Surgery versus radical endotherapies for early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus

A nomogram for predicting lymph node metastasis in surgically resected T1 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Endoscopic therapies for T1 esophageal carcinoma have been increasingly used around the world. However, the procedures are limited by without lymph nodes harvested. The risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) should been established. Our objective was to construct a nomogram model for predict risks of LNM in patients with pT1 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

We reviewed the records of 221 patients with pT1 ESCC who underwent surgical resection and radical lymphadenectomy. Clinicopathological variables were analyzed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. A nomogram for predicting risk of LNM was constructed and validated using bootstrap resampling.

Results

Of the 221 patients, 53 patients had been examined as LNM. Following multivariate analysis, poor differentiation (P=0.0006), lymphovascular invasion (P<0.0001) and SM3 (tumor invades the lower third of the submucosal layer) (P=0.0192) cancer were significantly independent risk factors for LNM and were entered into the nomogram. The nomogram showed a robust discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.8667. The calibration curves for the probability of LNM showed optimal agreement between the probability as predicted by the nomogram and the actual probability.

Conclusions

We established a nomogram that can provide individual predicting for LNM in T1 ESCC, and this model has the potential clinical utility in making therapeutic procedures.

Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer

BACKGROUND

Almost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

Management of patients with T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study on patient management and risk of metastatic disease

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy for submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is performed in order to optimize patient outcomes given the risk of concurrent lymph node metastases (LNM). However, not seldom, comorbidity precludes these patients from surgery. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the course of follow-up after treatment in submucosal EAC patients undergoing surgery versus conservative therapy and to evaluate the incidence of metastatic disease.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2012, all patients undergoing diagnostic endoscopic resection for EAC in two centers were reviewed. Only patients with histopathologically proven submucosal tumor invasion were included. Submucosal EACs were divided into tumors that were removed radically (R0) and irradically (R1). Subsequently, in the R0 group, EACs were classified as either low risk (LR; submucosal invasion <500 nm, G1-G2, no LVI) or high risk (HR; deep submucosal invasion >500 nm, G3-G4 and/or LVI). Metastatic disease was defined as LNM in surgical resection specimen and/or evidence of malignant disease during follow-up (FU).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients with a submucosal EAC were included [23 R1-resections and 46 R0-resection (14 R0-LR and 32 R0-HR)]. Twenty-six patients underwent surgical treatment (1 R0-LR, 12 R0-HR and 13 R1). None of the 14 R0-LR patients developed metastatic disease after a median FU of 60 months. In the R0-HR group and R1 group, metastatic disease was diagnosed in 16 and 30 % of patients, respectively. Surgical patients tended to have a better overall survival than non-surgical patients (p = 0.09). Tumor-related deaths, however, were 12 % in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In LR submucosal EAC, the risk of metastatic disease appears to be very low. In deep submucosal EAC (either R0- or R1-resection), the rate of metastatic disease is lower than reported in earlier surgical series. Given the reasonable disease-free survival and high background mortality, conservative management of these patients seems to be a valid alternative for surgery in selected cases.

Outcomes of Surgical Resection of T1bN0 Esophageal Cancer and Assessment of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Identifying Low-Risk Cancers Appropriate for Endoscopic Therapy

BACKGROUND

Invasive esophageal cancers have been managed historically with esophagectomy. Low-risk T1b patients are being proposed for nonsurgical management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of endoscopic mucosal resections (EMR) to identify low-risk T1b patients and to review surgical treatment outcomes for T1b cancer.

METHODS

All esophageal cancer patients, in an institutional review board-approved prospective database, between 2000 and 2013 with clinical stage (cT1bN0), pathological stage (pT1bN0), and no neoadjuvant therapy were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients, 38 pT1b and 13 cT1b, were assessed. All cT1b had preoperative EMR and five were found to be understaged at esophagectomy. pT1bN0 patients had a mean age of 66 years, mean BMI of 30, and 95 % had adenocarcinoma. Thirty-eight pT1bN0 patients underwent esophagectomy with a median hospital length of stay (LOS) of 9 days. Complications occurred in 14 patients, but 71 % were minor (Accordion score 1-2). In-hospital 30- and 90-day mortality was zero. EMR specimens were re-reviewed to assess low-risk criteria. Degree of differentiation and the presence of lymphovascular invasion could be assessed in all EMR specimens; however, assessment of submucosal invasion limited to the superficial submucosal layer could not be determined in the majority of cases. Kaplan-Meier 5-year overall survival in pT1bN0 patients was 78.7 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical staging of superficial esophageal cancer can be inaccurate especially in submucosal tumors. EMR should be routinely used for preoperative staging. Healthy patients with clinical tumor stage greater than cT1a should undergo multidisciplinary review and be considered for surgical resection.

The epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of Barrett's carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Roughly 3000 new cases of Barrett's carcinoma arise in Germany each year. In view of recent advances in the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of this disease, an update of the clinical recommendations is in order.

METHODS

This review is based on selected relevant publications, including current reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines.

RESULTS

The risk of progression of Barrett's esophagus to carcinoma lies between 0.10% and 0.15% per year. Risk factors for progression include male sex, age over 50 years, obesity, longstanding and frequent reflux symptoms, smoking, length of the Barrett's esophagus, and intraepithelial neoplasia. Well-differentiated carcinomas that are confined to the esophageal mucosa can be resected endoscopically with a cure rate above 90%. For more advanced, but still locally confined tumors, surgical resection is the treatment of choice. In stages cT3/4, the prognosis can be improved with neo-adjuvant chemo - therapy or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Metastatic Barrett's carcinoma can be treated by endoscopic, chemotherapeutic, radiotherapeutic, and palliative methods.

CONCLUSION

Early carcinoma can often be cured by endoscopic resection. Locally advanced carcinoma calls for multimodal treatment. Current research focuses on means of preventing the progression of Barrett's esophagus, the scope of applicability of endoscopic techniques, and the optimization of multimodal treatment strategies for advanced disease.

Surveillance for low-grade dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus: one size fits all?

This paper reviews the role of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) as a marker of progression in Barrett's oesophagus (BO). Albeit with its limits due to the difficulty of its diagnosis and the low agreement among pathologists, LGD remains the most relevant single prognostic factor of progression, and, when the diagnosis is confirmed by two or three pathologists, the chances of progression to high-grade dysplasia or invasive adenocarcinoma are as high as 40%. On the other hand, BO patients who remain dysplasia free at several follow-up examinations seem to have a very low likelihood of progression. The diagnosis of LGD should be confirmed by two pathologists, and surveillance programs should be tailored depending on the presence or persistent absence of LGD. Ablative therapy should be also considered for cases where LGD persists in a series of follow-ups.

T1 esophageal cancer, request an endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for in-depth review

Endoscopic management of superficial esophageal adenocarcinoma has gained wider acceptance with the growing literature on its efficacy. Patient selection is critical in deciding who should be a candidate for surgery or endoscopy in the management of T1 esophageal cancer. This article discusses the key role EMR plays in the diagnostic evaluation.