Medizinische Universität Graz - Research portal
Selected Publication:
Dexl, SE.
Einfluss der Induktionsbehandlung auf Rezidivhäufigkeit, Behandlungsfrequenzen und Überleben bei Ösophaguskarzinom.
[ Diplomarbeit/Master Thesis ] Graz Medical University; 2010. pp.59.
[OPEN ACCESS]
FullText
- Authors Med Uni Graz:
- Advisor:
- Smolle-Juettner Freyja-Maria
- Altmetrics:
- Abstract:
- Background: The aim of this survey was to investigate the difference between a group of inducted and non-inducted patients. The focus lay on the investigation of life quality and therapy associated complications. Methods: On the basis of the collected files the investigation was done by searching for symptom- and complication-related postoperative inpatient days and the required therapeutical interventions. Results: Altogether there was a data pool of 107 patients with diagnosted esopahegael carcinoma. 24 patients (22%) received an induction therapy. 4 preoperative inducted patients (16,7%) suffered from renal failure. In contrast there were only 3 (3,6%) patients with renal failure in the group which didnt receive an induction therapy (p=0,023). Judged by the ASA-Scores inducted patients were disadvantaged. 20,8% (N=5) of the inducted patients and 9,6% (N=8) of the non-inducted suffered from dyspnoae. R0-Resection was obtained in 89,2% of all non-inducted and 91,6% of all inducted patients. Stenoses were more frequently in the group of inducted patients. Whereas 8 inducted patients (34,8%) suffered from stenoses, just 15 patients (18,1%) of the non-inducted suffered from this problem (p=0,085). Postoperative dilations were necessary in 10,8% of non-inducted and 8,3% of inducted patients. Looking at other postoperative therapies like esophagel or tracheobronchial stenting there was no significant difference between both groups. In the context of the perioperative hospitalization 4 (16,7%) patients of the inducted group already died, but only 2 (2,4%) of the non-inducted group (p=0,007). In fact inducted patients spent less days in hospital, but on average one more day at the intensive care unit than the non-inducted. On average inducted patients spent 35,33 days of their follow up hospitalized after undergoing surgery, whereas the non-inducted stayed in hospital only for 19,37 days (p=0,019). Relapses in the group of inducted patients occurred less often than amongst the non-inducted (9,1% vs. 12,2%). Also the average postoperative survival in the inducted group was worse than in the non-inducted group (38 vs. 45 months) (p=0,280). Conclusion: The analysis of this data indicates that induction therapy has a negative effect on life quality. The perioperative mortality is higher after induction therapy. Both of these aspects need to be considered in the interdisciplinary counsel before making the decision to perform an induction therapy. It is only then that an preoperative induction therapy leads to success.