Search

Your search keyword '"Nunobe, Souya"' showing total 873 results
Start Over Author "Nunobe, Souya"
873 results on '"Nunobe, Souya"'

11. 5-year follow-up results of a JCOG1104 (OPAS-1) phase III non-inferiority trial to compare 4 courses and 8 courses of S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy for pathological stage II gastric cancer

Author

Yoshikawa, Takaki, Terashima, Masanori, Mizusawa, Junki, Nunobe, Souya, Nishida, Yasunori, Yamada, Takanobu, Kaji, Masahide, Nomura, Takashi, Hato, Shinji, Choda, Yasuhiro, Yabusaki, Hiroshi, Yoshida, Kazuhiro, Misawa, Kazunari, Masuzawa, Toru, Tsuda, Masahiro, Kawachi, Yasuyuki, Katayama, Hiroshi, Fukuda, Haruhiko, Kurokawa, Yukinori, Boku, Narikazu, Sano, Takeshi, and Sasako, Mitsuru

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. Perioperative TAS-118 plus oxaliplatin in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer: APOLLO-11 study

Author

Takahari, Daisuke, Katai, Hitoshi, Takashima, Atsuo, Izawa, Naoki, Ishizuka, Naoki, Ohashi, Manabu, Mikami, Shinya, Wakatsuki, Takeru, Nakayama, Izuma, Chin, Keisho, Ida, Satoshi, Kumagai, Koshi, Nunobe, Souya, Iwasa, Satoru, Shoji, Hirokazu, Wada, Takeyuki, Doi, Ayako, Yoshikawa, Takaki, Sano, Takeshi, Boku, Narikazu, and Yamaguchi, Kensei

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

18. Randomized controlled phase III trial to investigate superiority of robot-assisted gastrectomy over laparoscopic gastrectomy for clinical stage T1-4aN0-3 gastric cancer patients (JCOG1907, MONA LISA study): a study protocol

Author

Makuuchi, Rie, Terashima, Masanori, Terada, Mitsumi, Mizusawa, Junki, Kita, Ryosuke, Tokunaga, Masanori, Omori, Takeshi, Ojima, Toshiyasu, Ehara, Kazuhisa, Watanabe, Masaya, Yanagimoto, Yoshitomo, Nunobe, Souya, Kinoshita, Takahiro, Ito, Seiji, Nishida, Yasunori, Hihara, Jun, Boku, Narikazu, Kurokawa, Yukinori, and Yoshikawa, Takaki

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

24. Clinical practice guidelines for duodenal cancer 2021

Author

Nakagawa, Kenji, Sho, Masayuki, Fujishiro, Mitsuhiro, Kakushima, Naomi, Horimatsu, Takahiro, Okada, Ken-ichi, Iguchi, Mikitaka, Uraoka, Toshio, Kato, Motohiko, Yamamoto, Yorimasa, Aoyama, Toru, Akahori, Takahiro, Eguchi, Hidetoshi, Kanaji, Shingo, Kanetaka, Kengo, Kuroda, Shinji, Nagakawa, Yuichi, Nunobe, Souya, Higuchi, Ryota, Fujii, Tsutomu, Yamashita, Hiroharu, Yamada, Suguru, Narita, Yukiya, Honma, Yoshitaka, Muro, Kei, Ushiku, Tetsuo, Ejima, Yasuo, Yamaue, Hiroki, and Kodera, Yasuhiro

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Feasibility and predictive factors on the completion of docetaxel plus S‐1 adjuvant chemotherapy in pathological stage III gastric cancer.

Author

Terayama, Masayoshi, Ohashi, Manabu, Yamaguchi, Kensei, Takahari, Daisuke, Makuuchi, Rie, Hayami, Masaru, Ida, Satoshi, Kumagai, Koshi, Sano, Takeshi, and Nunobe, Souya

Subjects
ADJUVANT chemotherapy, GASTRECTOMY, STOMACH cancer, TUMOR classification, BODY composition
Abstract

Background: The standard adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for stage III gastric cancer is docetaxel plus S‐1 (DS) based on the results of the START‐II trials. However, in clinical practice some patients could not continue this intensive doublet chemotherapy because of limited tolerability. This study aimed to assess the practical feasibility of DS and elucidate the predictive factors for the completion of adjuvant DS therapy. Methods: Data from consecutive patients who underwent radical gastrectomy between 2018 and 2021 and were diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed stage III gastric cancer were retrospectively collected. First, the completion rate and adverse effects of DS were assessed. Second, the association between DS incompletion and patient backgrounds including body weight, skeletal muscle index (SMI), and intramuscular adipose content (IMAC) were examined. Results: Of 87 patients, 59 patients (67.8%) completed DS and dose reduction was required in 18 patients (20.6%). Neutropenia of grade 3 or higher was the most common hematological toxicity observed (17.2%). The most frequent nonhematological toxicity of grade 3 or higher was fatigue (6.9%), followed by diarrhea (5.7%), nausea (4.5%), and anorexia (4.5%). In a multivariate analysis, low SMI (p = 0.005) and high IMAC (p = 0.004) were significant risk factors for DS incompletion. Conclusions: DS adjuvant chemotherapy after radical gastrectomy for pathological stage III gastric cancer is acceptable, even in clinical practice, with respect to completion and toxicity. Additionally, the body composition factors such as SMI and IMAC might be useful in predicting incompletion of DS. These findings will help us to preoperatively select patients for DS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2025
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. Post‐radical gastrectomy long‐term survival and etiologies of mortalities in older adult patients greater than 80 years of age with gastric cancer.

Author

Matsui, Ryota, Nunobe, Souya, Ri, Motonari, Makuuchi, Rie, Irino, Tomoyuki, Hayami, Masaru, Ohashi, Manabu, and Sano, Takeshi

Subjects
*OLDER patients, *OVERALL survival, *STOMACH cancer, *SURGICAL indications, *PROGNOSIS
Abstract

Background Methods Results Conclusions Patients aged >80‐years‐old with gastric cancer are commonly excluded from clinical trials, and no consensus exists regarding surgical indications and outcomes in older patients. In this study, we analyzed the post‐gastrectomy long‐term survival and etiologies of mortality in older patients with gastric cancer.Patients aged >80‐years‐old with pathological stages I–III primary gastric cancer who undergone radical gastrectomies, between May 2006 and March 2017, were included in the study. Eligible patients were categorized into 3 age cohorts: <85‐, 85–90‐, and >90‐years‐old. The primary outcome was the overall survival. The etiologies of mortalities were compared. Survival curves were compared using the log‐rank test. Prognostic factors were identified by multivariate analysis, using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.The median follow‐up duration was 59 months. Of the 353 patients, 269 (76.2%), 71 (20.1%), and 13 (3.7%) were categorized into the <85‐, 85–90‐, >90‐years‐old age cohorts, respectively. Older patients had a poorer overall survival (p = 0.003) and statistically significant difference in the other‐cause survival (p < 0.001). The multivariate analysis revealed that age was not an independent prognostic factor for overall or cancer‐specific survival. However, an age >90‐years‐old was an independent prognostic factor for the other‐cause survival.In patients aged >80‐years‐old with gastric cancer who had undergone gastrectomies, mortalities from other diseases increased with age; while mortalities from gastric cancer did not. An age of ≥90‐years‐old was an independent prognostic factor for mortalities from other diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Prealbumin Prognostic Score: A Novel Prognostic Indicator After Radical Gastrectomy in Patients with Gastric Cancer.

Author

Matsui, Ryota, Nunobe, Souya, Ri, Motonari, Makuuchi, Rie, Irino, Tomoyuki, Hayami, Masaru, Ohashi, Manabu, and Sano, Takeshi

Subjects
*GASTRECTOMY, *STOMACH tumors, *TREATMENT effectiveness, *RETROSPECTIVE studies, *MULTIVARIATE analysis, *MEDICAL records, *ACQUISITION of data, *TUMOR classification, *CONFIDENCE intervals, *SERUM albumin, *C-reactive protein, *OVERALL survival
Abstract

Simple Summary: The Glasgow Prognostic Score and modified Glasgow Prognostic Score using a combination of serum albumin and C-reactive protein have been reported in relation to postoperative prognosis in many cancers. In recent years, prealbumin has often been used as an alternative to albumin, but the prognostic impact of prealbumin-based indices in the above-mentioned indices has not yet been reported. We therefore developed the prealbumin prognostic score. Background: This study aimed to determine whether the prealbumin prognostic score (PPS), a novel indicator using prealbumin instead of albumin in the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), is a better predictive marker postoperatively in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent radical gastrectomy for primary pStages I–III gastric cancer between 2006 and 2017. The cutoff values for preoperative prealbumin and C-reactive protein (CRP) were 22 mg/dL and 0.5 mg/dL, respectively. According to the prealbumin and CRP levels, a PPS of zero was defined as both being above the cutoff value, of one as either being below the cutoff value, and of two as both being below the cutoff value. Results: Of the 4663 patients, 3421 (73.4%) had a score of zero, 984 (21.1%) had a score of one, and 258 (5.5%) had a score of two. The higher the PPS, the poorer the overall survival [OS] (p < 0.001). When comparing OS by the PPS in patients with an mGPS of zero, a PPS of one indicated poorer OS than a PPS of zero (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, PPSs of one (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.603; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.378–1.866; p < 0.001) and two (HR: 1.322; 95% CI: 1.055–1.656; p = 0.015) were independent poor prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: The PPS, which is based on a combination of prealbumin and CRP levels, can identify a wider range of patients with poor OS than mGPS in patients with gastric cancer after gastrectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Reconstruction Techniques and Associated Morbidity in Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy for Cancer

Author

Schneider, Marcel André, Kim, Jeesun, Berlth, Felix, Sugita, Yutaka, Grimminger, Peter P., Wijnhoven, Bas P.L., Overtoom, Hidde, Gockel, Ines, Thieme, René, Griffiths, Ewen A., Butterworth, William, Nienhüser, Henrik, Müller, Beat, Crnovrsanin, Nerma, Gero, Daniel, Nickel, Felix, Gisbertz, Suzanne, van Berge Henegouwen, Mark I., Pucher, Philip H., Khan, Kashuf, Chaudry, Asif, Patel, Pranav H., Pera, Manuel, Dal Cero, Mariagiulia, Garcia, Carlos, Martinez Salinas, Guillermo, Kassab, Paulo, Prado Castro, Osvaldo Antônio, Norero, Enrique, Wisniowski, Paul, Putnam, Luke Randall, Lombardi, Pietro Maria, Ferrari, Giovanni, Gudaityte, Rita, Maleckas, Almantas, Prodehl, Leanne, Castaldi, Antonio, Prudhomme, Michel, Lee, Hyuk-Joon, Sano, Takeshi, Baiocchi, Gian Luca, De Manzoni, Giovanni, Giacopuzzi, Simone, Bencivenga, Maria, Rosati, Riccardo, Puccetti, Francesco, D’Ugo, Domenico, Nunobe, Souya, Yang, Han-Kwang, Gutschow, Christian Alexander, Piessen, Guillaume, Lerooy, Justine, van Sandick, Johanna Wilhelmina, Reynolds, John V., Morgagni, Paolo, Hölscher, Arnulf H., Hemmerich, Martin, Mönig, Stefan, Chevallay, Mickael, Kołodziejczyk, Piotr, Hartgrink, Henk, da Costa, Paulo Matos, Borges, Filipe Castro, Davies, Andrew, Baker, Cara, Allum, William, Kumar, Sacheen, Polkowski, Wojciech, Rawicz-Pruszyński, Karol, Romario, Uberto Fumagalli, De Pascale, Stefano, Tarasconi, Antonio, Reim, Daniel, Pergolini, Ilaria, Santos, Lucio Lara, Martins, Pedro Carvalho, Biondi, Alberto, Degiuli, Maurizio, Reddavid, Rossella, Kielan, Wojciech, Schneider, Paul Magnus, and Murphy, Thomas

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

45. Practice guidelines on endoscopic surgery for qualified surgeons by the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system: Stomach.

Author

Uyama, Ichiro, Shibasaki, Susumu, Inaki, Noriyuki, Ehara, Kazuhisa, Oshiro, Takashi, Okabe, Hiroshi, Obama, Kazutaka, Kasama, Kazunori, Kinoshita, Takahiro, Kurokawa, Yukinori, Kojima, Kazuyuki, Shiraishi, Norio, Suda, Koichi, Takiguchi, Shuji, Tokunaga, Masanori, Naitoh, Takeshi, Nagai, Eishi, Nishizaki, Masahiko, Nunobe, Souya, and Fukunaga, Tetsu

Subjects
SURGICAL blood loss, JEJUNOILEAL bypass, GASTRIC bypass, MINIMALLY invasive procedures, BARIATRIC surgery, BILIOPANCREATIC diversion
Abstract

This article provides guidelines for qualified surgeons on endoscopic surgery procedures related to the stomach. It focuses on laparoscopic surgery for conditions such as gastroduodenal ulcer perforation, gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), gastric cancer, and gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer. The guidelines discuss the outcomes, benefits, and risks of these procedures, emphasizing the need for further research and skilled supervision. The article also mentions the use of laparoscopic gastric restrictive surgery for improving quality of life in Stage I gastric cancer patients and recommends laparoscopic gastric restrictive surgery and robotic gastrectomy for severe obesity and gastric cancer, respectively. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to specific criteria and requirements when performing these procedures. [Extracted from the article]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Outcomes of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric submucosal tumors: A retrospective multicenter study at 21 Japanese institutions.

Author

Hashimoto, Yoshikazu, Abe, Nobutsugu, Nunobe, Souya, Kawakubo, Hirofumi, Sumiyoshi, Tetsuya, Yoshida, Naohiro, Morita, Yoshinori, Terashima, Masanori, Saze, Zenichiro, Onimaru, Manabu, Otsuji, Eigo, Hoteya, Shu, Yamashita, Haruhiro, Fujimura, Takashi, Oyama, Tsuneo, Ohata, Ken, Shichijo, Satoki, Tanabe, Kazuaki, Shuto, Kiyohiko, and Ikeya, Takashi

Subjects
NATIONAL health insurance, LAPAROSCOPIC surgery, HEALTH insurance, GASTRIC bypass, ENDOSCOPIC surgery, SURGICAL complications, OPERATIVE surgery
Abstract

Aim: We conducted a multicenter study on classical laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) and LECS‐related procedures to retrospectively clarify the safety, problems, and mid‐term outcomes of these methods after their coverage by the national health insurance. Methods: A total of 201 patients who underwent classical LECS/LECS‐related procedures for gastric submucosal tumors (G‐SMTs) in 21 institutions affiliated with the Laparoscopy Endoscopy Cooperative Surgery Study Group from April 2014 to March 2016 were included. Data was retrospectively obtained from the patients' charts. Results: The most common surgical procedure was classical LECS (155 patients, 77.1%), non‐exposed endoscopic wall inversion surgery (22 patients, 11.4%), a combination of laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches to neoplasia with non‐exposure technique (16 patients, 8%), and closed LECS (two patients, 1%). Only six (3%) patients underwent LECS with gastrostomy. The mean operative time and blood loss were 188.4 (70–462) minutes and 23.3 (0–793) g, respectively. Ten (5%) patients developed postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo classification grade II or higher). Two patients needed reoperation due to postoperative bleeding or anastomotic leakage. All tumors were resected with negative margins. A total of 127 (63.2%) patients underwent follow‐up observations for over 36 months, one of whom had a recurrence of peritoneal dissemination and one had poor oral intake. Conclusion: Classical LECS and LECS‐related procedures for G‐SMTs have favorable short/mid‐term outcomes. We conducted a multicenter study on classical laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) and LECS‐related procedures to retrospectively clarify the safety, problems, and mid‐term outcomes of these methods after their coverage by the national health insurance. A total of 201 patients who underwent classical LECS/LECS‐related procedures for gastric submucosal tumors (G‐SMTs) in 21 institutions affiliated with the Laparoscopy Endoscopy Cooperative Surgery Study Group from April 2014 to March 2016 were included. Classical LECS and LECS‐related procedures for G‐SMTs have favorable short/mid‐term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

48. Survival outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus open distal gastrectomy with nodal dissection for clinical stage IA or IB gastric cancer (JCOG0912): a multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Author

Katai, Hitoshi, Mizusawa, Junki, Katayama, Hiroshi, Morita, Shinji, Yamada, Takanobu, Bando, Etsuro, Ito, Seiji, Takagi, Masakazu, Takagane, Akinori, Teshima, Shin, Koeda, Keisuke, Nunobe, Souya, Yoshikawa, Takaki, Terashima, Masanori, and Sasako, Mitsuru

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Impact of Olfactory Change on Postoperative Body Weight Loss in Patients with Gastric Cancer after Gastrectomy

Author

Matsuo, Hiromi, primary, Matsui, Ryota, additional, Kumagai, Koshi, additional, Ida, Satoshi, additional, Saino, Yoko, additional, Fujihara, Aya, additional, Takagi, Kumi, additional, Itami, Yukiko, additional, Ishii, Misuzu, additional, Moriya, Naoki, additional, Izumi-Mishima, Yuna, additional, Nomura, Kazuhiro, additional, Tsutsumi, Yasuo M., additional, Nunobe, Souya, additional, Tsutsumi, Rie, additional, and Sakaue, Hiroshi, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results