| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Busweiler, L A D, et al.
(författare)
-
International benchmarking in oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BJS Open. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2474-9842. ; 3:1, s. 62-73
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Benchmarking on an international level might lead to improved outcomes at a national level. The aim of this study was to compare treatment and surgical outcome data from the Swedish National Register for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer (NREV) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA).Methods: All patients with primary oesophageal or gastric cancer who underwent a resection and were registered in NREV or DUCA between 2012 and 2014 were included. Differences in 30-day mortality were analysed using case mix-adjusted multivariable logistic regression.Results: In total, 4439 patients underwent oesophagectomy (2509 patients) or gastrectomy (1930 patients). Estimated resection rates were comparable. Swedish patients were older but had less advanced disease and less co-morbidity than Dutch patients. Neoadjuvant treatment rates were lower in Sweden than in the Netherlands, both for patients who underwent oesophagectomy (68·6 versus 90·0 per cent respectively; P < 0·001) and for those having gastrectomy (38·3 versus 56·6 per cent; P < 0·001). In Sweden, transthoracic oesophagectomy was performed in 94·7 per cent of patients, whereas in the Netherlands, a transhiatal approach was undertaken in 35·8 per cent. Higher annual procedural volumes per hospital were observed in the Netherlands. Adjusted 30-day and/or in-hospital mortality after gastrectomy was statistically significantly lower in Sweden than in the Netherlands (odds ratio 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·29 to 0·95).Conclusion: For oesophageal and gastric cancer, there are differences in patient, tumour and treatment characteristics between Sweden and the Netherlands. Postoperative mortality in patients with gastric cancer was lower in Sweden.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kumagai, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Survival benefit and additional value of preoperative chemoradiotherapy in resectable gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer : A direct and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis
- 2015
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0748-7983 .- 1532-2157. ; 41:3, s. 282-294
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Several phase I/II studies of chemoradiotherapy for gastric cancer have reported promising results, but the significance of preoperative radiotherapy in addition to chemotherapy has not been proven. In this study, a systematic literature search was performed to capture survival and postoperative morbidity and mortality data in randomised clinical studies comparing preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy or chemotherapy versus surgery alone, or preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy for gastric and/or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) cancer. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall mortality were extracted from the original studies, individual patient data provided from the principal investigators of eligible studies or the earlier published meta-analysis. The incidences of postoperative morbidities and mortalities were also analysed. In total 18 studies were eligible and data were available from 14 of these. The meta-analysis on overall survival yielded HRs of 0.75 (95% CI 0.65-0.86, P < 0.001) for preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and 0.83 (95% CI 0.67-1.01, P = 0.065) for preoperative chemotherapy when compared to surgery alone. Direct comparison between preoperative chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy resulted in an HR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.45-1.12, P = 0.146). Combination of direct and adjusted indirect comparisons yielded an HR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.69-1.07, P = 0.171). No statistically significant differences were seen in the risk for postoperative morbidity or mortality between preoperative treatments and surgery alone, or preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy for gastric and GOJ cancer showed significant survival benefit over surgery alone. In comparisons between preoperative chemotherapy and (chemo)radiotherapy, there is a trend towards improved survival when adding radiotherapy, without increased postoperative morbidity or mortality.
|
|
| 4. |
- Baldaque-Silva, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of gastroesophageal reflux control through tailored proton pump inhibition therapy or fundoplication in patients with Barrett's esophagus
- 2017
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Gastroenterology. - : Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.. - 1007-9327 .- 2219-2840. ; 23:17, s. 3174-3183
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIM To determine the impact of upwards titration of proton pump inhibition (PPI) on acid reflux, symptom scores and histology, compared to clinically successful fundoplication. Two cohorts of long-segment Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients were studied. In group 1 (n = 24), increasing doses of PPI were administered in 8-wk intervals until acid reflux normalization. At each assessment, ambulatory 24 h pH recording, endoscopy with biopsies and symptom scoring (by a gastroesophageal reflux disease health related quality of life questionnaire, GERD/HRLQ) were performed. Group 2 (n = 30) consisted of patients with a previous fundoplication. In group 1, acid reflux normalized in 23 of 24 patients, resulting in improved GERD/HRQL scores (P = 0.001), which were most pronounced after the starting dose of PPI (P < 0.001). PPI treatment reached the same level of GERD/HRQL scores as after a clinically successful fundoplication (P = 0.5). Normalization of acid reflux in both groups was associated with reduction in papillary length, basal cell layer thickness, intercellular space dilatation, and acute and chronic inflammation of squamous epithelium. This study shows that acid reflux and symptom scores co-vary throughout PPI increments in long-segment BE patients, especially after the first dose of PPI, reaching the same level as after a successful fundoplication. Minor changes were found among GERD markers at the morphological level.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
