Advance Search
YOU Jie, ZHANG Guozhong, LIU Shengwei, CHEN Yong, WANG Xiaolin, SHU Yusheng. Analysis in prognosis of surgical operation versus endoscopic therapy in treating patients with early esophageal adenocarcinoma based on SEER database[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2021, 25(8): 25-29. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20201745
Citation: YOU Jie, ZHANG Guozhong, LIU Shengwei, CHEN Yong, WANG Xiaolin, SHU Yusheng. Analysis in prognosis of surgical operation versus endoscopic therapy in treating patients with early esophageal adenocarcinoma based on SEER database[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2021, 25(8): 25-29. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20201745
shu

Analysis in prognosis of surgical operation versus endoscopic therapy in treating patients with early esophageal adenocarcinoma based on SEER database

  • 1.

    Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, 225009

  • 2.

    Department of Thoracic Surgery, Subei People's Hospital in Jiangsu Province, Yangzhou, Jiangsu, 225001

More Information
  • Received Date: December 20, 2020
  • Available Online: April 29, 2021
  • Published Date: April 27, 2021
    Graphical Abstract
    • Abstract
  •   Objective  To analyze the influence of endoscopic and surgical treatments on the prognosis of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (eEA) patients with tumor invasion depth of muscularis mucosa (M3) and submucosa (SM) based on the cancer registry database of American Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER).
      Methods  We searched and downloaded esophageal cancer data from 2004 to 2015 in SEER database. The data screened by inclusion and exclusion criteria were divided into endoscopic group and surgical group according to different treatment methods. The variables with statistical differences in general data in both groups were used as matching variables to make the tendency evaluation matching (PSM) for balance the differences between the two groups. For the final data after PSM, the median lifetime and 1-, 3-, 5-year survival rates were calculated by the life table method, the Kaplan-Meier was used to calculate and draw survival curve, and Log-rank test was used to evaluate the survival difference between the two groups after the stratified treatment of each covariate. The Cox regression model was used for univariate and multivariate analysis.
      Results  There was no significant difference in overall survival curve between the endoscopic group and the surgical group (P=0.545). After stratified processing of age, gender, tumor location, clinical staging, T staging and degree of differentiation, there was a significant difference in survival rate in people aged 80 and above between the endoscopic group and the surgical group (P=0.038). Univariate Cox analysis showed that age (HR=2.147, 95%CI, 1.590 to 2.900, P < 0.001) and T staging (HR=2.020, 95%CI, 1.328 to 3.074, P < 0.001) were significantly correlated with the prognosis of patients with eEA. Multivariate Cox analysis showed that age (HR=2.000, 95%CI, 1.480 to 2.704, P < 0.001) and T staging (HR=1.767, 95%CI, 1.155 to 2.703, P=0.009) were independent risk factors for the prognosis of patients with eEA.
      Conclusion  For eEA patients with invasion depth of M3 and SM, endoscopic treatment can achieve the same prognosis as surgical treatment. If lymph node and distant metastasis are excluded before operation, endoscopic treatment is recommended at first. It is suggested that eEA patients aged 80 and above should be treated with endoscopy, and senile and T1b stage eEA cases should be given additional postoperative chemoradiotherapy.
    • FullText(HTML)
    • References (14)
  • [1]
    World Health Organization. Latest global cancer data: Cancer burden rises to 19.3 million new cases and 10.0 million cancer deaths in 2020[EB/OL]. (2020-12-15)[2021-12-21]. https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/latest-global-cancer-data-cancer-burden-rises-to-19-3-million-new-cases-and-10-0-million-cancer-deaths-in-2020/.
    [2]
    陈茹, 郑荣寿, 张思维, 等. 2015年中国食管癌发病和死亡情况分析[J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 2019, 53(11): 1094-1097. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHLU201204001.htm
    [3]
    WONG S, HAMILTON W, WHITEMAN D C, et al. Global Incidence and mortality of esophageal cancer and their correlation with socioeconomic indicators temporal patterns and trends in 41 countries[J]. Sci Rep, 2018, 8(1): 4522-4527. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-19819-8
    [4]
    国家健康卫生委员会. 食管癌诊疗规范(2018年版)[J]. 肿瘤综合治疗电子杂志, 2019, 5(2): 50-86. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHYE201904006.htm
    [5]
    PECH O, MAY A, MANNER H, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for patients with mucosal adenocarcinoma of the esophagus[J]. Gastroenterology, 2014, 146(3): 652-660. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.11.006
    [6]
    INES G, ALBRECHT H. Endoscopic or Surgical Resection for Gastro-Esophageal Cancer[J]. Deutsches Arzteblatt International, 2018, 115(31/32): 513-519.
    [7]
    ENDO M, YOSHINO K, KAWANO T, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of lymph node metastasis in surgically resected superficial cancer of the thoracic esophagus[J]. Dis Esophagus, 2000, 13(2): 125-129. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2050.2000.00100.x
    [8]
    KIM D U, LEE J H, MIN B H, et al. Risk factors of lymph node metastasis in T1 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2008, 23(4): 619-625. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05259.x
    [9]
    HIGUCHI K, TANABE S, KOIZUMI W, et al. Expansion of the indications for endoscopic mucosal resection in patients with superficial esophageal carcinoma[J]. Endoscopy, 2007, 39(1): 36-40. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-945148
    [10]
    PECH O, BOLLSCHWEILER E, MANNER H, et al. Comparison between endoscopic and surgical resection of mucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus at two high-volume centers[J]. Ann Surg, 2011, 254(1): 67-72. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821d4bf6
    [11]
    ZENG Y, LIANG W H, LIU J, et al. Endoscopic Treatment Versus Esophagectomy for Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer: a Population-Based Study Using Propensity Score Matching[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2017, 21(12): 1977-1983. doi: 10.1007/s11605-017-3563-2
    [12]
    STEIN H J, FEITH M, BRUECHER B L, et al. Early esophageal cancer: pattern of lymphatic spread and prognostic factors for long-term survival after surgical resection[J]. Ann Surg, 2005, 242(4): 566-573. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000184211.75970.85
    [13]
    QI Z P, CHEN T, LI B, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal cancer in elderly patients with relative indications for endoscopic treatment[J]. Endoscopy, 2018, 50(9): 839-845. doi: 10.1055/a-0577-2560
    [14]
    MORITA M, EGASHIRA A, YOSHIDA R, et al. Esophagectomy in patients 80 years of age and older with carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus[J]. J Gastroenterol, 2008, 43(5): 345-351. doi: 10.1007/s00535-008-2171-z
    • Related Articles

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(59)

    1. 胡艳，万德仁，黄丽红. 电针联合穴位敷贴在精神分裂症残留阴性症状患者中的应用. 光明中医. 2024(03): 553-556 .
    2. 谢滨浩，朱婕，梁睿. 松弛疗法对精神分裂症住院患者的疗效分析. 心理月刊. 2024(19): 120-122 .
    3. 徐孝荣，张娇娇. 齐拉西酮与奥氮平治疗精神分裂症的疗效及其对患者糖、脂代谢影响的比较. 现代医学与健康研究电子杂志. 2023(21): 7-9 .
    4. 郭辉. 齐拉西酮和奥氮平治疗老年精神分裂症患者的效果及对机体糖脂代谢的影响. 当代医学. 2022(03): 53-55 .
    5. 孙磊，罗国帅，陈清刚. 布南色林与利培酮对首发精神分裂症患者认知功能、泌乳素和血脂的影响研究. 中国慢性病预防与控制. 2022(03): 214-217 .
    6. 冯健超，杨国瑛. 利培酮联合氯氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症的临床疗效. 临床合理用药杂志. 2022(07): 11-13 .
    7. 裴建琴，张艳，陆江波，张洁，姚梦洁，代金枝，钱维. 团体感觉运动训练对老年精神分裂症患者认知功能、阴性症状的干预效果研究. 军事护理. 2022(09): 13-16 .
    8. 白瑜，王晓东. 无抽搐电休克辅助齐拉西酮对精神分裂症患者多导睡眠图参数及血清SHBG、DHEA-S、GAP-43水平的影响. 临床医学研究与实践. 2022(27): 42-45+53 .
    9. 王政，邵宝富，王超. 奥氮平治疗精神分裂症患者DTI研究. 医学影像学杂志. 2022(10): 1658-1661 .
    10. 王佳琪，佘继林. 捏脊配合杵针对多发性抽动症患儿症状积分及血清兴奋性氨基酸水平的影响观察. 四川中医. 2022(11): 217-220 .
    11. 李雪冰. 齐拉西酮联合奥氮平对老年精神分裂症患者血糖及TC、TG、LDL-C水平的影响. 现代医学与健康研究电子杂志. 2021(02): 3-5 .
    12. 何磊，韩香平，张彦旭，刘莉，马晓亮. 舍曲林联合阿立哌唑治疗精神分裂症后抑郁的临床效果. 河南医学研究. 2021(04): 717-719 .
    13. 曹保瑞，陈家民，马庆. 齐拉西酮联合奥氮平治疗难治性精神分裂症的效果及安全性. 中国当代医药. 2021(10): 113-116 .
    14. 苏玉晨. 补阳还五汤联合奥氮平对精神分裂症症状及NRG1、IL-2水平影响. 中华中医药学刊. 2021(06): 160-162 .
    15. 孟肖婷. 文拉法辛与艾司西酞普兰对抑郁症的控制效果和安全性对比. 中国卫生工程学. 2021(03): 493-495 .
    16. 尚旭立. 齐拉西酮对首发青少年精神分裂症患者认知功能及脑灰质结构的影响. 医药论坛杂志. 2021(14): 104-107 .
    17. 周显华，陈娟红，曾祥林. 奥氮平联合阿立哌唑治疗精神分裂症伴攻击行为的临床观察. 江西医药. 2021(09): 1488-1490 .
    18. 李雪冰. 阿立哌唑与齐拉西酮治疗首发精神分裂症的临床疗效与安全性对比研究. 中国药物与临床. 2021(21): 3596-3598 .
    19. 冯新梅. 奥氮平治疗精神分裂症对患者症状、安全性评分及相关血清因子的影响. 临床荟萃. 2021(12): 1114-1117 .
    20. 刘冠军，张进周. 喹硫平联合认知行为疗法治疗精神分裂症对照研究. 临床心身疾病杂志. 2021(04): 24-26+38 .
    21. 马立强. 文拉法辛联合小剂量氯氮平对难治性精神分裂症患者的疗效及认知及社会功能影响. 当代医学. 2020(07): 129-130 .
    22. 魏学萍. 精神分裂症急性激越症状的急诊药物治疗方法分析. 中国处方药. 2020(02): 89-90 .
    23. 燕银枝，孙洪波. 精神分裂症采用齐拉西酮联合疏肝解郁胶囊治疗的观察. 中国医药科学. 2020(07): 72-74 .
    24. 王小军，张群. 奥氮平与氯丙嗪对慢性精神分裂症患者近期疗效及认知功能的对比分析. 中国药物与临床. 2020(07): 1110-1112 .
    25. 廉燕. 齐拉西酮联合奥氮平对女性首发精神分裂症患者激越及睡眠质量的影响评价. 世界睡眠医学杂志. 2020(05): 911-912 .
    26. 陈琳. 利培酮联合阿立哌唑治疗对精神分裂症患者的有效性及对认知功能的影响. 中国健康心理学杂志. 2020(09): 1289-1292 .
    27. 成加林，牛军涛，何杰，陈财德，周碧海，许晴丽. 齐拉西酮联合改良电休克治疗首发精神分裂症患者的疗效及对血清p-mTOR和IL-18水平的影响. 中国现代医学杂志. 2020(17): 72-76 .
    28. 杜菊梅，阮俊，石晶，黄杨梅，杨寅，朱大凤. 麦芽对药源性血清泌乳素升高及代谢综合征疗效的临床研究. 中外医学研究. 2020(24): 137-139 .
    29. 王雅辞，闫冰雪，关馨瑶. 时间护理对精神分裂症患者危险行为及精神症状的影响. 中华现代护理杂志. 2020(22): 3037-3040 .
    30. 陈慧，郭晓静. 奥氮平联合喹硫平治疗精神分裂症的Meta分析. 中国卫生标准管理. 2020(22): 104-108 .
    31. 陈旋，李宁，高海燕. 帕利哌酮与氨磺必利对首发精神分裂症的疗效及对记忆、认知功能及心律的影响. 神经损伤与功能重建. 2020(12): 759-760 .
    32. 曹书改. 精神分裂症患者盐酸齐拉西酮胶囊治疗期间护理措施及效果. 山西医药杂志. 2020(24): 3533-3535 .
    33. 张德源，谭家蓉，向燕卿. 帕罗西汀联合心理治疗对女性围绝经期情绪障碍、睡眠质量及血清性激素水平的影响. 解放军医药杂志. 2019(01): 74-78 .
    34. 柴建军. 精神分裂症的临床诊治与疗效. 世界最新医学信息文摘. 2019(07): 85-86 .
    35. 丁慧琴，娄渊敏，李海根. 延伸性护理对精神分裂症患者危险行为、精神症状及自我管理的影响. 现代医药卫生. 2019(05): 760-762 .
    36. 张飞龙. 奥氮平与齐拉西酮联合改良型电休克治疗首发精神分裂症应用对比研究. 淮海医药. 2019(03): 297-299 .
    37. 杜菊梅，石晶，徐璐，黄杨梅，常沛沛，徐止浩. 运动疗法配合心理干预对康复期精神分裂症患者病耻感、社会功能及生活质量的影响. 中国健康心理学杂志. 2019(07): 991-996 .
    38. 宋籽良，宋清海，郑昌江. 奥氮平联合焦点解决式健康指导对精神分裂症患者病情及社会认知的影响. 广东医学. 2019(11): 1608-1612 .
    39. 肖建新，胡民，王金钱. 导痰汤加减联合利培酮治疗精神分裂症的临床疗效观察. 北方药学. 2019(07): 22-23 .
    40. 李春娟. 奥氮平联合丁螺环酮治疗精神分裂症阴性症状的疗效及安全性. 中国处方药. 2019(07): 94-95 .
    41. 付飞，陈汉波. 奥氮平联合齐拉西酮对老年重度精神分裂症患者血清学指标和认知功能的影响探讨. 中国医学创新. 2019(24): 32-35 .
    42. 张恒. 奥氮平联合利培酮对改善老年痴呆患者精神行为症状的效果. 临床医学研究与实践. 2019(26): 45-47 .
    43. 焦秀娟，徐东. 帕利哌酮联合经颅磁刺激治疗难治性精神分裂症效果观察. 医药论坛杂志. 2019(09): 22-24 .
    44. 费沛. 奥氮平与氟哌啶醇治疗精神分裂症的效果比较及对血清炎症因子的影响. 实用医药杂志. 2019(11): 997-1000 .
    45. 高章代，戚莉君，薛林霞，吴彬，刘强. 口服盐酸曲唑酮辅助治疗脑卒中后抑郁的疗效研究. 检验医学与临床. 2019(23): 3525-3528 .
    46. 张航雷. 高频rTMS联合氨磺必利治疗精神分裂症阴性症状患者临床研究. 医药论坛杂志. 2019(11): 133-136 .
    47. 姚永新，王年美，邢晓华. 小儿多发性抽动症临床特征及发病因素调查. 中国妇幼保健. 2019(23): 5511-5513 .
    48. 刘丹，李健，陈薇，程亮，刘树利，户文娟，刘文芳. 养血清脑颗粒联合米氮平治疗脑卒中后抑郁伴失眠的临床观察. 湖南中医药大学学报. 2018(05): 582-585 .
    49. 陈登霞，潘竹松. 齐拉西酮与氯丙嗪治疗精神分裂症的疗效比较研究及其对患者心电图的影响. 临床合理用药杂志. 2018(12): 5-6 .
    50. 常凤坤，王会娟. 齐拉西酮针剂序贯口服胶囊治疗精神分裂症激越症的效果及安全性评价. 临床医学工程. 2018(06): 777-778 .
    51. 陈文婷，何海荣. 齐拉西酮和利培酮治疗精神分裂症的临床疗效及安全性. 药品评价. 2018(06): 61-64 .
    52. 何晓燕. 奥氮平对精神分裂症患者肝功能、血糖、血脂水平的影响. 中国民康医学. 2018(15): 69-70 .
    53. 续慧蕾，刘勇，蒋茜，杜秋蓉. 用齐拉西酮与奥氮平对首发精神分裂症患者进行治疗的效果探讨. 当代医药论丛. 2018(19): 153-154 .
    54. 陈明森，周春闽. 齐拉西酮与奥氮平治疗老年精神分裂症疗效及对血糖、血脂水平的影响分析. 糖尿病新世界. 2018(20): 56-58 .
    55. 庄艳云，吕霞，陈言钊，周克英. 氟哌啶醇治疗伴脑电图异常小儿多发性抽动症疗效观察. 国际神经病学神经外科学杂志. 2018(06): 556-559 .
    56. 洪二郎，常凤坤. 齐拉西酮胶囊联合奥氮平治疗高龄精神分裂症患者疗效及对精神症状、糖脂代谢和BMI的影响. 中国医药科学. 2018(24): 38-40+68 .
    57. 曹宏波，崔林梅，黄自州，牟洋. 齐拉西酮联合无抽搐电休克治疗精神分裂症的血清指标及电生理特征评价. 海南医学院学报. 2017(06): 847-850+854 .
    58. 华浩水，陆源昕，邵剑锋. 阿立哌唑联合齐拉西酮治疗精神分裂症患者的临床效果分析. 现代实用医学. 2017(05): 669-670 .
    59. 唐芸. 盐酸美金刚片联合多奈哌齐治疗老年痴呆的临床疗效观察. 中国现代医生. 2017(35): 111-113 .

    Other cited types(9)

Catalog

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML
    Article views (326) PDF downloads (27) Cited by(68)
    Turn off MathJax
    Article Contents
    Abstract
    References

    © 2020 《实用临床医药杂志》编辑部

    Address: 江苏省扬州市江阳中路136号，扬州大学江阳路北校区14号楼201室China Pos: 225009Tel: 0514-87978917、87978989、87978807

    苏公网安备 32100302010246号

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co., Ltd.   Baidu Analytics

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return