A randomized Phase III trial of thoracoscopic versus open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1409

Kataoka, Kozo; Takeuchi, Hiroya; Mizusawa, Junki; Ando, Masahiko; Tsubosa, Yasuhiro; Koyanagi, Kazuo; Daiko, Hiroyuki; Matsuda, Satoru; Nakamura, Kenichi; Kato, Ken; Kitagawa, Yuko

doi:10.1093/jjco/hyv178

Cited by 64 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Preoperative co‐morbidities increase complications, as well as poor quality‐of‐life outcomes. Similar in‐study preoperative baseline HRQoL values between treatment groups should adjust for some of these differences. The 95 per cent prediction intervals were calculated to depict the heterogeneity of the studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of health-related quality of life after minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Kauppila

Xie

Johar

et al. 2017

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to compare health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes between minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy for cancer at different postoperative time points. Methods A search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies that compared open with minimally invasive oesophagectomy. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was conducted for studies that measured HRQoL scores using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ‐C30 and QLQ‐OES18 questionnaires. Mean differences (MDs) greater than 10 in scores were considered clinically relevant. Pooled effects of MDs with 95 per cent confidence intervals were estimated to assess statistical significance. Results Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis, involving 1157 patients who had minimally invasive surgery and 907 patients who underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive surgery resulted in better scores for global quality of life (MD 11·61, 95 per cent c.i. 3·84 to 19·39), physical function (MD 11·88, 3·92 to 19·84), fatigue (MD −13·18, −17·59 to −8·76) and pain (MD −15·85, −20·45 to −11·24) compared with open surgery at 3 months after surgery. At 6 and 12 months, no significant differences remained. Conclusion Patients report better global quality of life, physical function, fatigue and pain 3 months after minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery. No such differences remain at longer follow‐up of 6 and 12 months.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of health-related quality of life after minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Kauppila

Xie

Johar

et al. 2017

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It also improved immune related progression free survival greatly in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when combined with chemotherapy. Another humanized anti-CTLA-4 antibody, tremelimumab obtained durable responses in phase I/II clinical studies with melanoma but fell short in Phase III randomized clinical trial (Boussiotis, 2014; Topalian et al, 2014; Deng et al, 2015; Sznol and Longo, 2015; Kataoka et al, 2016). …”

Section: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immune Checkpoint in Glioblastoma: Promising and Challenging

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a severe malignant brain cancer with poor overall survival. Conventional intervention remains dismal to prevent recurrence and deterioration of GBM cell. Recent years have witnessed exciting breakthroughs in novel immune strategies, especially checkpoint inhibitors, some of which have become adjuvant setting after standard of care in melanoma. Several clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors are ongoing in glioblastoma and other brain carcinomas. Plus, synergistic combinations of checkpoint inhibitors with conventional therapy strategies—radiotherapy, temozolomide, bevacizumab, and corticosteroids are now being exploited and applied in clinical settings. This review highlights the recent developments of checkpoints in GBM immunotherapy to provide a brief and comprehensive review of current treatment options. Furthermore, we will discuss challenges remained, such as unique immune system of central nervous system (CNS), immune-related toxicities, synergies, and adverse interactions of combination therapies.

show abstract

“…However, reoperation rate within 30 days was significantly higher in the MIE group than in the OE group. Based on these findings, a randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) was commenced to compare MIE with OE in terms of short-term and overall survival for stage I–III esophageal cancer [50]. …”

Section: Forefront Of Esophageal Cancer Treatment (Core Symposium 1 Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction between Medical Treatment and Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for the Malignancies of the Digestive Tract

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, endoscopic diagnosis and treatment methods for early cancer in the digestive tract have made rapid progress. As for surgery, laparoscopic and thoracoscopic techniques have achieved rapidly advancing development in the last 2 decades. Early detection of the malignant lesion and the evolution of endoscopic and surgical device enabled in performing the minimally invasive surgery. Collaboration of medical treatment and minimally invasive surgery for advanced cancer is ongoing in the case of some conditions and in a few institutes. In this review, the contents of the core symposia on “Interaction between medical treatment and minimally invasive surgical treatment for the malignancies of the digestive tract", held at the 11, 12 and 13th annual meeting of the Japanese Gastroenterological Association, are summarized. At each annual meeting, the core symposium focused primarily on gastric, colorectal, and esophageal cancer treatment. For gastric cancer, endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery were 2 important key words. For colorectal cancer, multidisciplinary therapy was a major key word. And for esophageal cancer, endoscopic resection, chemoradiotherapy, thoracoscopic surgery and salvage surgery were key words. Patients’ survival and quality of life are expected to further advance as a result of the collaboration of such therapeutic modalities.

show abstract

A randomized Phase III trial of thoracoscopic versus open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1409

Cited by 64 publications

References 20 publications

Meta-analysis of health-related quality of life after minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Meta-analysis of health-related quality of life after minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Immune Checkpoint in Glioblastoma: Promising and Challenging

Interaction between Medical Treatment and Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for the Malignancies of the Digestive Tract

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About