The Effect of Timing of Adjuvant Therapy on Survival After Esophagectomy

Long-term nutrition in patients candidate to neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments

To improve outcomes, to decrease the rate of local recurrence and development of distant metastases neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies are employed in cancer patients in forms of radiation, chemo-, endocrine-, targeted-, and immunotherapy or their combination. Nutrition therapy plays important role in all phases of the cancer journey. From neoadjuvant therapy to prehabilitation, early postoperative nutrition, and long-term nutrition care during the adjuvant phase and survivorship determines the survival and quality of life of cancer patients. During the neoadjuvant phase patients may be in poor nutritional condition which can be aggravated by the applied oncological treatment. Beside this apparent threat this period also gives an excellent opportunity to maintain or even improve the nutritional status of the patients by nutrition therapy. After surgery the burdening effects of the operation may jeopardize the execution of adjuvant therapy. After early postoperative feeding a long-term nutrition strategy should be developed for cancer patients in order to avoid nutritional deterioration during the usually lengthy postoperative therapy. In this narrative review we discuss how preoperative nutritional status and medical nutrition therapy influence the results of surgery and after the operation what is the available evidence about nutritional status and outcome and the potentials to influence them by nutrition therapy.

Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Curative Intent Esophageal Cancer Resection Patients: Real-World Experience within an Integrated Health System

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant immunotherapy has been shown in clinical trials to prolong the survival of patients with esophageal cancer. We report our initial experience with immunotherapy within an integrated health system.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed reviewing patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy at our institution between 2017 and 2021. The immunotherapy cohort was assessed for completion of treatment, adverse effects, and disease progression, with emphasis on patients who received surgery in 2021 and their eligibility to receive nivolumab.

RESULTS

There were 39 patients who received immunotherapy and 137 patients who did not. In logistic regression, immunotherapy was not found to have a statistically significant impact on 1-year overall survival after adjusting for age and receipt of adjuvant chemoradiation. Only seven patients out of 39 who received immunotherapy successfully completed treatment (18%), with the majority failing therapy due to disease progression or side effects. Of the 17 patients eligible for nivolumab, 13 patients received it (76.4%), and three patients completed a full course of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite promising findings of adjuvant immunotherapy improving the survival of patients with esophageal cancer, real-life practice varies greatly from clinical trials. We found that the majority of patients were unable to complete immunotherapy regimens with no improvement in overall 1-year survival.

Timing of Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Stage III Melanoma, Does it Matter?

BACKGROUND

The optimal time to initiate adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) following resection remains undefined. Herein, we investigated the impact of time to adjuvant ICI on survival in patients with stage III melanoma.

METHODS

Patients with resected stage III melanoma receiving adjuvant immune therapy were identified within a multi-institutional retrospective cohort. Patients were stratified by time to adjuvant ICI: within 6 weeks, 6-12 weeks, and greater than 12 weeks from surgery. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was compared among time strata with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods in the multi-institutional cohort.

RESULTS

Altogether, 626 patients were identified within the multi-institutional cohort: 39% of patients initiated adjuvant ICI within 6 weeks, 42.2% within 6-12 weeks, and 18.8% greater than 12 weeks from surgery. In a multivariate Cox model, adjusting for histology, nodal tumor burden, and pathologic stage, we found that increased time to adjuvant ICI was associated with improved RFS. Patients who initiated adjuvant ICI within 6 weeks of surgery had worse RFS. These findings were preserved in a conditional landmark analysis and separate subgroups of patients with (1) new melanoma diagnoses, (2) occult stage III disease, and (3) those receiving anti-PD-1 monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes for patients with stage III melanoma are not compromised when adjuvant ICI is initiated beyond 6 weeks from resection. Additional work is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and implications of timing of adjuvant ICI on long-term outcomes.

The Effect of Center Esophagectomy Volume on Outcomes in Clinical Stage I to III Esophageal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the threshold annualized esophagectomy volume that is associated with improved survival, oncologic resection, and postoperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy at high-volume centers is associated with improved outcomes; however, the definition of high-volume remains debated.

METHODS

The 2004 to 2016 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage I to III esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy. Center esophagectomy volume was modeled as a continuous variable using restricted cubic splines. Maximally selected ranks were used to identify an inflection point of center volume and survival. Survival was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 13,493 patients met study criteria. Median center esophagectomy volume was 8.2 (interquartile range: 3.2-17.2) cases per year. On restricted cubic splines, inflection points were identified at 9 and 30 cases per year. A multivariable Cox model was constructed modeling annualized center surgical volume as a continuous variable using 3 linear splines and inflection points at 9 and 30 cases per year. On multivariable analysis, increasing center volume up to 9 cases per year was associated with a substantial survival benefit (hazard ratio: 0.97, 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.98, P ≤0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with undergoing surgery at a high-volume center (>9 cases per year) included private insurance, care at an academic center, completion of high school education, and greater travel distance.

CONCLUSIONS

This National Cancer Database study utilizing multivariable analysis and restricted cubic splines suggests the threshold definition of a high-volume esophagectomy center as one that performs at least 10 operations a year.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects.

RESULTS

Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010).

CONCLUSION

MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques.

LAY SUMMARY

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.