| Literature DB >> 26757052 |
Yen-Han Tseng1,2, Yi-Hsuan Lin3, Yen-Chiang Tseng2,4, Yu-Chin Lee5, Yu-Chung Wu6, Wen-Hu Hsu6, Sang-Hue Yen7, Jacqueline Whang-Peng8, Yuh-Min Chen1,2,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thymic carcinomas are rare tumors for which surgical resection is the first treatment of choice. The role of adjuvant treatment after surgery is unknown because of limited available data. The present study evaluated the efficacy of post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy in patients with thymic carcinoma.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26757052 PMCID: PMC4710498 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The TNM staging for patients with thymic carcinoma (n = 78).
| TNM staging | R0 resection | R1 resection | R2 resection | No surgery (n = 48) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 11 | |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 35 |
*Primary lesion
Postoperative treatment modalities administered after R0 resections.
| R0 resection | CCRT (n = 4) | C/T (n = 2) | R/T (n = 9) | No treatment (n = 3) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 (75%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (44.4%) | 2 (66.7%) | 0.328 | |
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (30%) | 0 (0%) | 0.031 | |
| 0.442 | |||||
| 1 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (25%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 3 (75%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (50%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| 0 (0%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (25%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 0.190 | |||||
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (11.1%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| 1 (25%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (77.8%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| 2 (50%) | 1 (50%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 1 (25%) | 1 (50%) | 1 (11.1%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| 7.5 (5.1–9.8) | 5.9 (5.9) | 50.3 (18.9–88.4) | Not yet | 0.003 |
The data are presented as the number (percentage) or as the median (range)
CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy; ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; C/T = chemotherapy; PFS = progression free survival; R/T = radiotherapy.
The survival status of patients who received an R0, R1, or R2 resection versus patients who received no surgical treatment.
| R0 resection (n = 19) | No surgery(n = 48) | ||
| 88.4 | 9.1 | 0.001 | |
| 24.3–152.6 | 8.5–9.7 | ||
| Not yet | 60.9 | 0.001 | |
| 18.2–103.6 | |||
| 11 (57.9%) | 19 (39.6%) | 0.040 | |
| 8(42.1%) | 7(14.6%) | 0.004 | |
| R1 resection (n = 6) | No surgery (n = 48) | ||
| Not yet | 9.1 | 0.005 | |
| 8.5–9.7 | |||
| 134.9 | 60.9 | 0.142 | |
| 134.9 | 18.2–103.6 | ||
| 3 (50.0%) | 19 (39.6%) | 0.335 | |
| 2 (33.3%) | 7 (14.6%) | 0.189 | |
| R2 resection (n = 5) | No surgery (n = 48) | ||
| 8.0 | 9.1 | 1.000 | |
| 0–19.7 | 8.5–9.7 | ||
| Not reached | 60.9 | 0.990 | |
| 18.2–103.6 | |||
| 3 (60.0%) | 19 (39.6%) | 0.303 | |
| 1 (20.0%) | 7 (14.6%) | 0.871 |
The data are presented as the number (percentage), unless otherwise indicated
CI = confidence interval; OS = overall survival; PFS = progression free survival.
Survival status by staging and surgery.
| Surgery | No surgery | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 88.4 | 9.1 | 0.000 | |
| 9.9–166.9 | 8.5–9.7 | ||
| 134.9 | 60.9 | 0.003 | |
| 18.2–103.6 | |||
| 17 (56.7%) | 19 (39.6%) | 0.073 | |
| 11 (36.7%) | 7 (14.6%) | 0.008 | |
| N = 2 | N = 1 | ||
| N = 12 | N = 1 | ||
| 62.4 | 38.9 | 0.069 | |
| 33.6–79.9 | 38.9 | ||
| Not long enough | Not long enough | ||
| 9 (75.0%) | 1 (100%) | 1.000 | |
| 7 (58.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0.462 | |
| N = 4 | N = 11 | ||
| 5.9 | 16.6 | 0.992 | |
| 4.7–7.2 | 6.3–26.9 | ||
| 70.1 | 23.9 | 0.017 | |
| 26.3–120.9 | 10.7–45.2 | ||
| 2 (50.0%) | 5 (45.5%) | 0.645 | |
| 2 (50.0%) | 2 (18.2%) | 0.275 | |
| N = 12 | N = 35 | ||
| 18.9 | 8.7 | 0.029 | |
| 8.0–25.6 | 6.0–11.5 | ||
| 12.1 | 13.5 | 0.428 | |
| 10.3–33.6 | 17.3–40.0 | ||
| 5 (41.7%) | 13 (37.1%) | 0.712 | |
| 1 (8.3%) | 5 (14.3%) | 0.450 |
The data are presented as the number (percentage), unless otherwise indicated
CI = confidence interval; OS = overall survival; PFS = progression-free survival
Postoperative treatment after surgery.
| CCRT (n = 8) | C/T (n = 5) | R/T (n = 13) | No treatment (n = 3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54.6 (50.3–58.9) | 47.6 (32.5–62.7) | 58.3 (50.9–65.7) | 68.3 (49–87.6) | 0.064 | |
| 6 (75.0%) | 2 (40.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 2 (66.7%) | 0.508 | |
| 2 (25.0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0.234 | |
| 0.864 | |||||
| 1 (12.5%) | 1 (33.3%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 6 (75.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 6 (75.0%) | 1 (100%) | ||
| 1 (12.5%) | 1 (33.3%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 0.172 | |||||
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| 2 (25.0%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| 2 (25.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 4 (50.0%) | 4 (80.0%) | 3 (23.1%) | 1 (33.3%) | ||
| 6.6 | 9.8 | 65.6 | 23.8 | 0.018 | |
| 1.7–28.5 | 0.1–12.9 | 34.4–83.6 | 0–54.6 | ||
| 12.0 | 17.8 | 65.6 | Not long enough | 0.443 | |
| 0.8–47.0 | 0–97.0 | 35.4–84.8 | |||
| 3 (37.5%) | 2 (40.0%) | 10 (76.9%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0.373 | |
| 1 (12.5%) | 1 (20.0%) | 8 (61.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0.121 |
The data are presented as the number (percentage), unless otherwise indicated. The total number of patients is 29 patients.
CCRT = concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CI = confidence interval; C/T = chemotherapy; ECOG = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; R/T = radiotherapy.