, but no significant differences were observed between age groups. The ultra-long pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of IDeg observed in younger adults were preserved in elderly subjects with type 1 diabetes. Clinical trials.gov number: NCT00964418.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set.MethodsWe identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years.ResultsWe identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results.ConclusionsIn this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.

Dataset Information

Overall Survival of Elderly Patients Having Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Is Comparable to Younger Patients: Results from a South Asian Population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets