Literature DB >> 20373074

Clinical significance of evaluating primary lesions in patients with gastric cancer who receive chemotherapy.

Kento Nakatani1, Wasaburo Koizumi, Katsuhiko Higuchi, Chikatoshi Katada, Toru Sasaki, Norisuke Nakayama, Satoshi Tanabe, Katsunori Saigenji.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In Western countries, the response of gastric cancer to chemotherapy is evaluated by assessing measurable metastatic lesions (MMLs) according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). In Japan, the response of primary lesions is assessed according to local Japanese criteria. We compared the response to chemotherapy as evaluated by these two sets of criteria.
METHODS: Patients with unresectable, advanced gastric cancer who had primary lesions and had received first-line chemotherapy were studied. Responses of MMLs were evaluated with RECIST. Responses of primary lesions were evaluated with the Japanese criteria. Median survival times (MSTs) were compared according to treatment response by each set of criteria.
RESULTS: Data from 341 patients were analyzed. Of the 242 patients with MMLs, 108 were MML responders and 134 were MML nonresponders. MST was significantly longer in MML responders (293 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 244-342) than in MML nonresponders (159 days; 95% CI, 127-191; P < 0.0001). According to the Japanese criteria, there were 128 primary-lesion responders and 213 primary-lesion nonresponders. MST was significantly longer in responders (304 days; 95% CI, 266-342) than in nonresponders (168 days; 95% CI, 143-193, P < 0.0001). Of the 99 patients without MMLs, 26 were primary-lesion responders and 73, primary-lesion nonresponders; MST was significantly longer in the former (300 days; 95% CI, 266-334) than in the latter group (173 days; 95% CI, 111-235; P = 0.019).
CONCLUSION: The responses of primary lesions according to the Japanese criteria and the responses of MMLs according to the RECIST were both significantly related to the MST. Use of the RECIST alone might bias the evaluation of treatment response because response cannot be evaluated in patients without an MML.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20373074     DOI: 10.1007/s10120-009-0533-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastric Cancer        ISSN: 1436-3291            Impact factor:   7.370


  11 in total

1.  Significance of and problems in adopting response evaluation criteria in solid tumor RECIST for assessing anticancer effects of advanced gastric cancer.

Authors:  Shigeaki Yoshida; Yoshinori Miyata; Atsushi Ohtsu; Narikazu Boku; Kuniaki Shirao; Yasuhiro Shimada
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2000-12-27       Impact factor: 7.370

2.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  CT gastrography.

Authors:  J H Kim; S H Park; H S Hong; Y H Auh
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct

4.  Progress in gastric cancer surgery in Japan and its limits of radicality.

Authors:  K Maruyama; K Okabayashi; T Kinoshita
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 5.  Gastric cancer by multidetector row CT: preoperative staging.

Authors:  A Y Kim; H J Kim; H K Ha
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug

6.  Advantages of Japanese response criteria for estimating the survival of patients with primary gastric cancer.

Authors:  Wasaburo Koizumi; Minoru Kurihara; Satoshi Tanabe; Ichiei Kondo; Izumi Yamazaki; Miwa Nonaka; Yoshiki Shimamura; Katsunori Saigenji
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 7.370

7.  Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma - 2nd English Edition -

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 7.370

8.  Analysis of survival by tumor response.

Authors:  J R Anderson; K C Cain; R D Gelber
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Antitumor effect and survival benefit of chemotherapy for unresectable advanced gastric cancer.

Authors:  A Kiyohashi; M Kurihara; S Yoshida; T Ohkubo; S Suga
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  Therapeutic efficacy and toxicity of sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in gastric cancer.

Authors:  T Konishi; M Hiraishi; K Mafune; T Miyama; T Hirata; K Mori; H Nishina; Y Idezuki
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  1994 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.480

View more
  3 in total

1.  Some Concerns from a Radiological Point of View. Comment on Huang et al. Outcomes of Conversion Surgery for Metastatic Gastric Cancer Compared with In-Front Surgery Plus Palliative Chemotherapy or In-Front Surgery Alone. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 555.

Authors:  Maria Antonietta Mazzei; Giulio Bagnacci; Armando Perrella; Nunzia Di Meglio; Stefania Angela Piccioni; Francesco Bloise; Daniele Marrelli; Carlo Milandri; Gianni Mura
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-06-29

2.  Evaluations of primary lesions by endoscopy clearly distinguishes prognosis in patients with gastric cancer who receive chemotherapy.

Authors:  Tomomitsu Tahara; Tomoyuki Shibata; Masaaki Okubo; Tomohiko Kawamura; Noriyuki Horiguchi; Dai Yoshida; Takamitsu Ishizuka; Mitsuo Nagasaka; Yoshihito Nakagawa; Naoki Ohmiya
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Disruption of mitochondrial homeostasis with artemisinin unravels anti-angiogenesis effects via auto-paracrine mechanisms.

Authors:  Kuan-Hao Tsui; Meng-Yu Wu; Li-Te Lin; Zhi-Hong Wen; Yi-Han Li; Pei-Yi Chu; Chia-Jung Li
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 11.556

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.