Search

Aims and Background: In general, neoadjuvant treatment is the standard for clinical stage II/III esophageal cancer (EC), whereas the effect of adjuvant treatment on survival still remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant treatment modalities on the survival of EC patients., Patients and Methods: A total of 63 patients with stage II-IVA EC who had undergone curative surgery between the years 2002 and 2020 were included in the study. Patients' data were retrospectively collected from oncologic follow-up files. Various treatment regimens were administered during this period, including chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy., Results: The median age was 56 years (24-73), and the number of males was slightly higher than females (male/female: 33/30). While 32 (51%) patients received postoperative adjuvant treatment, the remaining 31 (49%) patients underwent surgery alone. The median overall survival (OS) was 45.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.1-66.8) in patients receiving adjuvant therapy and 37.6 months (95% CI: 20.9-54.4) in patients not receiving adjuvant therapy. The 8.3-month survival difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.54). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 87.5% versus 77.4%, 58.4% versus 51.6%, and 40.8% versus 27.6% for patients with and without adjuvant therapy, respectively. Pathological stage (P = 0.028) and lymph node status (P = 0.044) were significant prognostic factors for survival., Conclusions: This study did not support the benefit of adjuvant treatment compared with surgery alone in completely resected EC patients. The reason for this result may be related to the small sample size and different treatment regimens due to the change in treatment options over time., (Copyright © 2023 Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics.)

Purpose: Helicobacter pylori(HP) is a significant causative agent of gastric cancer (GC). However, the underlying mechanisms involved in its pathogenesis and association with oncoproteins are unclear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between HP infection and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression in GC patients., Materials and Methods: Surgery (173) or endoscopic biopsy (35) specimen of 208 patients diagnosed with GC was evaluated for the presence of HER2 and HP. HER2 expression was assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) method, whereas HP status was evaluated histologically. Giemsa stain was used to identify HP status, in case HP could not be recognized in routine H and E-stained sections despite careful examination., Results: The median age was 63 years (27-91), and most patients were male (male/female: 149/59). Of all the 208 patients, HP was positive in 87 (41.8%) and negative in 121 (58.2%) patients. FISH positivity for HER2 was observed in 41 (19.7%) patients, whereas FISH negativity was observed in 167 (80.3%) patients. According to the Chi-square test, patient distribution was 21 in HER2-positive HP-negative group, 20 in HER2-positive HP-positive group, 100 in HER2-negative HP-negative group, and 67 in HER2-negative HP-positive group. No correlation was found between HP and HER2 status (P = 0.314). HP positivity had significant effect on median overall survival (27.4 vs. 12.9 months, P = 0.046)., Conclusions: Our results suggest that there is no relationship between HP infection and HER2 status in patients with GC., Competing Interests: None

Background: In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics of the patients presenting with liver metastases from unknown primary site besides survival rates, treatment outcomes, and prognostic factors., Methods: In all, 68 patients followed-up at our center with adenocarcinoma of unknown primary (ACUP) metastatic to the liver between 2005 and 2013 were enrolled. All of the liver metastases were proven by liver biopsy and all yielded diagnosis of adenocarcinoma., Results: Median age was 61 years (29-90) and most of the patients were male (male/female: 43/25). The liver was the only metastatic site in 2 (3%) patients whilst 66 patients (97%) had extrahepatic metastases. The most common extrahepatic metastatic sites were lymph nodes (89.7%), lungs (32.4%), bones (25%), peritoneum (11.8%), brain (4.4%), and adrenal glands (2.9%). Of all 68 patients, 39 (57.4%) were treated with chemotherapy. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in ACUP patients treated with chemotherapy [12.5 months (95% CI 8.3-16.7) vs. 4 months (95% CI 1.2-6.8), (p = 0.026), respectively]. In multivariate analysis, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (p = 0.009), chemotherapy (p = 0.024), serum albumin (p = 0.012), and serum CA 19-9 level (p = 0.026) at initial diagnosis were identified as independent prognostic factors influencing survival for the patients with liver metastases from ACUP., Conclusion: Patients with liver metastases from ACUP have poor prognosis and chemotherapy improves survival. Decreased serum albumin level, increased CA 19-9 level and poor performance status are independent poor prognostic factors.

Objective: The objective of this retrospective study is to investigate the association between survival and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of liver metastases detected by pre-treatment positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) in patients with adenocarcinoma of unknown primary origin (ACUP)., Methods: A total of 58 patients with ACUP and liver metastases confirmed histopathologically by liver biopsy and pre-treatment PET-CT were included in this study. SUVmax values of the liver lesions were measured and their association with survival was investigated., Results: The median age was 62 years; 63.8 % of the patients were males and 36.2 % were females. The median overall survival was calculated as 10.7 months (OS). The median SUVmax of the liver metastases was 8.6. Accordingly, two groups were established: one with values <8.6 and the other with ones ≥8.6. No differences were detected between the two groups with respect to general characteristics. Median OS was 13.2 months in the group with SUVmax <8.6 compared to 7.4 months in the group with SUVmax ≥8.6. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.033). SUVmax (HR 1.104, 95 % CI 1.013-1.204, p = 0.025), age (HR 1.033, 95 % CI 1.002-1.064, p = 0.034), presence of chemotherapy (HR 2.296, 95 % CI 1.136-4.641, p = 0.021) and LDH level (HR 1.002, 95 % CI 1.001-1.003, p = 0.007) were identified as independent prognostic factors affecting survival in the multivariable analysis. This is the first report evaluating the impact of SUVmax for liver metastases on ACUP patient survival., Conclusion: The SUVmax of liver metastases evaluated by PET-CT is a prognostic factor influencing survival of patients with ACUP.

The majority of patients with pancreatic cancer is of advanced disease. Several randomized Phase II and III trials suggest that the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) response rates were higher than Gemcitabine (Gem) alone, however the trials were not enough powered to indicate a statistically significant prolongation of survival in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study is to evaluated the efficiency of Gem alone versus GemCis in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma .A total of 406 patients, from fourteen centers were evaluated retrospectively. All patients received Gem or GemCis as first-line treatment between September 2005 to March 2011. Primary end of this study were to evaluate the toxicity, clinical response rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the arms. There were 156 patients (M: 98, F: 58) in Gem arm and 250 patients (M: 175, F: 75) in the combination arm. Gemcitabin arm patients older than the combination arm ( median 63 vs 57.5, p=0.001). In patients with the combination arm had a higher dose reduction (25.2% vs 11.3%, p=0.001) and dose delay (34% vs 16.8%, p=0.001). Among patients with the combination and Gemcitabin arm gender, diabetes mellitus, performance status, cholestasis, grade, stage did not have a statistically difference (p>0.05). Clinical response rate to the combination arm was higher than the Gem arm (69.0% vs 49.7%, p=0.001). PFS was more favorable in the GemCis arm than Gem alone, but the difference did not attain statistical significance (8.9 vs 6.0, p=0.08). OS was not significantly superior in the GemCis arm (12.0 vs 10.2, p>0.05). Grade III-IV hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity were higher in the combination arm. PFS was more favorable in the GemCis arm than Gem alone, but the difference did not attain statistical significance. OS was not significantly superior in the GemCis arm.