Article

Hepatobiliary cancers. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology.

Robert H. Luri Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University.
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN (Impact Factor: 4.24). 10/2006; 4(8):728-50.
Source: PubMed
0 Followers
 · 
71 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several methods of treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are often used in combination for either palliation or cure. We established a multidisciplinary treatment team (MDTT) at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center in November 2003 and assessed whether aggressive multimodality treatment strategies may affect survival. A prospective database was established and follow-up information from patients with presumed HCC was collected up to November 2006. Information from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) cancer registry from January 2000 to November 2003 identified patients with HCC that were evaluated at the same institution prior to the establishment of the MDTT. The establishment of a MDTT resulted in the doubling of patient referrals for treatment. Significantly more patients were evaluated at earlier stages of disease and received either palliative or curative therapies. The overall survival (p<0.0001) and length of follow-up (p<0.05) were significantly improved after the establishment of the MDTT. Stage-by-stage comparisons indicate that aggressive multimodality therapy conferred significant survival advantage to patients with American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) stage II HCC (odds ratio 15.50, p<0.001). Multidisciplinary collaboration and multimodality treatment approaches are important in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma and improves patient survival.
    HPB 12/2008; 10(6):405-11. DOI:10.1080/13651820802356572 · 2.05 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor is up-regulated in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and is further up-regulated after transhepatic arterial chemoembolization. The authors of this report conducted a phase 2 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab combined with chemoembolization in patients with unresectable HCC. METHODS: Patients who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance of status 0 to 2, a Child-Pugh score of A or B, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C HCC were eligible. Treatment consisted of bevacizumab every 2 weeks and chemoembolization during the third week of a 6-week cycle for up to 3 cycles over 6 months. The primary endpoints were safety and efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients received chemoembolization and bevacizumab. The most common grade 3 and 4 events after the first treatment cycle were leukocytopenia (12%), fatigue (12%), and hyponatremia (12%). Serious toxicities that had a known association with bevacizumab were observed in 4 patients. Thirty-day mortality was 0%. The median time to tumor progression for the targeted lesions was not reached, and overall survival was 10.8 months. The objective response rate was 60% using enhancement response evaluation criteria, and the disease control rate was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent treatment with bevacizumab and chemoembolization was safe in carefully selected patients and demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with unresectable HCC. These results support the further development of bevacizumab combined with chemoembolization as a treatment for unresectable HCC. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 03/2013; 119(5). DOI:10.1002/cncr.27859 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the impact of surgical procedures on prognosis of gallbladder cancer patients classified with the latest tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system. A retrospective study was performed by reviewing 152 patients with primary gallbladder carcinoma treated at Peking Union Medical College Hospital from January 2003 to June 2013. Postsurgical follow-up was performed by telephone and outpatient visits. Clinical records were reviewed and patients were grouped based on the new edition of TNM staging system (AJCC, seventh edition, 2010). Prognoses were analyzed and compared based on surgical operations including simple cholecystectomy, radical cholecystectomy (or extended radical cholecystectomy), and palliative surgery. Simple cholecystectomy is, by definition, resection of the gallbladder fossa. Radical cholecystectomy involves a wedge resection of the gallbladder fossa with 2 cm non-neoplastic liver tissue; resection of a suprapancreatic segment of the extrahepatic bile duct and extended portal lymph node dissection may also be considered based on the patient's circumstance. Palliative surgery refers to cholecystectomy with biliary drainage. Data analysis was performed with SPSS 19.0 software. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Logrank test were used for survival rate comparison. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Patients were grouped based on the new 7(th) edition of TNM staging system, including 8 cases of stage 0, 10 cases of stage I, 25 cases of stage II, 21 cases of stage IIIA, 21 cases of stage IIIB, 24 cases of stage IVA, 43 cases of stage IVB. Simple cholecystectomy was performed on 28 cases, radical cholecystectomy or expanded gallbladder radical resection on 57 cases, and palliative resection on 28 cases. Thirty-nine cases were not operated. Patients with stages 0 and I disease demonstrated no statistical significant difference in survival time between those receiving radical cholecystectomy and simple cholecystectomy (P = 0.826). The prognosis of stage II patients with radical cholecystectomy was better than that of simple cholecystectomy. For stage III patients, radical cholecystectomy was significantly superior to other surgical options (P < 0.05). For stage IVA patients, radical cholecystectomy was not better than palliative resection and non-surgical treatment. For stage IVB, patients who underwent palliative resection significantly outlived those with non-surgical treatment (P < 0.01) CONCLUSION: For stages 0 and I patients, simple cholecystectomy is the optimal surgical procedure, while radical cholecystectomy should be actively operated for stages II and III patients.
    04/2015; 21(15):4620-4626. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v21.i15.4620