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
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Rectal cancer is universally considered a different disease entity as compared to colon cancer, except when dealing with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), in which the two cancers are deemed as the same one. The present study aims to investigate the influence of primary tumor location (colon vs. rectum) on oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Data from three referral centers undergoing CRS plus HIPEC for PC of colorectal origin were prospectively collected. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to primary tumor location (colic vs. rectal). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model first on the total number of patients. Then, a propensity score matching using the nearest-neighbour method with a 1:1 ratio was performed. The study included 167 patients: 126 colic and 41 rectal PC. After propensity score matching, rectal primary tumor location was independently predictive of a lower DFS (HR 1.91; 95%CI 1.06-3.45; p = 0.031) but not of a lower OS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.73). Post-matching 3-year DFS rates were 49.2% (95%CI 34,3-70,5%) and 19.4% (95%CI 9,4-40,2%) for colic and rectal PC, respectively. The present study shows a significantly worse DFS for rectal cancer PC undergoing CRS and HIPEC compared to colon cancer PC, suggesting a possible need for dedicated pathways for rectal PC patients and posing a question for rectal PC to be considered as a unique disease entity.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02104-5 | DOI Listing |