A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy affects the indications for lateral pelvic node dissection in mid/low rectal cancer with clinically suspected lateral node involvement: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Although lateral pelvic node dissection (LPND) is recommended for rectal cancer with clinically metastatic lateral pelvic lymph nodes (LPNs), LPNs may respond to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Our aim was to determine the optimal indication for LPND after nCRT for mid/low rectal cancer.

Methods: Of 2,263 patients with clinical stage II/III mid/low rectal cancer who were managed at three tertiary referral hospitals, 66 patients underwent curative surgery including LPND after nCRT were included in this study. Risk factors for LPN metastasis were retrospectively analyzed and oncologic outcomes determined according to LPN response to nCRT.

Results: Persistent LPNs greater than 5 mm on post-nCRT magnetic resonance imaging were significantly associated with residual tumor metastasis, unlike responsive LPN after nCRT (short-axis diameter ≤ 5 mm) (pathologically, 61.1 % [22 of 36] vs. 0 % [0 of 30], P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed post-nCRT LPN size as a significant and independent risk factor for LPN metastasis (odds ratio 2.390; 95 % confidence interval 1.104-4.069). Over a median follow-up of 39.3 months, the recurrence rate was lower in patients with responsive nodes than in patients with persistent nodes (20 % [6 of 30] vs. 47.2 % [17 of 36], P = 0.012). The 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival rates were lower in patients with persistent LPN than in patients with responsive LPN (44.6 % vs. 77.1 %, P = 0.034; 33.7 % vs. 72.5 %, P = 0.011, respectively).

Conclusions: In mid/low rectal cancer with clinically metastatic LPNs, the decision to perform LPND should be based on the LPN response to nCRT.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3559-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mid/low rectal
16
rectal cancer
16
lateral pelvic
12
cancer clinically
12
neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
8
pelvic node
8
node dissection
8
clinically metastatic
8
lpnd ncrt
8
lpn
8

Similar Publications