可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗加手术对比单纯手术的疗效及安全性Meta分析

目的 系统评价可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗+手术与单纯手术模式的有效性及安全性差异。方法 计算机检索Embase、Pubmed、Web of Science、Cochrane library、万方、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库等,查找辅助同步放化疗联合手术对比单纯手术治疗可切除食管鳞癌的临床随机对照研究文献。使用Revman 5.3统计软件对生存资料、R0切除率、术后并发症发生率及治疗期间死亡率进行Meta分析。结果 最终纳入11个临床随机对照研究文献,共计1450例患者。结果显示新辅助同步放化疗+手术组有更高的2、5年总生存率(RR=1.14,95%CI为1.05~1.23,P=0.00)和2、5年无进展生存率(RR=1.56,95%CI为1.05~2.32,P=0.03);提高了R0切除率(RR=1.10,95%CI为1.05~1.14,P=0.00),术后心律失常发生率也较高(RR=2.45,95%CI为1.37~4.38,P=0.00)。两组术后并发症总发生率和治疗期间死亡率均相近(RR=1.12,95%CI为0.79~1.59,P=0.51和RR=1.78,95%CI为0.90~3.52,P=0.10)。结论 可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗+手术较单纯手术带来更多生存获益,并未明显增加不良反应发生率,是治疗可切除食管鳞癌的一种可选方案。     

可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗加手术对比单纯手术的疗效及安全性Meta分析

目的 系统评价可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗+手术与单纯手术模式的有效性及安全性差异。方法 计算机检索Embase、Pubmed、Web of Science、Cochrane library、万方、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库等,查找辅助同步放化疗联合手术对比单纯手术治疗可切除食管鳞癌的临床随机对照研究文献。使用Revman 5.3统计软件对生存资料、R0切除率、术后并发症发生率及治疗期间死亡率进行Meta分析。结果 最终纳入11个临床随机对照研究文献,共计1450例患者。结果显示新辅助同步放化疗+手术组有更高的2、5年总生存率(RR=1.14,95%CI为1.05~1.23,P=0.00)和2、5年无进展生存率(RR=1.56,95%CI为1.05~2.32,P=0.03);提高了R0切除率(RR=1.10,95%CI为1.05~1.14,P=0.00),术后心律失常发生率也较高(RR=2.45,95%CI为1.37~4.38,P=0.00)。两组术后并发症总发生率和治疗期间死亡率均相近(RR=1.12,95%CI为0.79~1.59,P=0.51和RR=1.78,95%CI为0.90~3.52,P=0.10)。结论 可切除食管鳞癌新辅助同步放化疗+手术较单纯手术带来更多生存获益,并未明显增加不良反应发生率,是治疗可切除食管鳞癌的一种可选方案。     

个体化选择治疗对晚期喉癌患者远期生存率影响的临床研究

目的 探讨个体化选择治疗对提高晚期喉癌患者远期生存率的临床价值.方法 回顾性收集142例喉癌患者的临床资料,其中早期(Ⅰ~Ⅱ期)喉癌患者54例(38.0%),晚期(Ⅲ~Ⅳ期)喉癌患者88例(62.0%),所有患者接受了同步放化疗、单纯放疗或手术治疗,其中有41例晚期喉癌患者接受了以新辅助化疗诱导的个体化选择治疗.通过生存曲线比较不同分期、不同治疗方式喉癌患者的远期生存率差异,并通过多因素Cox风险分析比较个体化选择治疗与传统治疗对改善晚期喉癌患者远期生存率的差异.结果 晚期喉癌患者的5年生存率明显低于早期喉癌患者的5年生存率(67.0% vs 88.9%,P=0.003).晚期喉癌患者接受个体化选择治疗后的5年生存率与手术治疗相近(78.0% vs 80.0%,P=0.861),但明显高于单纯放疗或同步放化疗组患者的5年生存率(78.0% vs 40.7%,P=0.002).多因素Cox风险分析证实个体化选择治疗对提高远期生存率的价值优于单纯放疗或同步放化疗(HR:0.44,95%CI:0.27~0.72,P=0.001),同时个体化选择治疗对喉癌患者总体生存率的影响接近于手术治疗的效果(HR:0.74,95%CI:0.38~1.24,P=0.318).结论 以新辅助化疗诱导的个体化选择治疗能够改善晚期喉癌患者的远期生存率.     

进展期食管鳞癌新辅助放化疗与新辅助化疗的Meta分析

目的 系统评价新辅助放化疗(NCRT)联合手术与新辅助化疗(NCT)联合手术治疗进展期食管鳞癌的疗效和安全性。方法 利用计算机检索PubMed、The Cochrane Library、EMbase、CBM、CNKI、WanFang、VIP数据库,搜集NCRT与NCT联合手术治疗食管鳞癌的临床对照研究,检索时限均从建库至2019年1月。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料并评价纳入研究的偏倚风险后,采用RevMan 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果 共纳入8项临床对照研究,包括食管鳞癌患者995例。Meta分析结果显示NCRT对比NCT组,经手术治疗后无肿瘤细胞残存(R0)切除率更高(OR=2.14,95%CI为1.03~4.45,P=0.040)、病理完全缓解率(pCR)更高(OR=4.19,95%CI为1.71~10.28,P=0.002);两组术后并发症发生率(OR=1.37,95%CI为0.76~2.48,P=0.300)和围术期死亡风险(OR=1.28,95%CI为0.58~2.83,P=0.540)相近;NCRT组的食管鳞癌患者的远期生存情况更好(HR=0.77,95%CI为0.64~0.92,P=0.005)。结论 NCRT联合手术对比NCT联合手术治疗进展期食管鳞癌能够有更高的R0切除率、pCR率,并不会明显增加围术期并发症发生和围术期死亡风险,且能够更加明显的改善食管鳞癌患者的远期生存。     

食管鳞癌新辅助放化疗后复发风险分层分析

目的 探讨胸段食管鳞癌新辅助放化疗联合手术治疗后的复发风险模式,并分析术后病理分期与复发风险之间的关系。方法 回顾分析2002-2015年郑州大学附属肿瘤医院及中山大学肿瘤防治中心收治的174例局部晚期胸段食管鳞癌患者的病历资料。全组患者均采用术前同期放化疗联合手术治疗,化疗采用以铂类为基础的化疗方案,放疗剂量为40.0~50.4 Gy,常规分割。采用Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,Logrank检验差异,Cox模型多因素分析。结果 中位随访时间为53.9个月,新辅助放化疗后病理完全缓解率为44.8%,其中59例(33.9%)患者复发。术后病理分期为0/Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ期患者复发率分别为22.2%、38.7%、68.2%(P=0.000),疗后5年无复发生存率分别为74.7%、61.4%、20.9%(P=0.000)。20.5%的0/Ⅰ期或Ⅱ期患者的复发时间在术后3年以上,而Ⅲ期患者的复发时间均在2年以内。多因素分析结果显示年龄、临床分期、化疗方案、放化疗相关病理反应是影响无复发生存的因素(P=0.027、0.047、0.010、0.005)。结论 胸段食管鳞癌新辅助放化疗后的病理分期与复发风险密切相关,临床医生可根据不同的病理分期制定个体化的随访监测策略。     

术后辅助化疗对ypN_0局部进展期直肠癌疗效观察

目的评价术后辅助化疗对ypN_0局部进展期直肠癌的治疗效果。方法选取2004年9月至2010年9月周口市中心医院直肠肛门外科收治的局部进展期直肠癌患者,进行同步放化疗,治疗结束后6~8周行根治性手术,根据术后病理检查结果将ypN_0患者纳入本项研究,随机分成两组,观察组术后2~4周给予辅助化疗,对照组不再给予辅助放疗或化疗。结果观察组和对照组的5年局部复发率(5.2%vs 10.8%)、5年无瘤生存率(86.5%vs 82.4%)、5年总体生存率(89.6%vs 85.3%)无明显差异(P0.05);ypT_(3 ~ 4)组接受术后化疗者5年局部复发率2.8%明显低于未接受术后化疗者的22.0%(P0.05),而在ypCR、ypT_(is~2)组未发现这种差异(P0.05);ypCR、ypT_(is~2)、ypT_(3 ~ 4)三组患者中是否接受术后化疗在5年无瘤生存率、5年总体生存率上无明显差异(P0.05)。结论术后化疗能降低ypT_(3 ~ 4)N_0患者5年局部复发率,对ypCR、ypT_(is~2)N_0患者作用不大。     

术后辅助治疗对局部进展期（pT3N0M0）食管鳞癌远期生存影响的回顾性分析

  目的  探讨术后辅助治疗对于pT3N0M0食管鳞癌患者远期生存的影响。  方法  回顾性分析兰州大学第二医院2010年1月至2014年4月收治的食管鳞癌患者资料,并分为4组:单纯手术组,手术+放疗组,手术+化疗组,手术+放化疗组。收集患者的临床病理资料及远期随访结果。  结果  2010年1月至2014年4月共纳入177例患者,中位年龄61（43~78）岁。其中单纯手术组79例,术后辅助治疗组98例,其中手术+放疗组28例,手术+化疗组38例,手术+放化疗组32例。术后辅助治疗的总生存率和无瘤生存率均高于单纯手术组（P=0.012,P=0.007）。组间比较结果显示:手术+放疗组总生存率和无瘤生存率高于单纯手术组（P=0.038,P=0.011）,手术+放化疗组仅总生存率高于单纯手术组（P=0.031）。  结论  pT3N0M0食管鳞癌患者可以从术后辅助放疗和放化疗中获益,尤其放疗可以达到局部区域控制的显著效果。      

局部晚期食管鳞癌新辅助放疗剂量与病理完全缓解关系分析

目的 探讨接受新辅助放化疗的局部晚期食管鳞癌患者新辅助放疗剂量与病理完全缓解(pCR)的关系。方法 收集2017-2019年间在四川大学华西医院肿瘤中心经病理确诊为食管鳞癌并接受新辅助放化疗和手术的 116例局部晚期患者临床资料。116例患者中 40~45Gy组 80例,≥45Gy组 36例,分析两组术后pCR率。结果 全组患者的pCR率为38.8%(45/116),40~45Gy组与≥45Gy组的pCR率分别为44%(35/80)和28%(10/36)(P=0.105)。结论 术前新辅助采用较高的放疗剂量不增加局部晚期食管鳞癌的pCR率,有必要进行前瞻性的临床研究确定合适的新辅助放疗剂量。     

可切除或交界可切除胰腺癌新辅助放化疗+手术对比直接手术疗效及安全性Meta分析

目的 系统评价可切除或交界可切除胰腺癌新辅助放化疗+手术与直接手术治疗模式有效性及安全性差异。方法 以pancreatic neoplasm、pancreatic cancer、surgery、preoperative chemoradiotherapy、neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy及胰腺癌、新辅助放化疗、手术为检索词,检索Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方、中国知网和维普数据库。检索时间为建库至 2020年2月。纳入新辅助放化疗+手术对比直接手术治疗可切除或交界可切除胰腺癌的随机对照试验(RCT)研究,由两名研究者独立筛选文献、提取数据和进行质量评价。总生存时间的评价采用HR及 95%CI表示,R0切除率、组间术后并发症发生率和治疗期间死亡率的评价采用RR及 95%CI表示,并且采用I²对纳入文献进行异质性检验。结果 最终纳入4项RCT研究,共 400例患者,其中新辅助放化疗+手术组 197例,直接手术组 203例。结果显示新辅助放化疗+手术组较直接手术组提高了总生存期(HR=0.76,95%CI为 0.60~0.97,P=0.03)以及R0切除率(RR=1.72,95%CI为 1.40~2.13,P<0.01),组间术后并发症发生率和治疗期间死亡率差异均无统计学意义(RR=1.02,95%CI为 0.73~1.43,P=0.90;RR=1.19,95%CI为 0.48~2.93,P=0.71)。结论 在可切除或交界可切除胰腺癌治疗中,新辅助放化疗+手术较直接手术可能会带来更多生存获益,且未增加术后不良反应发生率和治疗期间死亡率。新辅助放化疗+手术可作为可切除或交界可切除胰腺癌患者一种推荐治疗方式。     

中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值对T3N0M0期食管鳞癌术后辅助治疗预后的预测价值

目的:评估术前中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值(neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio,NLR)与T3N0M0期食管鳞癌患者临床病理指标及预后的相关性,探索其对术后辅助治疗的预测价值。方法:回顾性分析2008~2014年行根治性手术的317例食管鳞癌患者的临床病理资料,以NLR的中位数2.14作为截点,分为高NLR组(NLR≥2.14)和低NLR组(NLR<2.14);高NLR组159例,低NLR组158例。分析NLR与临床病理、预后相关性及对术后辅助治疗的指导作用。结果:不同NLR分组患者的远期生少质量评估、肿瘤位置,以及肿瘤分期存在差异,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。多因素Cox回归分析的结果表明,高NLR组患者发生死亡的风险是低NLR组患者的1.43倍(HR:1.43,95%CI:1.01~2.02,P=0.041)。Kaplan-Meier分析表明,不同NLR分组患者的5年总生存率存在差异,差异有统计学意义(P=0.006),高NLR组患者的5年总生存率低于低NLR组(50%vs 70%);不同NLR分组患者的无进展生存率存在差异,差异有统计学意义(P=0.017),高NLR组患者的无进展生存率低于低NLR组(45%vs 60%)。在低NLR值组中,术后辅助治疗与单纯手术治疗患者的5年总生存率存在差异(P<0.001),术后辅助治疗患者的5年总生存率高于单纯手术治疗(75%vs 45%);术后辅助治疗与单纯手术治疗患者的无进展生存率存在差异(P<0.001),术后辅助治疗患者的无进展生存率高于单纯手术治疗(78%vs 40%)。在高NLR值组中,术后辅助治疗与单纯手术患者的5年总生存率和无进展生存率差异无统计学意义。结论:NLR与T3N0M0期食管鳞癌临床病理指标具有相关性,对术后辅助治疗也提供了指导作用。     

Relative Survival of Breast Cancer Patients in Iran

Background: The survival rate reflecting prognosis of breast cancer patients is usually estimated based on crudesurvival methods such as observed and cause-specific. In situations where data are based on population-cancerregistries, this method may produce biased estimations. This study therefore aimed to estimate the net survival ofbreast cancer based on relative survival. Materials and Methods: Data for 622 breast cancer patients diagnosedat the Iran Cancer Institute during 1990-95 and tracked till the end of 2000 were analyzed. For estimation ofrelative survival, Ederer’s second method and SAS (9.1) and STATA (11) software were used. Results: Threeyearrelative survivals of 85%, 90%, 80% and 67% were observed for age groups 15-44, 55-59, 60-74, and 75+years-old, respectively. A relative survival of approximately one was observed for two subsequent years forage-group 45-59 years-old. A value greater than one for two subsequent years of follow-up was observed in theage-group 60-74 years-old. Conclusions: Tracking the diagnosis of breast cancer, the relative survival decreasesas we go to higher age-groups. It is also perceived that through follow-up, relative survival first decreased andthen increased a little. The statistical cure point is acceptable for age group 45-59 years-old while for age-groups15-44 and 60-74 years old is a sign of low quality data for some follow-up intervals.     

Up-to-date estimates of long-term cancer survival in England and Wales

Cancer survival in England and Wales has improved over the last 30 years. However, cohort survival estimates delay recognition of these improvements. Here we show that period survival estimates, based on survival in a recent time period, suggest a more optimistic pattern for England and Wales than cohort-based measures for most cancers.British Journal of Cancer (2003) 89, 74-76. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600976 www.bjcancer.com     

Comparison between Overall,Cause-specific,and Relative Survival Rates Based on Data from a Population-based Cancer Registry

Three kinds of survival rates are generally used depending on the purpose of the investigation: overall,cause-specific, and relative. The differences among these 3 survival rates are derived from their respectiveformulas; however, reports based on actual cancer registry data are few because of incomplete information andshort follow-up duration recorded on cancer registration. The aim of this study was to numerically and visuallycompare these 3 survival rates on the basis of data from the Nagasaki Prefecture Cancer Registry. Subjectswere patients diagnosed with cancer and registered in the registry between 1999 and 2003. We calculated theproportion of cause of death and 5-year survival rates. For lung, liver, or advanced stage cancers, the proportionsof cancer-related death were high and the differences in survival rates were small. For prostate or early stagecancers, the proportions of death from other causes were high and the differences in survival rates were large.We concluded that the differences among the 3 survival rates increased when the proportion of death from othercauses increased     

Long-term Survival Outcomes of ‘Low Risk’ Ductal Carcinoma in situ from a Territory-wide Cancer Registry

AimsThe LORIS trial is an ongoing phase III clinical trial on low risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). DCIS patients aged ≥46 years with screen-detected low/intermediate nuclear grade were considered low risk and were randomised into surveillance or standard surgery. Here we review the 10-year territory-wide breast cancer registry database and evaluate the clinical outcomes of low versus high risk DCIS patients.Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective study of a prospectively maintained territory-wide breast cancer registry in Hong Kong.ResultsBetween 1997 and 2006, 1391 DCIS patients were identified from the Hong Kong cancer registry breast cancer database. The mean age at diagnosis was 49.2 years (range 30–70). In total, 372 patients were classified as ‘low risk’, whereas the remaining 777 patients were classified as ‘high risk’. After a median follow-up of 11.6 years, the 10-year overall breast cancer-specific survival of the entire DCIS cohort was 1136/1149 (98.9%). Overall breast cancer-specific survival of low risk DCIS was 99.5%, whereas that in high risk DCIS was 98.6% (Log-rank test, P = 0.208).Forty-six (12.4%) patients in the LORIS low risk group did not receive surgery, whereas 93 (12%) patients in the LORIS high risk group did not receive surgery. The 10-year breast cancer-specific survival in the non-operated low risk DCIS group was 97.8%; that in the non-operated high risk DCIS group was 96.7% (P = 1).ConclusionLong-term survival of DCIS was excellent, especially in low risk DCIS, regardless of surgical treatment.     

Verification of the Correlation between Progression-free Survival and Overall Survival Considering Magnitudes of Survival Postprogression in the Treatment of Four Types of Cancer

Background: With development and application of new and effective anti-cancer drugs, the median survivalpost-progression (SPP) is often prolonged, and the role of the median SPP on surrogacy performance shouldbe considered. To evaluate the impact of the median SPP on the correlation between progression-free survival(PFS) and overall survival (OS), we performed simulations for treatment of four types of cancer, advancedgastric cancer (AGC), metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC), glioblastoma (GBM), and advanced non-small-celllung cancer (ANSCLC). Materials and Methods: The effects of the median SPP on the statistical propertiesof OS and the correlation between PFS and OS were assessed. Further, comparisons were made between thesurrogacy performance based on real data from meta-analyses and simulation results with similar scenarios.Results: The probability of a significant gain in OS and HR for OS was decreased by an increase of the SPP/OS ratio or by a decrease of observed treatment benefit for PFS. Similarly, for each of the four types of cancer,the correlation between PFS and OS was reduced as the median SPP increased from 2 to 12 months. Except forANSCLC, for which the median SPP was equal to the true value, the simulated correlation between PFS and OSwas consistent with the values derived from meta-analyses for the other three kinds of cancer. Further, for thesethree types of cancer, when the median SPP was controlled at a designated level (i.e., < 4 months for AGC, < 12months for MCC, and <6 months for GBM), the correlation between PFS and OS was strong; and the powerof OS reached 34.9% at the minimum. Conclusions: PFS is an acceptable surrogate endpoint for OS under thecondition of controlling SPPs for AGC, MCC, and GBM at their limit levels; a similar conclusion cannot bemade for ANSCLC.     

Estimating expected survival probabilities for relative survival analysis--exploring the impact of including cancer patient mortality in the calculations

Relative survival is a widely used measure of cancer patient survival, defined as the observed survival of the cancer patients divided by the expected survival of a comparable group from the general population, free from the cancer under study. In practise, expected survival is usually calculated from general population life tables. Such estimates are known to be biased since they also include mortality from the cancer patients, but the bias is ignored since mortality among individuals with a specific cancer is thought to constitute only a small proportion of total mortality. Using the computerised population registers that exist in Sweden we had the unique opportunity to calculate expected survival both including and excluding individuals with cancer, and thereby estimate the size of the bias arising from using general population estimates. We also evaluated a simple method to adjust expected survival probabilities estimated from general population statistics as an aid to researchers who do not have access to computerised registers of the entire national population. Our results show that the bias is sufficiently small to be ignorable for most applications, notably for cancers with high or low mortality and for younger age groups (<60 years). However, the bias in relative survival estimates can be greater than 1 percent unit for older age groups for common cancers and even larger for all sites combined. For example, the bias in 10-year relative survival for men aged 75+ diagnosed with prostate cancer was 2.6 percent units, which we think is of sufficient magnitude to warrant adjustment.     

Conditional relative survival of cancer patients and conditional probability of death

BACKGROUND:

Little information is available on the conditional probabilities of death among patients who survive for >5 years after a diagnosis with cancer. The objective of this study was to estimate the conditional probabilities of death for breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer in France.

METHODS:

The study included data from the French Network of Cancer Registries from 205,562 patients aged <75 years who were diagnosed with cancer between 1989 and 1997. The conditional probabilities of death were calculated by using a relative survival regression model in which age was included as a covariate.

RESULTS:

After the first year and until 10 years after diagnosis, the annual probability of death decreased dramatically for colorectal cancer: It was the same in all age groups after 3 years, and it was approximately 1% at 10 years. For prostate cancer, the decrease was not as great, and the conditional probability of death remained higher among younger patients at >4% at 10 years. During the 3 years after diagnosis, the probability of death was greater for older patients with breast cancer; then, it decreased less for younger patients compared with older patients, leading to a greater conditional probability of death among younger patients at 4 years and up to 10 years. The annual probability of death in patients with lung cancer decreased for both sexes but remained substantially higher for men than for women, reaching approximately 8% and 5%, respectively, at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS:

Further studies would facilitate a better understanding of the observed differences in relative survival within European countries. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Cancer net survival on registry data: Use of the new unbiased Pohar‐Perme estimator and magnitude of the bias with the classical methods

Net survival, the survival which might occur if cancer was the only cause of death, is a major epidemiological indicator required for international or temporal comparisons. Recent findings have shown that all classical methods used for routine estimation of net survival from cancer‐registry data, sometimes called “relative‐survival methods,” provide biased estimates. Meanwhile, an unbiased estimator, the Pohar‐Perme estimator (PPE), was recently proposed. Using real data, we investigated the magnitude of the errors made by four “relative‐survival” methods (Ederer I, Hakulinen, Ederer II and a univariable regression model) vs. PPE as reference and examined the influence of time of follow‐up, cancer prognosis, and age on the errors made. The data concerned seven cancer sites (2,51,316 cases) collected by FRANCIM cancer registries. Net survivals were estimated at 5, 10 and 15 years postdiagnosis. At 5 years, the errors were generally small. At 10 years, in good‐prognosis cancers, the errors made in nonstandardized estimates with all classical methods were generally great (+2.7 to +9% points in prostate cancer) and increased in age‐class estimations (vs. 5‐year ones). At 15 years, in bad‐ or average‐prognosis cancers, the errors were often substantial whatever the nature of the estimation. In good‐prognosis cancers, the errors in nonstandardized estimates of all classical methods were great and sometimes very important. With all classical methods, great errors occurred in age‐class estimates resulting in errors in age‐standardized estimates (+0.4 to +3.2% points in breast cancer). In estimating net survival, cancer registries should abandon all classical methods and adopt the new Pohar‐Perme estimator.     

Obesity and survival among women with ovarian cancer: results from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium

Background:

Observational studies have reported a modest association between obesity and risk of ovarian cancer; however, whether it is also associated with survival and whether this association varies for the different histologic subtypes are not clear. We undertook an international collaborative analysis to assess the association between body mass index (BMI), assessed shortly before diagnosis, progression-free survival (PFS), ovarian cancer-specific survival and overall survival (OS) among women with invasive ovarian cancer.

Methods:

We used original data from 21 studies, which included 12 390 women with ovarian carcinoma. We combined study-specific adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) using random-effects models to estimate pooled HRs (pHR). We further explored associations by histologic subtype.

Results:

Overall, 6715 (54%) deaths occurred during follow-up. A significant OS disadvantage was observed for women who were obese (BMI: 30–34.9, pHR: 1.10 (95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.99–1.23); BMI: ⩾35, pHR: 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01–1.25)). Results were similar for PFS and ovarian cancer-specific survival. In analyses stratified by histologic subtype, associations were strongest for women with low-grade serous (pHR: 1.12 per 5 kg m⁻²) and endometrioid subtypes (pHR: 1.08 per 5 kg m⁻²), and more modest for the high-grade serous (pHR: 1.04 per 5 kg m⁻²) subtype, but only the association with high-grade serous cancers was significant.

Conclusions:

Higher BMI is associated with adverse survival among the majority of women with ovarian cancer.     

Outcomes of HTLV-1 Carriers with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundThe human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) is associated with aggressive diseases, such as adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL). However, less is known on the impact of HTLV-1 infection in non-ATLL hematologic malignancies. We aimed to investigate if HTLV-1 carriers with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have worse survival outcomes than non-HTLV-1 carriers.Materials and MethodsWe performed a single-center retrospective cohort study by matching HTLV-1 carriers to non-carriers based on age, sex, Ann Arbor stage, and year of diagnosis. Our outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS between carriers and non-carriers. We fitted multivariate Cox regression models to assess the mortality and recurrence/disease progression risk of HTLV-1 infection.ResultsA total of 188 patients, 66 with HTLV-1 infection and 122 without HTLV-1, were included in the study. HTLV-1 carriers had higher extranodal involvement than non-carriers (47% vs. 27%, P = .010). With a median follow-up of 78 months (95% CI: 41-90 months), HTLV-1 carriers had a similar 5 year OS (41% vs. 42%, P = .940) and PFS (34% vs. 32%, P = .691) compared to non-carriers. In the multivariate Cox analysis, HTLV-1 infection was not associated with worse OS (aHR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.64-1.50) or PFS (aHR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.60-1.34).ConclusionHTLV-1 carriers with DLBCL did not have worse survival outcomes compared to non-carriers. Our results suggest that clinicians should follow standard guidelines for DLBCL management on HTLV-1 seropositive patients.