Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Nomograms predicting survival of patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer who receive combination cytotoxic chemotherapy as first-line treatment

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on aggregate data.

          This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Randomized phase II and III clinical trials on first-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer were identified by electronic searches of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cancerlit; hand searches of relevant abstract books and reference lists; and contact to experts. Meta-analysis was performed using the fixed-effect model. Overall survival, reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI, was the primary outcome measure. Analysis of chemotherapy versus best supportive care (HR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.52) and combination versus single agent, mainly fluorouracil (FU) -based chemotherapy (HR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.93) showed significant overall survival benefits in favor of chemotherapy and combination chemotherapy, respectively. In addition, comparisons of FU/cisplatin-containing regimens with versus without anthracyclines (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.95) and FU/anthracycline-containing combinations with versus without cisplatin (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91) both demonstrated a significant survival benefit for the three-drug combination. Comparing irinotecan-containing versus nonirinotecan-containing combinations (mainly FU/cisplatin) resulted in a nonsignificant survival benefit in favor of the irinotecan-containing regimens (HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.06), but they have never been compared against a three-drug combination. Best survival results are achieved with three-drug regimens containing FU, an anthracycline, and cisplatin. Among these, regimens including FU as bolus exhibit a higher rate of toxic deaths than regimens using a continuous infusion of FU, such as epirubicin, cisplatin, and continuous-infusion FU.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2012.

            The aim of this study was to report nationwide cancer statistics in Korea, including incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence, and their trends.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multivariate prognostic factor analysis in locally advanced and metastatic esophago-gastric cancer--pooled analysis from three multicenter, randomized, controlled trials using individual patient data.

              To identify baseline prognostic factors and assess whether pretreatment quality of life (QoL) predicts survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophago-gastric cancer. Between 1992 and 2001, 1,080 patients were enrolled into three randomized, controlled trials assessing fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy. All patients were required to complete the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core QoL questionnaire before random assignment. Of the 1080 patients randomly assigned, 979 (91%) died. Four independent poor prognostic factors were identified by multivariate analysis: performance status >or= 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 99% CI, 1.25 to 1.98), liver metastases (HR, 1.41; 99%CI, 1.14 to 1.74), peritoneal metastases (HR, 1.33; 99%CI, 1.01 to 1.74) and alkaline phosphatase >or= 100 U/L (HR, 1.41; 99% CI, 1.14 to 1.76). A prognostic index was constructed dividing patients into good (no risk factor), moderate (one or two risk factors) or poor (three or four risk factors) risk groups. One-year survival for good, moderate, and poor risk groups were 48.5%, 25.7%, and 11%, respectively, and the survival differences among these groups were highly significant (P <.00001). Compared with the good risk group, the moderate risk group had nearly twice the risk of death, and the poor risk group had 3.5-fold increased risk of death. Pretreatment physical (P =.003), role functioning (P <.001), and global QoL (P <.001) predicted survival. Four poor prognostic factors were identified and a simple prognostic index was devised. Information from this analysis can be used to aid clinical decision-making, help individual patient risk stratification, and serve as benchmark for the planning for future phase III trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gastric Cancer
                Gastric Cancer
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1436-3291
                1436-3305
                May 2018
                August 21 2017
                May 2018
                : 21
                : 3
                : 453-463
                Article
                10.1007/s10120-017-0756-z
                28828688
                49efbca9-3775-46de-884d-cff938956355
                © 2018

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article