The extent of resection for proximal third gastric cancer does not influence the clinical outcome. PG and TG have similar survival rates. Both procedures can be accomplished safely. Therefore, PG should be an alternative to TG, even in locally advanced proximal gastric cancers treated by NACT, provided that the tumor size and location permit preservation of adequate remnant of stomach without compromising oncological resection margins. Future QOL studies would further lend credence to the concept of PG for proximal third gastric cancer.
BackgroundThe significance of uncommon EGFR mutations in newly diagnosed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients is incompletely known. We aimed to analyze the demographic profile, outcome, and treatment attributes of these patients.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively surveyed 5,738 advanced NSCLC patients who underwent EGFR testing in our center from 2013 to 2017 by in-house primer probes on real time PCR platform. Descriptive data were accumulated from electronic medical records. Survival plot was calculated using Kaplan–Meier method and compared between groups using log-rank test.ResultsOut of 1,260 EGFR mutation-positive patients, 83 (6.58%) had uncommon mutations in isolation or in various combinations. Uncommon mutations were more frequent in men, never-smokers, and adenocarcinomas. Overall, exon 18 G719X, exon 20 insertion, exon 20 T790M, exon 20 S768I, and exon 21 (L858R/L861Q) were present in 9.6%, 19.3%, 12%, 3.6%, and 3.6% patients, respectively. Dual mutation positivity was found in 50.6% patients. On classifying patients as per tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sensitivity, it was found that majority of the patients had a combination TKI sensitive and insensitive mutations. The median duration of follow-up was 13 months. Five patients were lost to follow-up. Median progression-free survival on first line therapy was 6.7 months (95% CI: 4.8–8.5). Median overall survival (OS) of patients who received TKI during the course of their disease was 20.2 months (95% CI: 11.4–28.9). Median overall survival (mOS) of the entire cohort was 15.8 months (95% CI: 10.1–21.5). Among all uncommon mutations, patients with dual mutations did better, with an mOS time of 22.6 months (95% CI: 8.2–37.0, P=0.005). It was observed that TKI sensitive/TKI insensitive dual mutations had a superior OS of 28.2 months (95% CI: 15.2–41.2, P=0.039) as compared to TKI sensitive and TKI insensitive EGFR mutations.ConclusionUncommon EGFR mutations constitute a heterogeneous group, hence, it is imperative to understand each subgroup more to define optimal treatment.
In today's era of liver transplantation, resection (especially for larger tumors) may still be the preferred treatment option, considering problems and difficulties in donor availability, cost, and long waiting list for liver transplant. With evolving modern surgical technique, long-term survival benefit can be achieved with acceptable safety in most BCLC stage B and selected BCLC stage C patients and those who either do not fit into the transplant criteria or cannot afford transplant. Carefully designed trials are required to further elucidate these results.
Surgery alone is curative only for early GBC (Stage I). Combination of surgery and peri-operative systemic therapy results in favorable outcomes even in stage II/III disease. Potentially, multimodality treatment may add meaningful survival for this disease with inherently aggressive tumor biology.
High rates of optimal cytoreduction were achieved at interval cytoreductive surgery after NACT, with acceptable surgical morbidity, early start of adjuvant chemotherapy, and survival outcomes comparable to international standards.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.