|
|
|
题名
|
作者
|
年代
|
出处
|
被引量
|
| 1 | Trends in treatment and overall survival among patients with proximal esophageal cancer显示文摘BACKGROUND The management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures.Non-surgical treatment options like radiotherapy and definitive chemoradiation(CRT)have been implemented.The trends in(non-)surgical treatment and its impact on overall survival(OS)in patients with proximal esophageal cancer are unclear,related to its rare disease status.To optimize treatment strategies and counseling of patients with proximal esophageal cancer,it is therefore essential to gain more insight through real-life studies.AIM To establish trends in treatment and OS in patients with proximal esophageal cancer.METHODS In this population-based study,patients with proximal esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1989 and 2014 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry.The proximal esophagus consists of the cervical esophagus and the upper thoracic section,extending to 24 cm from the incisors.Trends in radiotherapy,chemotherapy,and surgery,and OS were assessed.Analyses were stratified by presence of distant metastasis.Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses was performed to assess the effect of period of diagnosis on OS,adjusted for patient,tumor,and treatment characteristics.RESULTS In total,2783 patients were included.Over the study period,the use of radiotherapy,resection,and CRT in non-metastatic disease changed from 53%,23%,and 1%in 1989-1994 to 21%,9%,and 49%in 2010-2014,respectively.In metastatic disease,the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased over time.Median OS of the total population increased from 7.3 mo[95%confidence interval(CI):6.4-8.1]in 1989-1994 to 9.5 mo(95%CI:8.1-10.8)in 2010-2014(logrank P<0.001).In non-metastatic disease,5-year OS rates improved from 5%(95%CI:3%-7%)in 1989-1994 to 13%(95%CI:9%-17%)in 2010-2014(logrank P<0.001).Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated a significant treatment effect over time on survival.In metastatic disease,median OS was 3.8 mo(95%CI:2.5-5.1)in 1989-1994,and 5.1 mo(95%CI:4.3-5.9)in 2010-2014(logrank P=0.26).CONCLUSION OS significantly improved in non-metastatic proximal esophageal cancer,likely to be associated with an increased use of CRT.Patterns in metastatic disease did not change significantly over time. | Judith de Vos-Geelen Sandra ME Geurts Liselot BJ Valkenburg-van Iersel Evelien JM de Jong Vivianne CG Tjan-Heijnen Margreet van Putten Valery EPP Lemmens Heike I Grabsch Nadia Haj Mohammad Frank JP Hoebers Chantal V Hoge Paul M Jeene Hanneke WM van Laarhoven Tom Rozema Marije Slingerland Grard AP Nieuwenhuijzen | 2019 | World Journal of Gastroenterology2019，25，47： | 2 |
| 2 | A direct in vitro demonstration of insulin binding to isolated brain microvessels显示文摘 | Pardridge WM | 1981 | Diabetes1981，30，9： | 1 |
| 3 | The Chinese-version of the CARE Measure reliably differentiates between doctors in primary care:a cross-sectional study in Hong Kong显示文摘 | Stewart WM Colman SC Frank WK | 2011 | Family Practice2011，12，： | 1 |
| 4 | Relationship of plasma lipids to renal function and length of time on mainte- nance hemodialysis显示文摘 | Frank WM Sreepada Rao TK Manis T | 1978 | Am J Clin Nutr1978，31，： | 1 |
| 5 | Articular Cartilagein the knee: Mapping of the physiologic Parameters at MR Imaging with a Local 6radient Coil-Preliminary Result 显示文摘 | Frank LR Wong EC Luh WM | 1999 | Radiology1999，210，1： | 1 |
| 6 | Ophthalmic acid as a read-out for hepatic glutathione metabolism in humans显示文摘Background and Aim:Animal studies indicated that systemic ophthalmic acid(OPH)is a biomarker for hepatic glutathione(GSH)homeostasis,an important determinant of liver function.We aimed to clarify whether OPH levels can be used as a read-out for hepatic GSH homeostasis after paracetamol(APAP)challenges during pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy(PPPD)or partial hepatectomy(PH).Methods:Nineteen patients undergoing PPPD(n=7,control group)or PH(n=12)were included.APAP(1000 mg)was administered intravenously before resection(first challenge),and six and twelve hours later,with sequential blood sampling during this period.Arterial,hepatic and portal venous blood samples and liver biopsies were taken on three occasions during the first APAP challenge.Plasma and hepatic OPH and GSH levels were quantified,and venous-arterial differences were calculated to study hepatic release.Results:Systemic GSH levels decreased during the course of the APAP challenge in both surgical groups,without notable change in OPH levels.Hepatic GSH and OPH content was not affected within^3 hours after administration of the first APAP dose in patients undergoing PPPD or PH.In this period,net release of OPH by the liver was observed only in patients undergoing PPPD.Conclusions:The drop in circulating GSH levels following APAP administrations,did not result in an increase in plasma OPH in both patients with an intact liver and in those undergoing liver resection.Hepatic content of GSH and OPH was not affected during the first APAP dose.It is uncertain whether hepatic GSH homeostasis was sufficiently challenged in the present study.Relevance for patients:In the present study,plasma OPH seemed not useful as a marker for GSH depletion because APAP administration during liver surgery did not lead to(immediate)GSH depletion or increased OPH levels.Based on stable levels of hepatic GSH,OPH and thiyl radicals during surgery,standard APAP administration seems to be safe in a postoperative care program with regards to GSH homeostasis in this specific population.However,no general statements can be made on the basis of the current experiment,since GSH homeostasis and susceptibility to xenobiotic toxicity are influenced by several metabolic and genetic factors. | Kim MC van Mierlo Simon AWG Dello Mechteld C de Jong Hans MH van Eijk Theo M de Kok Jacob J Briedé Frank G Schaap Steven WM Olde Damink Cornelius HC Dejong | 2017 | Journal of Clinical & Translational Research2017，3，4： | 0 |
| 7 | Similar fecal immunochemical test results in screening and referral colorectal cancer显示文摘AIM: To improve the interpretation of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results in colorectal cancer (CRC) cases from screening and referral cohorts. METHODS: In this comparative observational study, two prospective cohorts of CRC cases were compared. The first cohort was obtained from 10 322 average risk subjects invited for CRC screening with FIT, of which, only subjects with a positive FIT were referred for colonoscopy. The second cohort was obtained from 3637 subjects scheduled for elective colonoscopy with a positive FIT result. The same FIT and positivity threshold (OC sensor; ≥ 50 ng/mL) was used in both cohorts. Colonoscopy was performed in all referral subjects and in FIT positive screening subjects. All CRC cases were selected from both cohorts. Outcome measurements were mean FIT results and FIT scores per tissue tumor stage (T stage). RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients with CRC were included in the present study: 28 cases obtained from the screening cohort (64% male; mean age 65 years, SD 6.5) and 90 cases obtained from the referral cohort (58% male; mean age 69 years, SD 9.8). The mean FIT results found were higher in the referral cohort (829 ± 302 ng/mLvs 613 ± 368 ng/mL,P = 0.02). Tissue tumor stage (T stage) distribution was dif-ferent between both populations [screening population: 13 (46%) T1, eight (29%) T2, six (21%) T3, one (4%) T4 carcinoma; referral population: 12 (13%) T1, 22 (24%) T2, 52 (58%) T3, four (4%) T4 carcinoma], and higher T stage was significantly associated with higher FIT results (P < 0.001). Per tumor stage, no significant difference in mean FIT results was observed (screening vs referral: T1 498 ± 382 ng/mL vs 725 ± 374 ng/mL, P = 0.22; T2 787 ± 303 ng/mL vs 794 ± 341 ng/mL, P = 0.79; T3 563 ± 368 ng/mLvs 870 ± 258 ng/mL,P = 0.13; T4 not available). After correction for T stage in logistic regression analysis, no significant differences in mean FIT results were observed between both types of cohorts (P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Differences in T stage distribution largely explain differences in FIT results between screening and referral cohorts. Therefore, FIT results should be reported according to T stage. | Sietze T van Turenhout Leo GM van Rossum Frank A Oort Robert JF Laheij Anne F van Rijn Jochim S Terhaar sive Droste Paul Fockens René WM van der Hulst Anneke A Bouman Jan BMJ Jansen Gerrit A Meijer Evelien Dekker Chris JJ Mulder | 2012 | World Journal of Gastroenterology2012，18，38： | 0 |
您所在的机构暂未开通此部分的功能，请联系管理员