Objective To explore the safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with sphincter-preserving operation in treatment of locally advanced low rectal cancer. Methods The clinical data of thirty-four patients admitted into our hospital between June 2007 and June 2009 with T3 and T4 low rectal cancer treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and sphincter-preserving operation were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Routine fraction of radiation was given with total dose of 40 Gy, five times a week, 2 Gy per fraction. Patients received oxaliplatin （150 mg/d1）, plus folinic (100 mg/d1-3) and 5FU (750 mg/d1-3) for total 1 cycles started from the 4th week of irradiation. Operation was performed 4 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy. Results After neoadjuvant therapy, all patients underwent surgical resection with average tumor size decreased by 41.2%, tumor T stage decreased in 67.6% （23/34) patients, and lymph nodenegative change rate was 58.8% (10/17). One patient had liver metastasis and one had local recurrence, but without stomal leak. And 88.2% (30/34) patients showed good function of sphincter. Conclusions Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in advanced lower rectal cancer patients has shown its efficacy in down-staging, which is safe without increasing operation complications when combined with sphincterpreserving surgery.
ObjectiveTo study the latest progress of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. MethodsLiteratures of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer, involving with theoretical basis, clinical significance, indications, drugs, predictors, and its relationship of breastconserving surgery, sentinel lymph node biopsy were reviewed. ResultsNeoadjuvant chemotherapy could reduce the clinical stage, increase opportunity of breast-conserving surgery, learn the sensitivity of drugs, prevent distant metastases, but the impact of the sentinel lymph node biopsy was still in dispute. ConclusionNeoadjuvant chemotherapy is an important part of a systemic treatment for breast cancer, but how to select sensitive drugs, develop individualized treatment programs and forecast the outcome needs further study.
ObjectiveTo summarize the research progress of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. MethodThe literatures about the research progress of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the advanced gastric cancer were reviewed. ResultsThe neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the advanced gastric cancer could significantly improve the R0 resection rate, improve the long-term survival rate, and reduce the risk of death.The course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer without distant metastasis generally was 6-9 weeks, and then according to the results of the curative effect evaluation to decide whether to undergo surgery treatment.Further the clinical research and improvement of chemotherapy sensitivity detection method were helpful to the unity of the standard of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. ConclusionsThe curative effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer is clear.But there is no uniform standard on such as indications, chemotherapy regimens, medication time, and curative effect evaluation index, and so on.It is still needed the further research of multicenter and large clinical trials.
Objective To investigate the perioperative differences between video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and thoracotomy after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Clinical data of NSCLC patients who underwent VATS or thoracotomy after neoadjuvant therapy at Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital from June 2020 to May 2022 were retrospectively collected. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 260 patients were enrolled, 184 (70.8%) patients underwent VATS and 76 (29.2%) patients underwent thoracotomy. After propensity matching, there were 113 (62.4%) patients in the VATS group and 68 (37.6%) patients in the thoracotomy group. VATS had similar lymph node dissection ability and postoperative complication rate with thoracotomy (P>0.05), with the advantage of having shorter operative time (146.00 min vs. 165.00 min, P=0.006), less intraoperative blood loss (50.00 mL vs. 100.00 mL, P<0.001), lower intraoperative blood transfusion rate (0.0% vs. 7.4%, P=0.003), less 3-day postoperative drainage (250.00 mL vs. 350.00 mL, P=0.011; 180.00 mL vs. 250.00 mL, P=0.002; 150.00 mL vs. 235.00 mL, P<0.001), and shorter postoperative drainage time (9.34 d vs. 13.84 d, P<0.001) and postoperative hospitalization time (6.19 d vs. 7.94 d, P=0.006). Conclusion VATS after neoadjuvant therapy for NSCLC is safer than thoracotomy and results in better postoperative recovery.
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Methods We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 56 consecutive patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer treated by neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery in our hospital between January 2015 and December 2016. There were 51 males and 5 females. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by open surgery esophagectomy group was as an OE group with 25 patients aged 61 (50-73) years. And neoadjuvant therapy followed by MIE was as a MIE group with 31 patients aged 60 (55-79) years. Results The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of 28 patients with neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy was significantly higher than that of 28 patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (21.4% vs. 10.7%, P<0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, R2 rate and the number of lymph nodes dissection in the MIE group were obviously better than those of the OE group with statistical differences (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes along the bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerves and lymph node metastasis rate (P>0.05) between the two groups. The incidence of postoperative respiratory complications in the MIE group was lower than that of the OE group (P=0.041). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of other complications, re-operation, re-entry to ICU, median length of stay or perioperative deaths (P>0.05). There was only one patient with neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy in the OE group died due to gastric fluid asphyxia caused by trachea-esophageal fistula. Conclusion Neoadjuvant therapy followed by MIE for locally advanced esophageal cancer is safe and feasible. The oncological outcomes seem comparable regardless of OE.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and find the mechanism of multidrug resistance. MethodsTwenty patients with gastric cancer and 31 patients with colorectal cancer underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and then operations. The preoperative specimens were stained by immunohistochemical techniques for testing p53,multidrug resistanceassociated protein (MRP), glutathione S transferase（GST）, telomerase. Resection specimens were evaluated for chemotherapy effect by routine histology; at the same time, the postoperative morbidity and mortality were observed. ResultsIn 51 patients, the response rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 27.45%(14/51),so multidrug resistance was a kind of common phenomena in gastrointestinal carcinomas. The postoperative morbidity was 15.69%(8/15), the main operation complication was infection,the mortality was 1.96%(1/51),only one person died from severe infection.The expression rate of p53, MRP, GST, telomerase was 58.0%,51.0%,66.7%,74.0%respectively, the location of p53 was at cell nucleus,location of MRP,GST was at cell memberane and cytoplasm,location of telomerase was at cytoplasm.The response rate had nothing to do with age, sex and metastasis. But it was related with p53 and telomerase expression. ConclusionNeoadjuvant chemotherapy is an effective, safe therapy. But the rate of drug resistance is high in gastrointestinal carcinomas, and the response rate is related to p53, telomerase expression.
Objective To evaluate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the expression of CXCR4 in breast cancer and its clinical significance.Methods The clinical data of 59 patients with breast cancer of stage Ⅱ and stage Ⅲ underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus epirubicin for 3 cycles between April 2005 and March 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. The expression of CXCR4 in the breast cancer tissues before and after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was examined by immunohistochemistry and its relationship with clinicopathologic factors was analyzed.Results The CXCR4 positive expression was observed in 56 patients with breast cancer (94.9%), but not in corresponding nontumor normal tissues. The expression level of CXCR4 was correlated to lymph nodes metastasis (P=0.019) and breast cancer stage (P=0.040), but it was not correlated to age of patients, tumor size, grade, hormone receptor (ER and PR)， and HER2 status. The expression level of CXCR4 was significantly decreased after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Decline extent of CXCR4 expression after chemotherapy and CXCR4 expression level were not correlated to the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, while the effect of chemotherapy in patients expressed CXCR4 in cluster distribution was better than that in scattering distribution (P=0.015). Conclusion The decline extent of CXCR4 expression level after paclitaxel combined with epirubicin neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not correlated to the efficacy, but its expressing distribution may be considered as an index to the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of TEC and CEF regimen in preoperative chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer. MethodsA total of one hundred breast cancer patients undergoing preoperative chemotherapy were divided into TEC group (n=50) and CEF group (n=50) by the pairgroup method and received surgical therapy after three courses of chemotherapy. The efficacy and toxicity of preoperative chemotherapy of patients in two groups were analyzed. ResultsFour patients with stage ⅢB breast cancer quit from CEF group after two courses of treatment because of the worse satisfaction. Clinical complete remission (cCR) was 7 cases, clinic partial remission (cPR) was 34 cases, stable disease (SD) was 9 cases, therefore, the remission rate (RR) was 82.0% (41/50), and reduction rate of tumor was 64.0% (32/50) in TEC group. cCR was 2 cases, cPR was 32 cases, SD was 12 cases, thus the RR was 680% (34/50), and reduction rate of tumor was 40.0% (20/50) in CEF group. The clinical efficacy and reduction rate of tumor of patients in TEC group were significantly superior than those in CEF group (Plt;0.05). The negative conversion ratio of lymph nodes were 54.1% (20/37) and 57.1% (20/35) in TEC group and CEF group, which was not statistically different (Plt;0.05). The occurrence of hair loss and leukopenia of patients in TEC group were significantly higher than those in CEF group (Plt;0.05), while the differences in thrombocytopenia, low concentration of hemoglobin, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cardiac toxicity, and neurotoxicity were not significant (Pgt;0.05). ConclusionTEC regimen is better than CEF regimen in the efficacy and safety of neo-adjuant therapy for patients with breast cancer, and well tolerated.
Objectives To systematically review the efficacy and safety of TE regimen versus CEF regimen for Chinese women with ⅡA to ⅢC stage breast cancer. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data and CBM were electronically searched from inception to December 2016 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCT) on TE regimen versus CEF regimen for Chinese women with ⅡA to ⅢC stage breast cancer. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 14 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: the complete remission rate (CR) (RR=1.73, 95%CI 1.35 to 2.22, P<0.000 1) and clinical efficacy rate (RR) (RR=1.31, 95%CI 1.22 to 1.42,P<0.000 01) of the TE group were superior to those of the CEF group. But there were no significant differences between two groups in cardiac toxicity, myelosuppression and gastrointestinal reactions. Conclusions TE regimen is superior to CEF regimen in terms of efficacy for the Chinese women with ⅡA to ⅢC stage breast cancer, and there is no difference between the incidence of adverse reactions. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
Objective To study the long-term effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on advanced breast cancer. Methods The CAF neoadjuvant chemotherapy 〔CTX 500 mg/m2（1st day, 8th day), 5-FU 500 mg/m2（1st day, 8th day), and ADM 30 mg/m2 (1st day) every 3 weeks〕 was carried out in 31 breast cancer patients (stageⅢ,Ⅳ) for 2 cycles before operation, compared with 30 patients (stage Ⅲa) whose therapies were never done and operations could be feasible. Results The overall response rate was 87.1%(27/31). The stages of 19 patients among 31 (61.3%) declined (6 patients to stage Ⅲa, 8 to stageⅡb, 4 to stageⅡa, 1 to stage 0, 1 to complete response and none to pathological complete response). The diseasefree survival time of the patients was 56.3 months which was obviously longer than that of the patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (43.5 months, P＜0.05). The 5-year diseasefree survival rate of the patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 38.7% which was a little higher than that (33.3%) of the patients without the chemotherapy, and the two groups had no significant difference. Conclusion The neoadjuvant chemotherapy can reduce the stages of patients with advanced breast cancer, obviously prolong the diseasefree survival time of patients, and reduce or delay recurrence or metastasis.