4.7 Article

Postoperative Infectious Complications are Associated with Adverse Oncologic Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer Patients Undergoing Preoperative Chemotherapy

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 2106-2114

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-5045-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For some types of cancer, postoperative complications can negatively influence survival, but the association between these complications and oncological outcomes is unclear for patients with esophageal cancer who receive preoperative treatments. Data were retrospectively analyzed for patients who underwent curative resection following preoperative chemotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from 2001 to 2011. Clinicopathological parameters and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared between patients with and without severe postoperative complications, grade III or higher, using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Of 255 patients identified, 104 (40.8 %) postoperatively developed severe complications. The most common complication was atelectasis in 61 (23.9 %), followed by pulmonary infection in 22 (8.6 %). Three-field lymphadenectomy, longer operation time, and more blood loss were significantly associated with a higher incidence of severe complications. Multivariate analysis of CSS revealed severe complications [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.642, 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 1.095-2.460, p = 0.016] as a significant prognostic factor along with pT stage [HR = 2.081, 95 % CI 1.351-3.266, p < 0.001] and pN stage [HR = 3.724, 95 % CI 2.111-7.126, p < 0.001], whereas postoperative serum C-reactive protein value was not statistically significant. Among all complications, severe pulmonary infection was the only independent prognostic factor [HR = 2.504, 95 % CI 1.308-4.427, p = 0.007]. The incidence of postoperative infectious complications, in particular pulmonary infection, is associated with unfavorable prognosis in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing preoperative chemotherapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据