Ji Yun Lee, Sung Hee Lim, Min-Young Lee, Haesu Kim, Moonjin Kim, Sungmin Kim, Hyun Ae Jung, Insuk Sohn, Won Ho Gil, Jeong Eon Lee, Seok Won Kim, Seok Jin Nam, Jin Seok Ahn, Young-Hyuck Im, Yeon Hee Park
Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47(4):765-773. Published online January 13, 2015
Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of regular postoperative surveillance to improve the prognosis of patients with breast cancer after curative surgery. Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 4,119 patients who received curative surgery for breast cancer at Samsung Medical Center between January 2000 and September 2008. Patients were divided into two groups (group I, regular postoperative surveillance; group II, control group) according to their post-therapy follow-up status for the first 5 years after surgery. Results Among the 3,770 patients selected for inclusion, groups I and II contained 3,300 (87%) and 470 (13%) patients, respectively. The recurrence rates at 5 years for groups I and II were 10.6% and 16.4%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 1.09; p=0.197). The 10-year mortality cumulative rates were 8.8% for group I and 25.4% for group II (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.35; p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis for recurrence-free survival (RFS), age over 40 years (p < 0.001), histologic grade 1 (p < 0.001), and pathologic stage I (p < 0.001) were associated with longer RFS but not with follow- up status. Multivariate analysis for overall survival (OS) revealed that patients in group I showed significantly improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.37; p < 0.001). Additionally, age over 40 years, histologic grade I, and pathologic stage I were independent prognostic factors for OS. Conclusion Regular follow-up for patients with breast cancer after primary surgery resulted in clinically significant improvements in patient OS.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Follow-up strategy and survival for five common cancers: A meta-analysis Boris Galjart, Diederik J. Höppener, Joachim G.J.V. Aerts, Christiaan H. Bangma, Cornelis Verhoef, Dirk J. Grünhagen European Journal of Cancer.2022; 174: 185. CrossRef
Clinical Features and Outcomes of Invasive Breast Cancer: Age-Specific Analysis of a Modern Hospital-Based Registry Ji-Yeon Kim, Danbee Kang, Seok Jin Nam, Seok Won Kim, Jeong Eon Lee, Jong Han Yu, Se Kyung Lee, Young-Hyuck Im, Jin Seok Ahn, Eliseo Guallar, Juhee Cho, Yeon Hee Park Journal of Global Oncology.2019; (5): 1. CrossRef
Follow-Up Recommendations after Curative Resection of Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumours: Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Practice Angela Lamarca, Hamish Clouston, Jorge Barriuso, Mairéad G McNamara, Melissa Frizziero, Was Mansoor, Richard A Hubner, Prakash Manoharan, Sarah O’Dwyer, Juan W Valle Journal of Clinical Medicine.2019; 8(10): 1630. CrossRef
Analysis of patient-detected breast cancer recurrence Trishul Kapoor, Sean Wrenn, Peter Callas, Ted A. James Breast Disease.2017; 37(2): 77. CrossRef
Purpose
Regorafenib, an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is considered the new standard
of care in patients with chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are no data on this drug in Korean patients.
Materials and Methods
We evaluated patients who received oral regorafenib 160 mg once daily during the first 3
weeks of each 4-week cycle between August 2013 and September 2013. All patients had
previously progressed fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin with or without biologic agents
such as cetuximab or bevacizumab.
Results
Thirty-two patients were enrolled (median age, 57 years; male:female ratio, 20:12; Eastern
Cooperative Oncology Group performance status [0-1:2], 31:1; colon:rectum, 21:11). The
overall response rate was 3.1% and the disease control rate was 50.0% (95% confidence
interval [CI]) with one partial response and 15 patients with stable disease. The median
progression-free survival was 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 5.2 months) and the median
overall survival has not yet been reached. The most common adverse events of grade two
or higher related to regorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (25%), mucositis (19%),
abdominal pain (9%), and liver function test (LFT) abnormalities (9%). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities included LFT abnormalities (9%), abdominal pain (9%), rash (6%), anemia (3%), leukopenia (3%), neutropenic fever (3%), and fatigue (3%). There was no treatment-related death.
Conclusion
Regorafenib appears to have promising activity and tolerable toxicity profiles in Korean
patients with refractory CRC, consistent with the CORRECT trial findings.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Salvage Treatment Option for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer:Regorafenib Havva YESİL CİNKİR SDÜ Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi.2020; 27(4): 471. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review Maria Røed Skårderud, Anne Polk, Kirsten Kjeldgaard Vistisen, Finn Ole Larsen, Dorte Lisbet Nielsen Cancer Treatment Reviews.2018; 62: 61. CrossRef
The real-world use of regorafenib for metastatic colorectal cancer: multicentre analysis of treatment pattern and outcomes in Hong Kong Ka-On Lam, Kin-Chung Lee, Joanne Chiu, Victor Ho-Fun Lee, Roland Leung, T S Choy, Thomas Yau Postgraduate Medical Journal.2017; 93(1101): 395. CrossRef
Pseudocirrhosis caused by regorafenib in an advanced rectal cancer patient with multiple liver metastases Kensuke Kumamoto, Shungo Endo, Noriyuki Isohata, Azuma Nirei, Daiki Nemoto, Kenichi Utano, Takuro Saito, Kazutomo Togashi Molecular and Clinical Oncology.2017; 6(1): 63. CrossRef
Incidence and risk of hematologic toxicities in cancer patients treated with regorafenib Bin Zhao, Hong Zhao Oncotarget.2017; 8(55): 93813. CrossRef
Efficacy, Safety and Cost of Regorafenib in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in French Clinical Practice Fabien Calcagno, Sabrina Lenoble, Zaher Lakkis, Thierry Nguyen, Samuel Limat, Christophe Borg, Marine Jary, Stefano Kim, Virginie Nerich Clinical Medicine Insights: Oncology.2016; 10: CMO.S38335. CrossRef