Publications (3)13.7 Total impact
-
Article: 18F-FDG PET/CT has a high impact on patient management and provides powerful prognostic stratification in the primary staging of esophageal cancer: a prospective study with mature survival data.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to evaluate the incremental staging information, management impact, and prognostic stratification of PET/CT in the primary staging of esophageal cancer in a cohort of patients with mature survival data. Between July 2002 and June 2005, 139 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer underwent conventional staging investigations (CSI), followed by PET/CT. Disease stage was classified according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system (6th edition) and grouped as stage I-IIA, stage IIB-III, and stage IV reflecting broad groupings that determine therapeutic choice. Validation of results was performed when PET/CT and CSI stage groups were discordant and in those patients where PET/CT changed management. Management impact was determined by comparing prospectively recorded pre-PET/CT management plans with post-PET/CT management plans. Survival after follow-up of at least 5 y in patients was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and the Cox proportional hazards regression model. PET/CT changed the stage group in 56 of 139 (40%) patients and changed management in 47 of 139 (34%) patients. In 22 patients, therapy was changed from curative to palliative and in 3 from palliative to curative; in 11, treatment modality was changed without a change in treatment intent, and in 11 the delivery of therapy or diagnostic procedure was changed. Of the 47 patients with management change, imaging results could be validated in 31 patients, and PET/CT correctly changed management in 26 (84%) of these. Of the remaining 5 patients, CSI stage was also incorrect in 4 and correct in 1. Median survival was 23 mo. PET/CT stages I-IIA, IIB-III, and IV had a 5-y survival of 40%, 38%, and 6%, respectively. Post-PET/CT stage group and treatment intent were both strongly associated with survival (P < 0.001). PET/CT provides incremental staging information compared with CSI, changes management in one third of patients, and has powerful prognostic stratification in the primary staging of esophageal cancer.Journal of Nuclear Medicine 05/2012; 53(6):864-71. · 6.38 Impact Factor -
Article: Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is being performed more frequently for the minimally invasive management of rectal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncologic safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. A search of the Medline and Embase databases was performed for studies that compared clinical or oncologic outcomes of conventional laparoscopic proctectomy with robot-assisted laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer. The methodological quality of the selected studies was critically assessed to identify studies suitable for inclusion. Meta-analysis was performed by a random effects model and analyzed by Review Manager. Clinical outcomes evaluated were conversion rates, operation times, length of hospital stay, and complications. Oncologic outcomes evaluated were circumferential margin status, number of lymph nodes collected, and distal resection margin lengths. Eight comparative studies were assessed for quality, and seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies were matched case-control studies, and five were unmatched. A total of 353 robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery proctectomy cases and 401 conventional laparoscopic surgery proctectomy cases were analyzed. Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate (P=0.03; 95% confidence interval 1-12). There was no difference in complications, circumferential margin involvement, distal resection margin, lymph node yield, or hospital stay (P=NS). Robot-assisted surgery decreased the conversion rate compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. Other clinical outcomes and oncologic outcomes were equivalent. The benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery may differ between population groups.Annals of Surgical Oncology 02/2012; 19(7):2095-101. · 4.17 Impact Factor -
Article: Peripheral blood CD34+ cell enumeration as a predictor of apheresis yield: an analysis of more than 1,000 collections.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The role of the peripheral blood (PB) CD34(+) cell count in predicting the CD34(+) cell yield in hematopoietic progenitor cell apheresis collections is well established. However, sometimes unexpectedly poor CD34(+) cell yields are obtained. To determine the effect, if any, of a range of factors on the ability of the PB CD34(+) count to predict collection CD34(+) cell count, we performed a retrospective analysis on consecutive hematopoietic progenitor cell apheresis collections between 2004 and 2008. Factors investigated included mobilization regimen, PB white blood cell count, body weight, and disease. After exclusion of collections involving apheresis complications, a total of 1,225 PB CD34(+) cell results with corresponding collection CD34(+) cell results from 458 patients were analyzed. Although differences in the median PB CD34(+) cell counts and collection CD34(+) cell counts were seen between mobilized collections with chemotherapy plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and those with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor alone, the predictive capability of the PB CD34(+) cell count for the collection CD34(+) cell yield remained similar. Although poorer collection efficiencies were observed in the myelodysplastic syndrome/myeloproliferative disorder diagnostic subgroup, our findings confirm that PB CD34(+) cell analysis remains a powerful and irreplaceable tool for predicting hematopoietic progenitor cell apheresis CD34(+) cell yield.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation: journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation 01/2012; 18(5):763-72. · 3.15 Impact Factor
