Institution
Tata Memorial Hospital
Healthcare•Mumbai, India•
About: Tata Memorial Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Mumbai, India. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & Breast cancer. The organization has 3187 authors who have published 4636 publications receiving 109143 citations.
Topics: Cancer, Breast cancer, Population, Sarcoma, Radiation therapy
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich1, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania2, Thomas Jefferson University3, University of Liverpool4, Karolinska University Hospital5, Mayo Clinic6, University of Verona7, Freeman Hospital8, Trinity College, Dublin9, University of Barcelona10, Technische Universität München11, University of Amsterdam12, University of Glasgow13, Harvard University14, University of Belgrade15, University of Milan16, Tata Memorial Hospital17, Heidelberg University18
TL;DR: In this article, an international panel of pancreatic surgeons working in well-known, high-volume centers reviewed the literature on extended pancreatectomies and worked together to establish a consensus on the definition and the role of extended pancreatic cancer.
220 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigated the fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) imaging characteristics of triple-negative breast carcinoma and compared the results with characteristics of ER+/PR+/HER2− breast carcinomas, which usually carry a favorable prognosis.
Abstract: BACKGROUND.
This study was designed to investigate the fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) imaging characteristics of triple-negative (estrogen receptor-negative [ER−]/progesterone receptor-negative [PR−]/HER2-negative [HER2−]) breast carcinoma and compare the results with characteristics of ER+/PR+/HER2− breast carcinomas, which usually carry a favorable prognosis.
METHODS.
Patients with newly diagnosed breast carcinoma who had undergone dual-time-point FDG-PET before any therapeutic intervention and were identified as either ER−/PR−/HER2− or ER+/PR+/HER2− (the control group) on histopathology of the surgical specimen, were considered candidates for inclusion in this analysis. These patients underwent FDG-PET as a component of a prospective study that evaluated the role of multimodality imaging for characterizing primary breast lesions and locoregional staging. Breast cancer lesions were imaged twice at approximately 63 minutes and 101 minutes after the administration of FDG. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) were measured at both time points (SUVmax1 and SUVmax2) to analyze the data generated. After FDG-PET imaging, the patients underwent either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy, and histopathology reports were used to provide the definitive diagnosis against which the PET study results were compared.
RESULTS.
In total, 88 patients with breast cancer (29 patients with ‘triple-negative’ breast cancer and 59 patients with ER+/PR+/HER2− breast malignancies) were selected among 206 individuals who were enrolled in the study protocol. The ‘triple-negative’ group comprised 14.08% of the total study population. The age of the patients with this subtype of tumor ranged from 33 years to 75 years (mean age±standard deviation, 51.6 ± 10.1 years), and tumors in this subgroup ranged in size from 0.9 cm to 6 cm (mean size, 1.99 cm). Among the histopathologic subtypes, 25 tumors were infiltrating ductal carcinoma (86%), and 1 tumor each (3.5% each subtype) was lobular, mixed ductal-lobular, medullary, and tubular. For the calculation of FDG-PET parameters in this group, only patients who had undergone FDG-PET studies before any intervention were considered, and 18 patients in the triple-negative group met this criterion. According to same criterion, a control group of 59 patients with ER+/PR+/HER2− cancer who had focal FDG uptake were selected for comparison with the triple-negative population. The breast cancer lesions were observed as areas with focally enhanced uptake of FDG in all patients (sensitivity, 100%) in the triple-negative group. The mean (±standard deviation) SUVmax1 of the primary lesion for the triple-negative group was 7.27 ± 5.6, the mean SUVmax2 was 8.29 ± 6.4, and the percentage change in SUVmax (%ΔSUVmax) was 14.3 ± 15.8%. In the control group of 59 patients with ER+/PR+/HER2− breast carcinoma, the mean values for SUVmax1, SUVmax2, and %ΔSUVmax were 2.68 ± 1.9, 2.84 ± 2.2, and 3.7 ± 13.0%, respectively. The mean values for SUVmax1, SUVmax2, and %Dgr;SUVmax in the triple-negative group were significantly higher compared with the values in the nontriple-negative control group (P = .0032, P = .002, and P = .017, respectively). When the 2 subgroups were compared according to tumor size, grade, and stage, the SUVmax1 was significantly higher in the triple-negative group for both size categories (5.4 vs 1.9, P = .006; and 9.2 vs 3.5, P = .04) and for grade 3 tumors (9.1 vs 3.9, P = .022). The %ΔSUVmax values for patients in the triple-negative group who had tumors that measured ≤2 cm and > 2 cm were 14.8 and 13.8, respectively; and the corresponding values for patients in the control group were 0.6 and 6.7, respectively. Although the mean %ΔSUVmax clearly was higher in the triple-negative group for both tumor size categories, comparison between the 2 groups demonstrated a statistically significant difference in tumors that measured ≤2 cm (P = .016). The authors also observed that, in the triple-negative group, tumor grades were correlated significantly with the magnitude of SUVmax1 and SUVmax2 (P = .012 and P = .01, respectively). Stage for stage, tumors from the triple-negative group appeared to have a higher mean SUVmax1 compared with tumors from nontriple-negative control group. However, the trend reached statistical significance in patients with stage II disease.
CONCLUSIONS.
Triple-negative breast tumors were associated with enhanced FDG uptake commensurate with their aggressive biology and were detected with very high sensitivity by using FDG-PET imaging. Cancer 2008. © 2007 American Cancer Society.
220 citations
••
215 citations
••
TL;DR: Pancreatic resections with M1 disease can be performed with acceptable safety in highly selected patients, and the survival after interaortocaval lymph node resection is comparable to that of other lymph nodes that do not constitute M 1 disease.
Abstract: Improved safety of pancreatic surgery has led to consideration of more aggressive approaches, such as resection for primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) with metastatic disease (M1). A total of 29 patients who underwent pancreatic resection with resection of associated metastatic disease (interaortocaval lymph node dissection, liver resection, and/or multiorgan resections) were retrospectively identified from a database of 316 R0/R1 pancreatic resections for PDAC. An explorative data analysis of perioperative and clinicopathological parameters, and overall survival was performed by Kaplan-Meier estimation, log rank test, and Fisher’s exact test. The overall in-hospital mortality and morbidity of R0/R1 pancreatic resections for M1 disease (n = 29) was 0% and 24.1%, compared with 4.2% and 35.2% of R0/R1 pancreatic resections for M0 disease (n = 287). The median overall survival time was 13.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4–20.5), and the estimated 1-year overall survival rate was 58.9% (95% CI, 34.8–76.7) for patients with M1 disease. The median survival in those with metastatic interaortocaval lymph nodes was 27 months (95% CI, 9.6–27.0), whereas it was 11.4 months (95% CI, 7.8–16.5) and 12.9 months (95% CI, 7.2–20.5) for those with liver and peritoneal metastases, respectively. Pancreatic resections with M1 disease can be performed with acceptable safety in highly selected patients. The survival after interaortocaval lymph node resection is comparable to that of other lymph nodes that do not constitute M1 disease. Resection of liver and peritoneal metastases, although safe in this series, cannot be generally recommended until further controlled trials can be conducted.
211 citations
••
TL;DR: It is revealing to find that the high risk sites involved in tobacco chewers appear to be the least affected in smokers, and vice versa.
Abstract: A retrospective study of cancer at high risk sites in the region of the head and neck was undertaken at the Bombay Cancer Registry, in 1968, to evaluate the effects of tobacco when chewed or smoked. There is sufficient evidence available today to indict chewing and smoking of tobacco as factors of great importance in the etiology of oral, pharyngeal, laryngeal, and esophageal cancers—the most common sites affected by the disease in Greater Bombay. This cause/ effect association is probably as intimate as that of cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The carcinogenic action of chewed tobacco is particularly evident at those sites where the bolus is retained in place for any length of time. Likewise, inhalation of tobacco fumes during the act of smoking produces a stream of gas and of solid particles which impinges directly on the oropharynx and especially on the soft palate initially and exposes smokers to the increased risk of developing cancer at exactly these posterior sites in the oropharynx, rather than more anteriorly in the oral cavity where the tissues do not directly bear the brunt of the onslaught from the smoke. It is revealing to find that the high risk sites involved in tobacco chewers appear to be the least affected in smokers, and vice versa.
206 citations
Authors
Showing all 3213 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Al B. Benson | 113 | 578 | 48364 |
Keitaro Matsuo | 97 | 818 | 37349 |
Ashish K. Jha | 87 | 503 | 30020 |
Noopur Raje | 82 | 506 | 27878 |
Muthupandian Ashokkumar | 76 | 511 | 20771 |
Snehal G. Patel | 73 | 367 | 16905 |
Rainu Kaushal | 58 | 232 | 16794 |
Ajit S. Puri | 54 | 369 | 9948 |
Jasbir S. Arora | 51 | 351 | 15696 |
Sudeep Sarkar | 48 | 273 | 10087 |
Ian T. Magrath | 47 | 107 | 8084 |
Pankaj Chaturvedi | 45 | 325 | 15871 |
Pradeep Kumar Gupta | 44 | 416 | 7181 |
Shiv K. Gupta | 43 | 150 | 8911 |
Kikkeri N. Naresh | 43 | 245 | 6264 |