Background. Diabetic patients with breast cancer receiving metformin and neoadjuvant chemotherapy have a higher pathologic complete response rate than do diabetic patients not receiving metformin, but findings on salvage treatment have been inconsistent. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effect of adding metformin to standard therapy on the prognosis of breast cancer patients with diabetes. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (Thomson Scientific), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database,VIP journal integration platform, and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database from inception to January 10, 2015, without language restrictions, including references related to metformin, breast cancer, and prognosis. We performed the meta-analysis using a random-effects model, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) as effect measures.
Primary tumor resection (PTR) is recommended for patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) who present with symptoms related to their primary tumor. However, the survival benefit of PTR for asymptomatic patients is controversial. We investigated the change in PTR rates and the contribution of PTR to survival in patients with unresectable stage IV CRC over the past two decades in the United States. Clinicopathological factors and long-term survival were compared for 44 514 patients diagnosed with unresectable stage IV CRC from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 2010, who had or had not undergone PTR. Multivariable Cox regression and the instrumental variable method were used to identify independent factors for survival. Of the 44 514 patients with unresectable stage IV CRC, 27 931 (62.7%) had undergone PTR. The annual rate of PTR decreased from 74.4% to 50.2% diagnosed in 1988 and 2010, and the median overall survival increased for both PTR and non-PTR patients. Instrumental variable analyses revealed that PTR was associated with better overall, cancer-specific, and other-cause survival of patients with unresectable stage IV CRC.
Background and purpose: To compare 68 Ga-fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) and 18 F-FDG PET/ CT in imaging locally advanced oesophageal cancer, and evaluate the potential usefulness of 68 Ga-FAPI PET/CT on gross target volume (GTV) delineation aimed at radiotherapy planning for oesophageal cancer as compared with contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) and 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Materials and methods: Twenty-one patients with newly diagnosed oesophageal cancer who underwent both 18 F-FDG and 68 Ga-FAPI PET/CT scans were selected. GTVs of the primary tumours based on CE-CT (GTV CT ), PET/CT, and CE-CT plus PET/CT were delineated. Gross tumour lengths were measured by GTVs and endoscopy and recorded. Results: The 68 Ga-FAPI PET showed significantly higher radiotracer uptake than 18 F-FDG PET (median SUVmax 16.71 vs. 11.23; P = 0.002) in the primary tumours. SUV thresholds of FAPI Â20%, 30%, 40%, and FDG Â40% showed similar lesion lengths compared with that in endoscopic examination (P > 0.05). GTV CT demonstrated the largest volume (median: 48.80 mm 3 , range: 14.83-162.23 mm 3 ) than PET-based GTVs. For PET/CT-guided complementary contouring of GTV CT , four patients (19%) were increased by FAPI Â20% and 30%, two patients (9.5%) were increased by FAPI Â40%, and only one patient was increased by FDG Â40%. Furthermore, the volume of GTV based on CE-CT plus FAPI Â20%, 30%, and 40% showed no significant difference with GTV CT and planning target volume based CE-CT plus FAPI-PET and meets the organ at risk standard.
Conclusion:The 68 Ga-FAPI PET/CT methodology showed favourable tumour-to-background contrast in oesophageal cancer and might provide additional information for target volume delineation and help avoid tumour geographic misses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.