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: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
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
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Even though the conventional treatment for T1 esophageal cancer is surgery, ESD is becoming the primary treatment. Currently, it is unknown whether secondary esophagectomy after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is comparable to primary esophagectomy when considering outcomes in patients with T1 esophageal cancer. We compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes between the two groups. Primary surgery (esophagectomy) was performed in 191 patients between 2003 and 2014, and 62 patients underwent secondary surgery (esophagectomy) after ESD for T1 esophageal cancer between 2007 and 2019. Propensity matching was performed for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), location, pathology, degree of differentiation, tumor size, and invasion depth. Lymph node metastasis (LNM), overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and post-operative complications were compared between groups. Sixty-eight patients were included after propensity score matching; LNM, OS, DSS, and RFS were comparable between the two groups. Comparing primary and secondary surgery, the respective LNM rates were 23.5% and 26.5%, 6-year OS 78.0% and 89.7%, = 0.15; DSS were 80.4% and 96.8%, = 0.057; and RFS were 80.8% and 89.7%, = 0.069. Comparing the adverse events between the two groups, there was no significant difference in the overall adverse events. However, more early complications were observed in the primary surgery group than in the secondary surgery group (50% vs. 20.6%, = 0.021). Secondary surgery did not increase the risk of LNM. The long-term outcomes were comparable. Therefore, attempts to perform upfront ESD for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers are justified.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10705107 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers15235542 | DOI Listing |