Impact of Signet-Ring Cell Histology in the Management of Patients with Non-Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Results from a Retrospective Multicenter Analysis Comparing FLOT Perioperative Chemotherapy vs. Surgery Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy.
FLOT
adjuvant chemotherapy
gastric cancer
neoadjuvant chemotherapy
signet ring
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jun 2023
25 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
11
05
2023
revised:
14
06
2023
accepted:
23
06
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
14
7
2023
entrez:
14
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
FLOT perioperative chemotherapy represents the standard of care in non-metastatic gastric cancer patients. Signet-ring cell positivity is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with gastric cancer treated with chemotherapy. Comparison between FLOT perioperative chemotherapy vs. surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy based on signet-ring cell positivity is lacking. The aim of the analysis was to compare perioperative FLOT with adjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer patients stratified by signet-ring cell positivity. We conducted a retrospective multicenter analysis based on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with gastric cancer who received perioperative chemotherapy with a FLOT regimen and compared their survival with a historical cohort of patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, matched by cT and cN stage and by tumor histological features. Seventy-six patients were enrolled and 24 (32%) were signet-ring cell positive. At a median follow-up time of 39 months, the median DFS was 26.3 months and the median OS was 37.3 months. Signet-ring cell positivity was associated with a shorter OS (median OS: 20.4 vs. 46.9 months, HR: 3.30, 95%CI: 1.56-6.99, Signet-ring positivity was associated with shorter DFS and OS in patients who received perioperative treatment with FLOT compared with surgery followed by adjuvant therapy. These data suggest that for patients with signet-ring cell histology, FLOT perioperative treatment might not always be the best choice of treatment, and further research should be focused on this group of patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
FLOT perioperative chemotherapy represents the standard of care in non-metastatic gastric cancer patients. Signet-ring cell positivity is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with gastric cancer treated with chemotherapy. Comparison between FLOT perioperative chemotherapy vs. surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy based on signet-ring cell positivity is lacking. The aim of the analysis was to compare perioperative FLOT with adjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer patients stratified by signet-ring cell positivity.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective multicenter analysis based on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with gastric cancer who received perioperative chemotherapy with a FLOT regimen and compared their survival with a historical cohort of patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, matched by cT and cN stage and by tumor histological features.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seventy-six patients were enrolled and 24 (32%) were signet-ring cell positive. At a median follow-up time of 39 months, the median DFS was 26.3 months and the median OS was 37.3 months. Signet-ring cell positivity was associated with a shorter OS (median OS: 20.4 vs. 46.9 months, HR: 3.30, 95%CI: 1.56-6.99,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Signet-ring positivity was associated with shorter DFS and OS in patients who received perioperative treatment with FLOT compared with surgery followed by adjuvant therapy. These data suggest that for patients with signet-ring cell histology, FLOT perioperative treatment might not always be the best choice of treatment, and further research should be focused on this group of patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37444451
pii: cancers15133342
doi: 10.3390/cancers15133342
pmc: PMC10340225
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Cancer Manag Res. 2018 Jun 21;10:1605-1618
pubmed: 29950898
Sci Rep. 2015 Aug 05;5:12850
pubmed: 26242393
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022 Feb;20(2):167-192
pubmed: 35130500
World J Surg Oncol. 2022 Jul 20;20(1):238
pubmed: 35858903
Gastric Cancer. 2019 Nov;22(6):1285-1293
pubmed: 31065878
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jan 14;24(2):274-289
pubmed: 29375213
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct 28;21(40):11428-38
pubmed: 26523107
Anticancer Res. 2016 Oct;36(10):5543-5549
pubmed: 27798928
Int J Cancer. 2015 Aug 1;137(3):678-85
pubmed: 25530271
Cancer Control. 2020 Jan-Dec;27(1):1073274820976596
pubmed: 33269609
Ecancermedicalscience. 2021 Jan 13;15:1168
pubmed: 33680082
Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1948-1957
pubmed: 30982686
J Surg Oncol. 2021 Mar;123(4):923-931
pubmed: 33497471
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Dec 10;37(35):3392-3400
pubmed: 31513484
Tohoku J Exp Med. 1998 Oct;186(2):121-30
pubmed: 10223615
Surgery. 2013 Nov;154(5):1093-9
pubmed: 24075273
Ann Surg. 2011 Nov;254(5):684-93; discussion 693
pubmed: 22005144
Updates Surg. 2018 Jun;70(2):167-171
pubmed: 29948660
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 12;8(11):e78544
pubmed: 24265697
Surg Today. 2021 Nov;51(11):1736-1754
pubmed: 33486610
Comput Math Methods Med. 2022 Aug 5;2022:3473445
pubmed: 36035278
World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Feb 28;26(8):818-827
pubmed: 32148379
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 6;355(1):11-20
pubmed: 16822992
Cancer Manag Res. 2016 Apr 22;8:39-44
pubmed: 27217796
Pharm Stat. 2021 Jan;20(1):15-24
pubmed: 32776719
Oncol Lett. 2021 Apr;21(4):267
pubmed: 33717264
Front Oncol. 2021 Jul 26;11:587856
pubmed: 34386413