Abstract
Methods Patients treated with systemic CT alone (Group A), CT plus drainage (Group B), or CT plus pericardial window (Group C) were included. Treatment response was defined as complete response (ie, no more pericardial effusion or masses), partial response (ie, reduced total score, without requiring further treatments), stable disease (ie, unchanged total score), or progressive disease (ie, increased total score). Patients with partial or complete response were considered responders.
Results This preliminary report included 175 patients (56.6% male) with a mean age of 54.21 ± 14.26 years. Gender distribution, age, and follow-up duration was similar for all groups (P >.05). Prevalent cancer types were lung cancer (50.9%), breast cancer (14.9%), and lymphoma/leukemia (14.9%). Overall, 22.3%, 42.9%, and 34.9% of patients were in treatment group A, B, and C, respectively. There were 132 responders (75.3%). The rate of responders significantly differed between groups (P
Conclusions Systemic CT plus pericardial window is a more effective treatment option compared with systemic CT alone and systemic CT plus drainage in patients with malignant effusions.
Objective Our aim was to compare systemic chemotherapy (CT) with drainage and with pericardial window in the treatment of neoplastic pericarditis in patients with various malignancies included in the International Neoplastic Pericarditis Treatment study.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2288-2293 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery |
| Volume | 148 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 1 2014 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Surgery
- Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
Systemic chemotherapy in combination with pericardial window has better outcomes in malignant pericardial effusions. / Çelik, Sezai; Lestuzzi, Chiara; Cervesato, Eugenio; Dequanter, Didier; Piotti, Patrizia; De Biasio, Marzia; Imazio, Massimo.
In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 148, No. 5, 01.11.2014, p. 2288-2293.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Systemic chemotherapy in combination with pericardial window has better outcomes in malignant pericardial effusions
AU - Çelik, Sezai
AU - Lestuzzi, Chiara
AU - Cervesato, Eugenio
AU - Dequanter, Didier
AU - Piotti, Patrizia
AU - De Biasio, Marzia
AU - Imazio, Massimo
PY - 2014/11/1
Y1 - 2014/11/1
N2 - Methods Patients treated with systemic CT alone (Group A), CT plus drainage (Group B), or CT plus pericardial window (Group C) were included. Treatment response was defined as complete response (ie, no more pericardial effusion or masses), partial response (ie, reduced total score, without requiring further treatments), stable disease (ie, unchanged total score), or progressive disease (ie, increased total score). Patients with partial or complete response were considered responders.Results This preliminary report included 175 patients (56.6% male) with a mean age of 54.21 ± 14.26 years. Gender distribution, age, and follow-up duration was similar for all groups (P >.05). Prevalent cancer types were lung cancer (50.9%), breast cancer (14.9%), and lymphoma/leukemia (14.9%). Overall, 22.3%, 42.9%, and 34.9% of patients were in treatment group A, B, and C, respectively. There were 132 responders (75.3%). The rate of responders significantly differed between groups (P Conclusions Systemic CT plus pericardial window is a more effective treatment option compared with systemic CT alone and systemic CT plus drainage in patients with malignant effusions.Objective Our aim was to compare systemic chemotherapy (CT) with drainage and with pericardial window in the treatment of neoplastic pericarditis in patients with various malignancies included in the International Neoplastic Pericarditis Treatment study.
AB - Methods Patients treated with systemic CT alone (Group A), CT plus drainage (Group B), or CT plus pericardial window (Group C) were included. Treatment response was defined as complete response (ie, no more pericardial effusion or masses), partial response (ie, reduced total score, without requiring further treatments), stable disease (ie, unchanged total score), or progressive disease (ie, increased total score). Patients with partial or complete response were considered responders.Results This preliminary report included 175 patients (56.6% male) with a mean age of 54.21 ± 14.26 years. Gender distribution, age, and follow-up duration was similar for all groups (P >.05). Prevalent cancer types were lung cancer (50.9%), breast cancer (14.9%), and lymphoma/leukemia (14.9%). Overall, 22.3%, 42.9%, and 34.9% of patients were in treatment group A, B, and C, respectively. There were 132 responders (75.3%). The rate of responders significantly differed between groups (P Conclusions Systemic CT plus pericardial window is a more effective treatment option compared with systemic CT alone and systemic CT plus drainage in patients with malignant effusions.Objective Our aim was to compare systemic chemotherapy (CT) with drainage and with pericardial window in the treatment of neoplastic pericarditis in patients with various malignancies included in the International Neoplastic Pericarditis Treatment study.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84911002620&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84911002620&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.04.031
DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.04.031
M3 - Article
VL - 148
SP - 2288
EP - 2293
JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
SN - 0022-5223
IS - 5
ER -