Demographic and Histological Predictors of Survival in Patients With Gastric and Esophageal Carcinoma

Abstract

BackgroundLittle is known about the possible influence of demographic and histological risk factors on the survival of patients with esophageal and gastric cancer.ObjectivesBased on the available registry and follow-up information, this study compares 1-5 year survival rate of gastric and esophageal cancer.Patients and MethodsThrough a concurrent (prospective) cohort study, all 366 patients with definite diagnosis of esophageal and gastric cancer who had been hospitalized at the Towhid Hospital, Sanandaj city, Kurdistan province, western Iran during a five-year period from 2006 onwards were recruited. The survival time of patients stratified by this grouping method were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression.ResultsAmongst the 366 patients, 23 had esophageal adenocarcinoma, 94 esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma and 239 had gastric adenocarcinoma. Age at diagnosis (P = < 0.001), tumor grade (P = 0.008) and practice treatment (P = < 0.001) had significant associations with the variation of survival rates in patients with esophageal but not with gastric cancer. The five-year survival rates (by year) for esophageal cancer were 49%, 27%, 24%, 22% and 19%, respectively and for gastric cancer were 41%, 17%, 13%, 10% and 5.4%, respectively.ConclusionsMajor differences between these cancers were seen in the survival rates of patients and their incidence classified by sex. Age at diagnosis and histological types were prognostic factors for survival of patients with esophageal cancer but this wasn’t the case for gastric cancer.

Clinical-Pathological Characteristics and Prognosis of a Cohort of Oesophageal Cancer Patients: a Competing Risks Survival Analysis

“…Amongst the limitations to the study, we did not study any molecular marker that could play an important role in the prognosis of oesophageal cancer and which, in combination with other parameters such as tumour stage, would help to identify and predict the survival rate from these tumours, as well as to individually adapt the treatment to each patient, as recently described in the literature. 28 , 29 Although our sample only consisted of 180 patients, we were able to compare the consistency of our results with larger series published internationally, 5 – 7 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 30 – 32 in which the tumour stage and treatment received by the patient were the main prognostic factors for survival.…”

Determination of the Physical Status (Episomal/Integral) of HPV by qPCR in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

“…In our previous study, the association of HPV-16 and HPV-18 with ESCC was shown in Kurdish population of the west of Iran (4), 4 where the incidence of the disease is low (7 and 8.1 in 100 000 in Kurdistan 20 and Kermanshah provinces, 21 respectively) in comparison with an incidence of 1/1000 in some populations of Iran such as high-risk Turkmen population in the north of Iran. 22 Using real-time PCR, we examined the presence of HPV-18 and HPV-16 and also the integration status of the virus, since HPV integration is considered to result in the deletion of E2 gene.…”

Leveraging hybrid biomarkers in clinical endpoint prediction

“…Demographics, histology and pathological staging are among clinical indicators that have been proven in the literature [34][35][36], hence previous works on predicting survival among NSCLC patients are concentrated on mixing these readily available clinical factors with AUCs range between 0.62-0.79 [19][20][27][28]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study establishing the fusion of both clinical with imaging covariates, which has been proven to better predict survival (AUCs between 0.77 and 0.97).…”