Search

Abstract Background Due to the development of diagnostic imaging technology, we have increased chance of detecting multiple primary cancers. However, simultaneous triple cancer is still a very rare finding whose frequency is not yet known. Treatment of simultaneous triple cancer is a clinical challenge because it requires multimodal strategies including surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Case presentation Here, we present the case of a 74-year-old male with triple cancer involving esophageal and pancreatic cancer, and rectal carcinoma. Each cancer was surgically resectable, but simultaneous resection of all cancers seemed to cause too much surgical stress for the patient. First, we performed a laparoscopic Hartmann’s operation for rectal cancer to minimize the risk of postoperative complications. Then treatment for pancreatic cancer was initiated by administering neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. The pancreatic tumor shrank in size, so pancreatoduodenectomy was performed. We chose S-1 as adjuvant chemotherapy. The esophageal cancer showed regression during the treatment of the other two cancers, likely because the chemotherapeutic agents administered for pancreatic cancer had some effect on the esophageal cancer. Definitive chemoradiotherapy was selected instead of esophagectomy because the patient had already undergone two major surgeries. The patient is still alive nine months after the whole course of treatment with no sign of recurrence. Conclusions The treatment of triple cancer requires an elaborate strategy to determine which cancer has to be dealt with first and which can be treated later. An aggressive multimodal treatment strategy may be an important option for a patient with triple cancer.

Abstract This is the first report of the double primary cancer of esophageal cancer (EC) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) treated without esophagectomy. Previously reported cases of the double cancer mostly describe secondary MDS arising after treatment for EC. The double primary cancer was manageable with close follow‐ups for possible recurrence.

Background and Objectives: Gait ability and spinal postural balance affect ADL in patients who underwent adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. However, it is still unclear how to determine what the cause is. This study was done to investigate various factors affecting gait, postural balance and activities of daily living (ADL) in patients who were operated on for ASD over a period of one year, following corrective surgery. Materials and Method: A cohort of 42 (2 men, 40 women, mean age, 71.1 years) who were operated on for ASD were included in this study. According to Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), based on their ADL, patients were segregated into satisfied and unsatisfied groups. Gait and postural balance abilities were evaluated before and after the operative procedure. Radiographs of spine and pelvis as well as the rehabilitation data (static balance, standing on single-leg; dynamic postural adaptation, timed up and go test (TUG); Gait Capability, walk velocity for a distance of 10 m) were acquired 12 months after surgery and analyzed. Spinopelvic parameters such as (lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence (PI)) were marked and noted. The factors which affect patients’ satisfaction with their ADL were evaluated. Results: The ADL satisfied group included 18 patients (1 man, 17 women, mean age 68.6 years) and the unsatisfied group included 24 patients (1 man, 23 women, mean age 73.1 years). One year after the surgery, the two groups were tested. TUG (8.5 s vs. 12.8 s), 10 m walk velocity (1.26 m/s vs. 1.01 m/s), and single leg standing test (25 s vs. 12.8 s) were regarded as notably different. According to logistic regression analysis, only TUG was extracted as a significant factor. The cut-off value was 9.7 s, with sensitivity 75%, specificity 83%, area under the curve 0.824, and a 95% confidence interval of 0.695–0.953. Conclusions: A significant factor among all evaluations in postoperative ASD patients was TUG, for which the cut-off value for ADL satisfaction was 9.7 s.

Background: Bone metastasis due to gastric cancer is rare, and the clinical features have not been fully evaluated. We investigated the clinical features, treatment outcomes, and prognostic factors in gastric cancer patients with bone metastasis. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on 34 consecutive patients who were diagnosed radiologically with bone metastasis due to gastric cancer. We estimated the overall survival after the diagnosis of bone metastasis using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and evaluated which clinicopathological factors were associated with prognostic factors for survival using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: The treatment for the primary tumor was surgery in 16 patients (47.1%) and chemotherapy in 18 patients (52.9%). The median serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels at the time of bone metastasis were 375.5 and 249 IU/L, respectively. Ten patients (29.4%) were diagnosed with bone metastasis and gastric cancer at the same time. The 6-month survival rate after the diagnosis of bone metastasis was 63.8%, and the median survival time was 227.5 days. Multivariate analysis revealed that metachronous metastasis (p = 0.035) and extraosseous metastasis (p = 0.028) were significant risk factors for poor survival. Conclusions: The prognosis of gastric cancer with bone metastasis was poor, and metachronous metastasis and extraosseous metastasis were shown to be poor prognostic factors. Serum ALP, LDH, and tumor markers are not always high, so aggressive diagnosis using appropriate modalities such as bone scan, MRI, or PET-CT may be necessary in routine practice even in asymptomatic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]