Lin Jiang1,2, Zhiqiang Ma1, Xin Ye1, Weiming Kang1, Jianchun Yu3. 1. Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujin, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. 2. Graduate School, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100005, China. 3. Department of General Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Wangfujin, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. yu-jch@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an important part of the comprehensive treatment of advanced gastric cancer (GC). The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plays a key role in the prognosis of GC patients. Pathological response can represent the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, evidence focused on pathological response and associated clinicopathological factors in GC patients is quite little. In this retrospective study, the clinicopathological factors affecting the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in GC patients were investigated, and suggestions were proposed to improve the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on GC. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on GC patients who received radical surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from February 2016 to December 2019 at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Relevant clinicopathological data was collected to analyze the factors influencing the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Chi-square test was used for univariate analysis. Logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to determine the cutoff value of variables which significantly influenced the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 203 GC patients were included in the study. Analyses showed that patients < 60 years old (OR = 1.840 [1.016-3.332], P = 0.044), histological type of poor differentiation or signet-ring cell carcinoma (OR = 2.606 [1.321-5.140], P = 0.006), and weight loss during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 2.110 [1.161-3.834], P = 0.014) were independent risk factors for neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect. In ROC analysis of weight change and neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect, area under the curve (AUC) was 0.593 (P = 0.024) and cutoff value of weight change was - 2.95%. Chi-square test showed that patients without weight loss during neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a higher rate of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) than patients with weight loss (P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Patients <60 years old, histological type of poor differentiation or signet-ring cell carcinoma, and weight loss during neoadjuvant chemotherapy were independent risk factors for neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect in GC patients. Patients with weight loss > 2.95% during neoadjuvant may have a worse chemotherapy effect. Timely nutritional support such as ONS to maintain patients' body weight is crucial for improving the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an important part of the comprehensive treatment of advanced gastric cancer (GC). The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plays a key role in the prognosis of GC patients. Pathological response can represent the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, evidence focused on pathological response and associated clinicopathological factors in GC patients is quite little. In this retrospective study, the clinicopathological factors affecting the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in GC patients were investigated, and suggestions were proposed to improve the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on GC. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on GC patients who received radical surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from February 2016 to December 2019 at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Relevant clinicopathological data was collected to analyze the factors influencing the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Chi-square test was used for univariate analysis. Logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to determine the cutoff value of variables which significantly influenced the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 203 GC patients were included in the study. Analyses showed that patients < 60 years old (OR = 1.840 [1.016-3.332], P = 0.044), histological type of poor differentiation or signet-ring cell carcinoma (OR = 2.606 [1.321-5.140], P = 0.006), and weight loss during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 2.110 [1.161-3.834], P = 0.014) were independent risk factors for neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect. In ROC analysis of weight change and neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect, area under the curve (AUC) was 0.593 (P = 0.024) and cutoff value of weight change was - 2.95%. Chi-square test showed that patients without weight loss during neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a higher rate of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) than patients with weight loss (P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS:Patients <60 years old, histological type of poor differentiation or signet-ring cell carcinoma, and weight loss during neoadjuvant chemotherapy were independent risk factors for neoadjuvant chemotherapy effect in GC patients. Patients with weight loss > 2.95% during neoadjuvant may have a worse chemotherapy effect. Timely nutritional support such as ONS to maintain patients' body weight is crucial for improving the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: Lisa Martin; Pierre Senesse; Ioannis Gioulbasanis; Sami Antoun; Federico Bozzetti; Chris Deans; Florian Strasser; Lene Thoresen; R Thomas Jagoe; Martin Chasen; Kent Lundholm; Ingvar Bosaeus; Kenneth H Fearon; Vickie E Baracos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Tomohiro Matsuda; Veronica Di Carlo; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Maja Nikšić; Audrey Bonaventure; Mikhail Valkov; Christopher J Johnson; Jacques Estève; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Gulnar Azevedo E Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Sultan Eser; Gerda Engholm; Charles A Stiller; Alain Monnereau; Ryan R Woods; Otto Visser; Gek Hsiang Lim; Joanne Aitken; Hannah K Weir; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jaffer A Ajani; Thomas A D'Amico; Khaldoun Almhanna; David J Bentrem; Joseph Chao; Prajnan Das; Crystal S Denlinger; Paul Fanta; Farhood Farjah; Charles S Fuchs; Hans Gerdes; Michael Gibson; Robert E Glasgow; James A Hayman; Steven Hochwald; Wayne L Hofstetter; David H Ilson; Dawn Jaroszewski; Kimberly L Johung; Rajesh N Keswani; Lawrence R Kleinberg; W Michael Korn; Stephen Leong; Catherine Linn; A Craig Lockhart; Quan P Ly; Mary F Mulcahy; Mark B Orringer; Kyle A Perry; George A Poultsides; Walter J Scott; Vivian E Strong; Mary Kay Washington; Benny Weksler; Christopher G Willett; Cameron D Wright; Debra Zelman; Nicole McMillian; Hema Sundar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: David Cunningham; William H Allum; Sally P Stenning; Jeremy N Thompson; Cornelis J H Van de Velde; Marianne Nicolson; J Howard Scarffe; Fiona J Lofts; Stephen J Falk; Timothy J Iveson; David B Smith; Ruth E Langley; Monica Verma; Simon Weeden; Yu Jo Chua Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ji Heng Wang; Jing Ping DU; Shu Jun Li; Li Ping Zhai; Xin Yan Yang; Zhi Hong Wang; Zi Tao Wu; Ying Han Journal: J Dig Dis Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.366