Schlesinger-Raab A.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich |
Mihaljevic A.L.,TU Munich |
Egert S.,TU Munich |
Emeny R.T.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich |
And 11 more authors.
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
Background: Gastric cancer accounts for 5 % of cancer deaths. Successful implementation of guideline-recommended treatment procedures should result in population-based outcome improvements despite the still poor prognosis. In this context, the objective of this study was to compare the outcome of gastric cancer by different levels of hospital care. Materials and methods: Total of 8,601 patients with invasive gastric cancer documented between 1998 and 2012 by the Munich Cancer Registry were evaluated. Tumour and therapy characteristics and outcome were analysed in regard to five levels of hospital care: three levels were defined for general hospitals (level I-III), while university hospitals and speciality hospitals were grouped as separate classes. Survival was investigated using the Kaplan-Meier-method, computing relative survival, and by multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression. Results: The average age differed between 66 years in university hospitals and 75 years in hospitals providing a basic level of care (level I). No survival differences were found for patients treated in different levels of hospital care in 75 % of the patient cohort, namely the M0 patients. A better survival could only be shown for patients with M1 at diagnosis when treated in a university or level III hospital compared to those treated in other hospitals. Conclusion: The outcome difference of M1 patients is most likely caused by selection effects concerning health status differences and not by processes of health care attributable to level of hospital care. Thus, this study demonstrates and confirms appropriate treatment and care of gastric cancer over all levels of hospital care. © 2014 Springer-Verlag. Source
Michl M.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich |
Thurmaier J.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich |
Schubert-Fritschle G.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich |
Wiedemann M.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich |
And 12 more authors.
Clinical Colorectal Cancer
Background The purpose of the study was to characterize the rare cohort of patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and brain metastasis (BM) and to identify prognostic subgroups. Patients and Methods In collaboration with the Munich Cancer Registry, pts with mCRC and BM who were diagnosed between 1998 and 2011 were identified. Survival from the time of first diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) (OS-1), from the time of diagnosis of metastatic disease (OS-2) and of BM (OS-3) was calculated regarding (1) the temporal occurrence of extra- and intracranial metastasis (meta- vs. synchronous) and (2) tumor and patient characteristics. For survival analysis the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression models were used. Results A total of 228 pts (134 male [59%], 94 female [41%]) were identified. The median age was 63 years (142 pts [62%] were 65 years of age or younger). Most pts presented with primary tumors staged T3/4, N+, Grade 2. The primary tumor was located predominantly in the left colon (155 pts; 68%), especially in the rectum (95 pts; 42%). Median OS-1 was 35.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.1-41.1 months), OS-2 was 16.5 months (95% CI, 13.9-19.1 months), and OS-3 was 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.5-2.5 months). Median time from first CRC diagnosis to BM was 29.2 months. Subsequent BM after extracranial metastasis were observed in 184 pts (80.7%), whereas 31 pts (13.6%) presented with solitary BM. Univariate analysis did not reveal a prognostic variable for overall survival after diagnosis of BM. Conclusion This study presents the largest number of pts with mCRC and BM analyzed to date. The results show that most mCRC pts develop BM as a late step in the course of disease. Median time from first CRC diagnosis to BM is 29.2 months. Only a few pts were diagnosed with BM early in the disease or with solitary BM. When BM is present survival is poor. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Source
Formichella L.,TU Munich |
Romberg L.,TU Munich |
Bolz C.,TU Munich |
Vieth M.,Klinikum Bayreuth |
And 13 more authors.
Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
Helicobacter pylori colonizes half of the world's population, and infection can lead to ulcers, gastric cancer, and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma. Serology is the only test applicable for large-scale, population-based screening, but current tests are hampered by a lack of sensitivity and/or specificity. Also, no serologic test allows the differentiation of type I and type II strains, which is important for predicting the clinical outcome. H. pylori virulence factors have been associated with disease, but direct assessment of virulence factors requires invasive methods to obtain gastric biopsy specimens. Our work aimed at the development of a highly sensitive and specific, noninvasive serologic test to detect immune responses to important H. pylori virulence factors. This line immunoassay system (recomLine) is based on recombinant proteins. For this assay, six highly immunogenic virulence factors (CagA, VacA, GroEL, gGT, HcpC, and UreA) were expressed in Escherichia coli, purified, and immobilized to nitrocellulose membranes to detect serological immune responses in patient's sera. For the validation of the line assay, a cohort of 500 patients was screened, of which 290 (58.0%) were H. pylori negative and 210 (42.0%) were positive by histology. The assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 97.6% and 96.2%, respectively, compared to histology. In direct comparison to lysate blotting and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), the recomLine assay had increased discriminatory power. For the assessment of individual risk for gastrointestinal disease, the test must be validated in a larger and defined patient cohort. Taking the data together, the recomLine assay provides a valuable tool for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. Copyright © 2013, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved. Source
Schlesinger-Raab A.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich |
Mihaljevic A.L.,University of Heidelberg |
Egert S.,TU Munich |
Emeny R.,Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich |
And 11 more authors.
Background: Gastric cancer accounts for 5 % of cancer deaths. Proportions of older stomach cancer patients are increasing. Despite the still poor prognosis, standardised treatment has achieved improvements; nonetheless it is questionable whether all age groups have benefitted. Age and outcome need to be examined in a population-based setting. Methods: Analyses included Munich Cancer Registry (MCR) data from 8601 invasive gastric cancer patients, diagnosed between 1998 and 2012. Tumour and therapy characteristics and outcome were analysed by two age groups (<70 vs. ≥70 years). Survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and relative survival was computed as an estimation for cancer-specific survival. Additional landmark analyses were conducted by calculating conditional survival of patients who survived more than 6 months. Results: Fifty-nine per cent of the cohort were ≥70 years old. These patients had tumours with a slightly better prognosis and were treated with less radical surgery and adjuvant therapy than younger patients. The 5-year relative survival was 40 % for the youngest (<50 years) and 23 % for the oldest patients (≥80 years). Survival differences were diminished or eliminated after landmark analyses: The 5-year relative survival in age groups 50–59, 60–69 and 70–79 years was comparable (between 48 and 49.6 %) and slightly worse in the youngest and oldest (45 %), which may be explained by more aggressive tumours and effects of cellular senescence, respectively.Conclusion: The treatment and care of elderly gastric cancer patients in the MCR catchment area seems appropriate: if a patient’s general condition allows oncologic resection and chemotherapy, it is conducted and the result is comparable between age groups. © 2015 The International Gastric Cancer Association and The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association Source
Tiller M.,Hepatology and Gastrointestinal Oncology |
Gundling F.,Hepatology and Gastrointestinal Oncology |
Schepp W.,Hepatology and Gastrointestinal Oncology |
Fuchs M.,Hepatology and Gastrointestinal Oncology
Journal of the Pancreas
Context Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. In patients with unresectable tumor there are several strategies of palliative chemotherapy, either gemcitabine based regimens or FOLFIRINOX, which is supposed to be most efficient but also most toxic. Hence, management of toxicity is crucial to perform a therapy consisting of FOLFIRINOX. Case report We report on a 69-year-old female patient suffering from adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic tail with multiple liver metastases. Palliative chemotherapy comprising leucovorin, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) was initiated in February 2011 and was tolerated very well. Subsequent computed tomography–scans showed significant reduction of the tumor load in the liver as well as in the primary pancreatic tumor. The serum levels of the tumor marker CA 19-9 were elevated initially and decreased concomitantly. Thus, chemotherapy was continued for more than 3 years, and up to 72 cycles were administered until April 2014. Due to intermittent neutropenia and mucositis the initial dose was reduced to 60% of the calculated standard dose. In April 2014, an intermediate staging by computed tomography and FDG-PET revealed significant reduction of the size of the primary pancreatic tumor compared with February 2011. Liver metastases could hardly be detected anymore. After pausing chemotherapy for 12 weeks, one liver metastasis reappeared and was treated by RFA in August 2014. Meanwhile, in October 2014 there is no radiological evidence on any existing tumor or metastasis. Conclusion Our report demonstrates that a sufficient tolerance of chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX is achievable, what makes a long term treatment with FOLFIRINOX feasible and can lead to impressive results. © 2015, JOP. J Pancreas (Online). All rights reserved. Source