Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Heng Wang x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Ya-Fu Cheng, Wei-Heng Hung, Heng-Chung Chen, Ching-Yuan Cheng, Ching-Hsiung Lin, Sheng-Hao Lin, and Bing-Yen Wang

Background: The therapeutic strategies for clinical stage T1–3N2 (cT1–3N2) lung cancer are controversial. For operable tumors, treatment can vary by center, region, and continent. This study aimed to identify the optimal therapeutic method and type of surgical strategy for cT1–3N2 lung cancer. Methods: This retrospective evaluation analyzed the records of 17,954 patients with cT1–3N2 lung cancer treated in 2010 through 2015 from the SEER database. The effects of different therapeutic methods and types of surgical strategies on overall survival (OS) were assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: The 5-year OS rates were 27.7% for patients with T1N2 disease, 21.8% for those with T2N2 disease, and 19.9% for T3N2 disease. Neoadjuvant therapy plus operation (OP) plus adjuvant therapy, and OP plus adjuvant therapy, provided better 5-year OS rates than OP alone or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (34.1%, 37.7%, 29.3%, and 16.1%, respectively). In the T1N2, T2N2, and T3N2 groups, lobectomy provided better 5-year OS than pneumonectomy, sublobectomy, and no surgery. Both univariate and multivariate analyses showed that young age, female sex, well-differentiated histologic grade, adenocarcinoma cell type, neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, lobectomy, and T1 stage were statistically associated with better 5-year OS rates. Conclusions: In cT1–3N2 lung cancer, multimodal treatments tended to provide better 5-year OS than OP alone or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. In addition, lobectomy was associated with better survival than other operative methods.

Full access

Dingcheng Shen, Xiaolin Wang, Heng Wang, Gaopo Xu, Yumo Xie, Zhuokai Zhuang, Ziying Huang, Juan Li, Jinxin Lin, Puning Wang, Meijin Huang, Yanxin Luo, and Huichuan Yu

Background: Serum CEA has been widely used to screen for potential recurrent disease after resection in rectal cancer. However, the influence of baseline CEA on the performance of CEA in recurrence surveillance needs to be investigated. Patients and Methods: This longitudinal cohort study included 484 patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 18,013 patients in a prospectively enrolled institutional database program of colorectal disease. Baseline CEA levels were determined before treatment, and CEA-based follow-up tests and examinations were applied in the surveillance after treatment. Results: A total of 62.6% (62/99) overall, 53.5% (23/43) local, and 64.9% (50/77) distant recurrences were seen in patients who had similar CEA levels with their baseline statuses. The sensitivity of elevated CEA levels during surveillance for overall recurrence was significantly lower in patients with negative baseline CEA than in those with elevated baseline CEA levels (41.3% vs 69.4%; P =.007). Moreover, similar results were observed in the surveillance for local (50% vs 61.5%; P =.048) and distant (39.6% vs 72.4%; P =.005) recurrences between these 2 patient groups. However, CEA had comparable and excellent specificity during surveillance for recurrent disease in these groups. The addition of CA19-9 to the CEA assay significantly improved the sensitivity in recurrence surveillance for patients with negative baseline CEA (49.2% vs 41.3%; P =.037). Finally, we identified a subgroup of CEA-turn recurrences characterized by negative CEA at baseline, elevated CEA at recurrence, and worse survival outcomes after recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07–3.30; P =.026). Conclusions: In patients with rectal cancer with negative baseline CEA, serum CEA had insufficient sensitivity in recurrence surveillance after treatment, and additional surveillance may improve oncologic outcomes. Baseline CEA should be considered before CEA-based surveillance can be applied in the follow-up trials.