The hospitals’ volume, specialization, availability of all oncological services, and experience in performing complex surgeries have a favorable impact on gastric cancer (GC) treatment.
The aim of this study was to compare the results of GC treatment according to the type of oncological hospital in the State of São Paulo.
Patients diagnosed with GC between 2000 and 2022 in qualified hospitals for cancer treatment were evaluated by data extracted from the hospital cancer registry. Patients were assessed according to the type of hospital for cancer treatment: Oncology High Complexity Assistance Unit (UNACON) and Oncology High Complexity Care Center (CACON), which has greater complexity.
Among the 33,774 patients, 23,387 (69.2%) were treated at CACONs and 10,387 (30.8%) in UNACONs. CACON patients were younger, had a higher level of education, and had a more advanced cTNM stage compared to UNACON (all p<0.001, p<0.05). The time from diagnosis to treatment was over 60 days in 49.8% of CACON’s patients and 39.4% of UNACON’s (p<0.001, p<0.05). Surgical treatment was performed in 18,314 (54.2%) patients. The frequency pN0 (40.3 vs 32.4%) and pTNM stage I (23 vs 19.5%) were higher in CACON. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between all adenocarcinoma cases treated at CACON and UNACON (9.3 vs 10.3 months, p=0.462, p>0.05). However, considering only patients who underwent curative surgery, the OS of patients treated at CACON was better (24.4 vs 18 months, p<0.001).
Patients with GC who underwent gastrectomy at CACONs had better survival outcomes, suggesting that the centralization of complex cancer surgery may be beneficial.
Anal cancer is a relatively rare disease, and there is a lack of survival data from low- and middle-income countries.
The aim of this study was to investigate the survival rates and prognostic factors of anal cancer cases treated at a High-Complexity Oncology Care Center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 665 cases of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus/anal canal treated from 2000 to 2016. To estimate the 5-year overall survival probability and survival according to selected variables, the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were applied. To identify factors associated with survival, the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by staging, was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (95%CI) were also calculated.
The overall survival probability was 62.20% (95%CI 57.90–66.20). Higher survival rates were observed in female cases, those with non-advanced staging, and those treated with chemoradiotherapy (p<0.001). Among cases with advanced staging, being female was a protective factor against death (HR=0.52; 95%CI 0.28–0.93). Compared to chemoradiotherapy, at least one type of treatment was identified as a risk factor: chemoradiotherapy + surgery among cases with non-advanced staging (HR=22.65; 95%CI 5.65–90.81), radiotherapy among cases with advanced staging (HR=2.71; 95%CI 1.39–5.30), and among cases with unknown staging, no treatment (HR=3.36; 95%CI 1.73–6.50), radiotherapy (HR=2.38; 95%CI 1.46–3.88), and radiotherapy + surgery (HR=3.99; 95%CI 1.20–13.27).
The findings support the superiority of chemoradiotherapy over other therapeutic modalities for anal cancer, resulting in increased survival and a better prognosis.
Despite the preference for multimodal treatment for gastric cancer, abandonment of chemotherapy treatment as well as the need for upfront surgery in obstructed patients brings negative impacts on the treatment. The difficulty of accessing treatment in specialized centers in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) scenario is an aggravating factor.
To identify advantages, prognostic factors, complications, and neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies survival in gastric cancer treatment in SUS setting.
The retrospective study included 81 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent treatment according to INT0116 trial (adjuvant chemoradiotherapy), CLASSIC trial (adjuvant chemotherapy), FLOT4-AIO trial (perioperative chemotherapy), and surgery with curative intention (R0 resection and D2 lymphadenectomy) in a single cancer center between 2015 and 2020. Individuals with other histological types, gastric stump, esophageal cancer, other treatment protocols, and stage Ia or IV were excluded.
Patients were grouped into FLOT4-AIO (26 patients), CLASSIC (25 patients), and INT0116 (30 patients). The average age was 61 years old. More than 60% of patients had pathological stage III. The treatment completion rate was 56%. The pathological complete response rate of the FLOT4-AIO group was 7.7%. Among the prognostic factors that impacted overall survival and disease-free survival were alcoholism, early postoperative complications, and anatomopathological status pN2 and pN3. The 3-year overall survival rate was 64.9%, with the CLASSIC subgroup having the best survival (79.8%).
The treatment strategy for gastric cancer varies according to the need for initial surgery. The CLASSIC subgroup had better overall survival and disease-free survival. The INT0116 regimen also protected against mortality, but not with statistical significance. Although FLOT4-AIO is the preferred treatment, the difficulty in carrying out neoadjuvant treatment in SUS scenario had a negative impact on the results due to the criticality of food intake and worse treatment tolerance.
Hepatic retransplantation is associated with higher morbidity and mortality when compared to primary transplantation. Given the scarcity of organs and the need for efficient allocation, evaluating parameters that can predict post-retransplant survival is crucial.
This study aimed to analyze prognostic scores and outcomes of hepatic retransplantation.
Data on primary transplants and retransplants carried out in the state of Paraná in 2019 and 2020 were analyzed. The two groups were compared based on 30-day survival and the main prognostic scores of the donor and recipient, namely Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-albumin (MELD-a), Donor MELD (D-MELD), Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (SOFT), Preallocation Score to Predict Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation (P-SOFT), and Balance of Risk (BAR).
A total of 425 primary transplants and 30 retransplants were included in the study. The main etiology of hepatopathy in primary transplantation was ethylism (n=140; 31.0%), and the main reasons for retransplantation were primary graft dysfunction (n=10; 33.3%) and hepatic artery thrombosis (n=8; 26.2%). The 30-day survival rate was higher in primary transplants than in retransplants (80.5% vs. 36.7%, p=0.001). Prognostic scores were higher in retransplants than in primary transplants: MELD 30.6 vs. 20.7 (p=0.001); MELD-a 31.5 vs. 23.5 (p=0.001); D-MELD 1234.4 vs. 834.0 (p=0.034); SOFT 22.3 vs. 8.2 (p=0.001); P-SOFT 22.2 vs. 7.8 (p=0.001); and BAR 15.6 vs. 8.3 (p=0.001). No difference was found in terms of Donor Risk Index (DRI).
Retransplants exhibited lower survival rates at 30 days, as predicted by prognostic scores, but unrelated to the donor’s condition.
Patients with clinical stage IV gastric cancer may require palliative procedures to manage complications such as obstruction. However, there is no consensus on whether performing palliative gastrectomy compared to gastric bypass brings benefits in terms of survival.
To compare the overall survival of patients with distal obstructive gastric cancer undergoing palliative surgical treatment, using propensity score matching analysis.
Patients who underwent palliative bypass surgery (gastrojejunostomy or partitioning) and resection between the years 2009 and 2023 were retrospectively selected. Initial and postoperative clinicopathological variables were collected.
150 patients were initially included. The derived group (n=91) presented more locally invasive disease (p<0.01), greater degree of obstruction (p<0.01), and worse clinical status (p<0.01), while the resected ones (n= 59) presented more distant metastasis (p<0.01). After matching, 35 patients remained in each group. There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications, but the derived group had higher 90-day mortality (p<0.01). Overall survival was 16.9 and 4.5 months for the resected and derived groups, respectively (p<0.01). After multivariate analysis, hypoalbuminemia (hazard ratio — HR=2.02, 95% confidence interval — 95%CI 1.17–3.48; p=0.01), absence of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR=5.97; 95%CI 3.03–11.7; p<0.01), and gastric bypass (HR=3,28; 95%CI 1.8–5.95; p<0.01) were associated with worse survival.
Palliative gastrectomy was associated with greater survival and lower postoperative morbidity compared to gastric bypass. This may be due to better local control of the disease, with lower risks of complications and better effectiveness of chemotherapy.
Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common mesenchymal neoplasm of the digestive tract and has a wide variation in biological behavior; surgical resection remains the main form of treatment.
This study aimed to analyze clinicopathological characteristics and survival of patients with GIST in a reference institution for oncological diseases.
An observational, longitudinal, and retrospective study of patients diagnosed with GIST from January 2011 to January 2020 was carried out by analyzing epidemiological and clinical variables, staging, surgical resection, recurrence, use of imatinib, and curves of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).
A total of 38 patients were included. The majority (58%) of patients were males and the median age was 62 years. The primary organs that were affected by this tumor were stomach (63%) and small intestine (17%). Notably, 24% of patients had metastatic disease at diagnosis; 76% of patients received surgical treatment and 13% received neoadjuvant treatment; and 47% of patients received imatinib as adjuvant or palliative therapy. Tumor recurrence was 13%, being more common in the liver. The 5-year OS was 72.5% and DFS was 47.1%. The operated ones had better OS (87.1% vs. 18.5%) and DFS (57.1% vs. 14.3%) in 5 years. Tumor size ≥5 cm had no difference in OS at 5 years, but DFS was 24.6%, when compared with 92.3% of smaller tumors. Patients who were undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and/or using imatinib did not show any significant differences.
Surgical treatment with adequate margins allows the best gain in survival, and the use of imatinib in more advanced cases has prognostic equity with less advanced-stage tumors. Treatment of metastatic tumors seems promising, requiring further studies.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most frequent type of primary liver cancer and its incidence is increasing around the world in the last decades, making it the third cause of death by cancer in the world. Hepatic resection is one of the most effective treatments for HCC with five-year survival rates from 50-70%, especially for patients with a single nodule and preserved liver function. Some studies have shown a worse prognosis for HCC patients whose etiology is viral. That brings us to the question about the existence of a difference between the various causes of HCC and its prognosis.
To compare the prognosis (overall and disease-free survival at five years) of patients undergoing hepatectomy for the treatment of HCC with respect to various causes of liver disease.
Was performed a review of medical records of patients undergoing hepatectomy between 2000 and 2014 for the treatment of HCC. They were divided into groups according to the cause of liver disease, followed by overall and disease-free survival analysis for comparison.
There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of the groups of patients divided according to the etiology of HCC. Overall and disease-free survival at five years of the patients in this sample were 49.9% and 40.7%, respectively.
From the data of this sample, was verified that there was no prognostic differences among the groups of HCC patients of the various etiologies.
Liver transplantation is the usual treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.
To analyze the MELD score, waiting time and three month and one year survival for liver transplantation in cirrhotic patients affected by hepatocellular carcinoma or not.
This was a retrospective, observational and analytical study of 93 patients submitted to liver transplantation.
There were 28 hepatocellular carcinoma and 65 non-hepatocellular carcinoma patients with no differences related to age and sex distribution. The main causes of cirrhosis on hepatocellular carcinoma were hepatitis C virus (57.1%) and hepatitis B virus (28.5%), more frequent than non-hepatocellular carcinoma patients, which presented 27.7% and 4.6% respectively. The physiological and exception MELD score on hepatocellular carcinoma were 11.9 and 22.3 points. On non-hepatocellular carcinoma, it was 19.4 points, higher than the physiological MELD and lower than the exception MELD on hepatocellular carcinoma. The waiting time for transplantation was 96.2 days for neoplasia, shorter than the waiting time for non-neoplasia patients, which was 165.6 days. Three month and one year survival were 85.7% and 78.6% for neoplasia patients, similar to non-neoplasia, which were 77% and 75.4%.
Hepatocellular carcinoma patients presented lower physiological MELD score, higher exception MELD score and shorter waiting time for transplantation when compared to non-hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Three month and one year survival were the same between the groups.
Liver transplantation is intended to increase the survival of patients with chronic liver disease in terminal phase, as well as improved quality of life. Since the first transplant until today many changes have occurred in the organ allocation system.
To review the literature on the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and analyze its correlation with survival after liver transplantation.
An integrative literature review in Lilacs, SciELO, and Pubmed in October 2015, was realized. Were included eight studies related to the MELD score and its impact on liver transplant.
There was predominance of transplants in male between 45-55 y. The main indications were hepatitis C, hepatocellular carcinoma and alcoholic cirrhosis. The most important factors post-surgery were related to the MELD score, the recipient age, expanded donor criteria and hemotransfusion.
The MELD system reduced the death rate in patients waiting for a liver transplant. However, this score by itself is not a good predictor of survival after liver transplantation.
Liver elastography have been reported in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with higher values; however, it is unclear to identify morbimortality risk on liver transplantation waiting list.
To assess liver stiffness, ultrasound and clinical findings in cirrhotic patients with and without HCC on screening for liver transplant and compare the morbimortality risk with elastography and MELD score.
Patients with cirrhosis and HCC on screening for liver transplant were enrolled with clinical, radiological and laboratory assessments, and transient elastography.
103 patients were included (without HCC n=58 (66%); HCC n=45 (44%). The mean MELD score was 14.7±6.4, the portal hypertension present on 83.9% and the mean transient elastography value was 32.73±22.5 kPa. The median acoustic radiation force impulse value of liver parenchyma was 1.98 (0.65-3.2) m/s and 2.16 (0.59-2.8) m/s in HCC group. The HCC group was significantly associated with HCV infection (OR 26.84; p<0.0001), higher levels of serum alpha-fetoprotein (OR 5.51; p=0.015), clinical portal hypertension (OR 0.25; p=0.032) and similar MELD score (p=0.693). The area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) showed sensitivity and specificity for serum alpha-fetoprotein (cutoff 9.1 ng/ml), transient elastography value (cutoff value 9 kPa), and acoustic radiation force impulse value (cutoff value 2.56 m/s) of 50% and 86%, 92% and 17% and 21% and 92%, respectively. The survival group had a mean transient elastography value of 31.65±22.2 kPa vs. 50.87±20.9 kPa (p=0.098) and higher MELD scores (p=0.035).
Elastography, ultrasound and clinical findings are important non-invasive tools for cirrhosis and HCC on screening for liver transplant. Higher values in liver elastography and MELD scores predict mortality.
Desenvolvido por Surya MKT