An analysis of 13 patients with perforated gastric carcinoma: A surgeon's nightmare?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background and Objectives</p> <p>Perforation is a rare complication of gastric carcinoma and generally not diagnosed preoperatively. To clarify the clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with this condition we reviewed 13 cases of gastric cancer perforation who required emergency surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 13 patients with gastric cancer perforation were retrospectively reviewed. The clinicopathological features including tumor stage and survival and also the type of treatment were analyzed and compared to literature data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 13 patients (10 males and 3 females) with a mean age of 59.0 ± 9.56 years. The incidence of perforated gastric cancer was 9.6% among gastric carcinoma and 4.2% of all gastric perforation cases. The perforation was more frequently in stage III–IV (2–10), but one case of stage II (T3N0M0) gastric cancer was also observed. None of the patients had curative resection or radical lymph-node dissection. Six (46%) patients were treated by palliative, local surgery. Emergency gastrectomy were performed in 7 (54%) patients. Overall 30-day mortality rate was % 46. The overall survival time was 128.2 ± 184.8 days for all patients, it was 52.8 ± 52.9 days for locally treated group, and 192.9 ± 235.4 days for patients who underwent resectional surgery. The difference between the treatment groups was not significant</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Perforation usually occurs in advanced stages of gastric cancer. These patients had a poor prognosis because of the presence of advanced cancer.</p

Changing Trends and Experience with Esophageal Cancer Surgery in a Single University Hospital: Are The Results Similar or Not?

Objective: The main treatment modality for esophageal cancer remains to be surgery. Over the last decades, surgical strategies have evolved remarkably. When neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy became standard, discussions about the role, type, and timing of surgery began. In this study, we share results we obtained after operating our patients using various surgical techniques.Material and Methods:Reliable data from 51 esophageal cancer patients were evaluated retrospectively. Of the 51 cases, 31 were operable. These operable cases were further classified according to surgical method and neoadjuvant therapy status. Median survival time in months, complications, hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and pathology results (total lymph nodes harvested and pathologic tumor node metastasis stage [p_TNM]) were documented for the different surgical approaches.Results: Open surgical methods were performed in 21 cases, while in 10 cases the Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) method was used. The MIS group received neoadjuvant therapy more frequently than the open surgical methods group (p=0.013). Although more complications were observed in the MIS group, the difference to the open esophagectomy methods group was not significant. Patients in the MIS group also had longer hospital stays, but again the difference was not significant. Although a pathologic complete response was seen in 8 of the 11 (72.7%) patients in our study who received chemoradiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment, the surgical results of patients who received chemoradiotherapy were worse, although not to a statistically significant extent.Conclusion: Despite changing trends and treatment options in esophageal cancer surgery, we have yet to see the expected improved results