Surrogate end-points for overall survival in 22 neoadjuvant trials of gastro-oesophageal cancers

A Surrogate Endpoint for Overall Survival in Locally Advanced and Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Reanalysis of Data From the NEOCRTEC5010 Trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate disease-free survival (DFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced and resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We re-analyzed patient data from the NEOCRTEC5010 randomized controlled trial (N = 451 patients) to compare their OS with that of an age- and sex-matched cohort from the general population of China. We used expected survival and the standardized mortality ratio, respectively, in our analysis of data collected from a neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT) plus surgery group and a surgery-only group. Published data from 6 randomized controlled trials and 20 retrospective studies were used to examine the correlation between DFS and OS at the trial level.

RESULTS

The annual hazard rate of disease progression decreased to 4.9% and 8.1% within 3 years in the NCRT and surgery groups, respectively. Patients who were disease-free at 36 months had a 5-year OS of 93.9% (95% CI, 89.7%-98.4%) in the NCRT group with a standardized mortality ratio of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.7-1.8; P = .5639). In contrast, the 5-year OS was only 12.9% (95% CI, 7.3%-22.6%) for patients in the NCRT group who exhibited disease progression within 36 months. At the trial level, DFS and OS were correlated with treatment effect (R2 = 0.605).

CONCLUSIONS

Disease-free status at 36 months is a valid surrogate endpoint for 5-year OS in patients with locally advanced and resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Patients who were disease-free at 36 months showed a favorable OS, which was indistinguishable from that of the age- and sex-matched comparison group from the general population; otherwise, their 5-year OS was extremely poor.

Evaluation of Event-Free Survival Surrogating Overall Survival as the Endpoint in Neoadjuvant Clinical Trials of Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma

Background

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignant cancers worldwide. The development of potential antitumor agents is being investigated and stimulates more clinical trials. Overall survival (OS) is consistently considered the primary endpoint for clinical trials on treatment effect assessment. However, finding an appropriate endpoint more sensitive and easy for trials is vital. For adjuvant chemotherapy, current evidence has shown that disease-free survival (DFS) could be a surrogate endpoint for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with GC, but evidence for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) is inadequate. This study was designed to evaluate the possibility that event-free survival (EFS) surrogates OS in RCTs of NCT/NCRT of gastric orss gastroesophageal (GC or GEJ) adenocarcinoma patients (ADK).

Methods

A literature search was conducted through databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. References and articles from other sources were also included. A total of 8 RCTs with 2,837 patients were eventually analyzed. Hazard ratios (HRs) of OS and EFS were directly approached. The surrogacy of EFS was assessed through the correlation of determination R². We used Review Manage pooling HRs of OS and EFS at the trial level. I² was used to demonstrate the heterogeneity of inclusions. Publication bias was summarized and illustrated through funnel plots. All analyses were on two sides with a setting statistical significance as p < 0.05.

Results

Eight RCTs of 2,837 patients were analyzed at the trial level. The I² for OS was 21% and 51% for EFS, and a fixed-effect model was used. The pooled HR of OS was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.75–0.92, p < 0.001), and that of EFS was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71–0.86, p < 0.001). The regression correlation coefficient between EFS and OS was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.41–1.11, p = 0.002), and the coefficient of determination R² = 0.826.

Conclusions

A strong correlation was observed between OS and EFS at the trial level. EFS could be a surrogate endpoint for neoadjuvant RCTs of GC and GEJ adenocarcinoma. Further studies and evidence from individual data are expected.

Progression-Free Survival as Early Efficacy Endpoint in Resectable Esophageal Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review

To investigate literature-based evidence regarding progression-free survival (PFS) as an early efficacy endpoint in patients with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy, this study identified large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with strict quality control. Twenty-four RCTs involving 7,514 patients were included. Trial-level correlation analysis was conducted to analyze the relationship between PFS hazard ratio (HR) and overall survival (OS) HR, Δ median PFS and Δ median OS. Correlation analysis at the neoadjuvant treatment arm level was performed between 1- to 5-year PFS and 5-year OS, median PFS and median OS. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients treated with standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The correlation was evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient r in weighted linear regression, with weight equal to patient size. In trial-level correlation, PFS were strongly associated with OS HR (r, 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.97]) and Δ median survival (r, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.54-0.96]). In neoadjuvant treatment arms, there was a strong correlation between 1 to 5-year PFS rates and 5-year OS (r, 0.83-0.95), and median PFS and median OS (r, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]). NCRT subgroup analysis demonstrated acceptable consistency. In conclusion, we recommend PFS as an early efficacy endpoint in resected esophageal or GEJ cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy.

Randomized Phase II Study of PET Response-Adapted Combined Modality Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Mature Results of the CALGB 80803 (Alliance) Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of early assessment of chemotherapy responsiveness by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to tailor therapy in patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

After baseline PET, patients were randomly assigned to an induction chemotherapy regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). Repeat PET was performed after induction; change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET nonresponders (< 35% decrease in SUV) crossed over to the alternative chemotherapy during chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (≥ 35% decrease in SUV) continued on the same chemotherapy during chemoradiation. Patients underwent surgery at 6 weeks postchemoradiation. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in nonresponders after switching chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-one eligible patients received Protocol treatment, of whom 225 had an evaluable repeat PET. The pCR rates for PET nonresponders after induction FOLFOX who crossed over to CP (n = 39) or after induction CP who changed to FOLFOX (n = 50) was 18.0% (95% CI, 7.5 to 33.5) and 20% (95% CI, 10 to 33.7), respectively. The pCR rate in responders who received induction FOLFOX was 40.3% (95% CI, 28.9 to 52.5) and 14.1% (95% CI, 6.6 to 25.0) in responders to CP. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, median overall survival was 48.8 months (95% CI, 33.2 months to not estimable) for PET responders and 27.4 months (95% CI, 19.4 months to not estimable) for nonresponders. For induction FOLFOX patients who were PET responders, median survival was not reached.

CONCLUSION

Early response assessment using PET imaging as a biomarker to individualize therapy for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was effective, improving pCR rates in PET nonresponders. PET responders to induction FOLFOX who continued on FOLFOX during chemoradiation achieved a promising 5-year overall survival of 53%.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy alone for oesophageal cancer: population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and chemotherapy (nCT) are used as neoadjuvant treatment for oesophageal cancer, it is unknown whether one provides a survival advantage over the other, particularly with respect to histological subtype. This study aimed to compare prognosis after nCRT and nCT in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).

METHODS

Data from the National Cancer Database (2006-2015) were used to identify patients with OAC and OSCC. Propensity score matching and Cox multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection biases.

RESULTS

The study included 11 167 patients with OAC (nCRT 9972, 89.3 per cent; nCT 1195, 10.7 per cent) and 2367 with OSCC (nCRT 2155, 91.0 per cent; nCT 212, 9.0 per cent). In the matched OAC cohort, nCRT provided higher rates of complete pathological response (35.1 versus 21.0 per cent; P < 0.001) and margin-negative resections (90.1 versus 85.9 per cent; P < 0.001). However, patients who had nCRT had similar survival to those who received nCT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.95 to 1.14). Five-year survival rates for patients who had nCRT and nCT were 36 and 37 per cent respectively (P = 0.123). For OSCC, nCRT had higher rates of complete pathological response (50.9 versus 30.4 per cent; P < 0.001) and margin-negative resections (92.8 versus 82.4 per cent; P < 0.001). A statistically significant overall survival benefit was evident for nCRT (HR 0.78, 0.62 to 0.97). Five-year survival rates for patients who had nCRT and nCT were 45.0 and 38.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Despite pathological benefits, including primary tumour response to nCRT, there was no prognostic benefit of nCRT compared with nCT for OAC suggesting that these two modalities are equally acceptable. However, for OSCC, nCRT followed by surgery appears to remain the optimal treatment approach.

Surrogate Endpoints in Oncology: Overview of Systematic Reviews and Their Use for Health Decision Making in Mexico

OBJECTIVES

The use of surrogate endpoints (SEs) for cancer drug approval in health systems is common. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluated the correlation of SEs with overall survival (OS) in cancer drugs to analyze the applications of approved cancer drugs with SEs in Mexico and to apply the validation framework proposed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).

METHODS

An overview of SRs was conducted according to Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Applications for approved cancer drugs with SEs in Mexico were analyzed. The IQWiG validation framework was applied to evaluate the SEs identified in the overview and in the applications in Mexico.

RESULTS

A total of 85 SRs that assessed 192 SEs for different types of cancer were selected. According to the IQWiG model, only 2.5% of the SEs analyzed in the overview and only one of the applications in Mexico could be used as surrogates for OS because the reliability (methodological quality) of the SRs and the strength of the correlation of SEs with OS was mostly low (92%) and low (correlation coefficient r ≤ 0.7; 50.5%), respectively. Of the total number of cancer drugs approved in Mexico, 19.4% used SEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most SEs for different types of cancer could not be used as surrogates for OS according to the IQWiG model, and their use for the approval of cancer drugs in Mexico is generally not justified.

Induction versus no induction chemotherapy before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicentre randomised phase II trial (NCCTG N0849 [Alliance])

AIM

report primary results from the first multicentre randomised trial evaluating induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy in patients with oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Notably, recent data from a single-institution randomised trial reported that induction chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours.

METHODS

In this phase 2 trial (28 centres in the U.S. NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group [Alliance]), trimodality-eligible patients (T3-4N0, TanyN+) were randomised to receive induction (docetaxel, oxaliplatin, capecitabine; Arm A) or no induction chemotherapy (Arm B) followed by oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/radiation and subsequent surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathologic complete response (pathCR). Secondary/exploratory endpoints were OS and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Of 55 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint, the pathCR rate was 28.6% (8/28) in A versus 40.7% (11/27) in B (P = .34). Given interim results indicating futility, accrual was terminated, but patients were followed. After a median follow-up of 60.4 months, a longer median OS in Arm A versus B was unexpectedly observed (3-year rates 57.1% versus 41.7%, respectively) driven by longer DFS after margin-free surgery. In posthoc analysis, induction (versus no induction) chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer OS and DFS among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours, but not among patients with poorly/undifferentiated tumours (Pinteraction = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy did not improve the primary endpoint, pathCR. However, induction chemotherapy was associated with longer median OS, particularly among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours. These findings may inform further development of curative-intent trials in this disease.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy Between Lower and Higher Radiation Doses for Carcinoma of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) plus surgery has been a standard treatment for locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer and carcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (EC/GEJ), but the optimal preoperative radiation dose is still unclear. We performed this systematic review to explore the treatment efficacy and toxicity of different radiation dose levels and find an optimal dose-fractionation strategy in EC/GEJ patients receiving nCRT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Embase and Ovid Medline were searched for articles involving cases of operable squamous and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and GEJ in which patients received nCRT up to a dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions that were published until July 2019, when the search was performed. Physical dose distributions were converted to biologically equivalent doses (BEDs), which were described in units of gray (alpha/beta). Pooled rates of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), failure patterns, and toxicities were compared between lower-dose radiation therapy (LDRT; BED ≤48.85 Gy₁₀) and higher-dose radiation therapy (HDRT; BED >48.85 Gy₁₀) for patients treated with nCRT.

RESULTS

A total of 110 studies with 7577 EC/GEJ patients receiving nCRT were included in this pooled analysis. Both the PFS and OS rates of patients receiving LDRT were significantly higher than those of patients receiving HDRT. Patients receiving LDRT had improved safety regarding treatment-related adverse events and lower distant failure rates than patients receiving HDRT. Utilization of modern radiation therapy (RT) techniques, including 3-dimensional conformal RT and intensity modulated RT, was associated with improved oncologic outcomes compared with 2-dimensional methods. Subgroup analysis showed that EC/GEJ patients receiving conventionally fractionated radiation to a dose of 40.0 to 41.4 Gy in 20-23 fractions showed improved OS compared with those receiving radiation above this dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited data, nCRT using BED ≤48.85 Gy₁₀ was suitable for locoregionally advanced, resectable EC/GEJ. A total dose of 40.0 to 41.4 Gy in 20 to 23 fractions using modern RT techniques might provide the optimal therapeutic ratio.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Operable Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines

PURPOSE

Limited guidance exists regarding the relative effectiveness of treatment options for nonmetastatic, operable patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). In this systematic review, the American Radium Society (ARS) gastrointestinal expert panel convened to develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) evaluating how neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant treatment regimens compared with each other, surgery alone, or definitive chemoradiation in terms of response to therapy, quality of life, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used to develop an extensive analysis of peer-reviewed phase 2R and phase 3 randomized controlled trials as well as meta-analyses found within the Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central, and Embase databases between 2009 to 2019. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 4 broadly representative clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi).

RESULTS

For a medically operable nonmetastatic patient with a cT3 and/or cN+ adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or GEJ (Siewert I-II), the panel most strongly recommends neoadjuvant chemoradiation. For a cT2N0M0 patient with high-risk features, the panel recommends neoadjuvant chemoradiation as usually appropriate. For patients found to have pathologically involved nodes (pN+) who did not receive any neoadjuvant therapy, the panel recommends adjuvant chemoradiation as usually appropriate. These guidelines assess the appropriateness of various dose-fractionating schemes and target volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy and/or radiation regimens for esophageal cancer are still evolving with many areas of active investigation. These guidelines are intended for the use of practitioners and patients who desire information about the management of operable esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Statistical aspects in adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials for gastrointestinal cancer in 2020: focus on time-to-event endpoints

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical-trial design, analysis, and interpretation entails the use of efficient and reliable endpoints. Statistical issues related to endpoints warrant continued attention, as they may have a substantial impact on the conduct of clinical trials and on interpretation of their results.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review concepts and discuss recent developments related to the use of time-to-event endpoints in studies on adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy for colon, pancreatic, and gastric adenocarcinomas. The definition of endpoints has varied to a considerable extent in these settings. Although these variations are relevant in interpreting results from individual trials, they probably have a small impact when considered in aggregate. In terms of surrogacy, most published reports so far have used aggregated data. A few studies based on the preferred method of a metaanalysis of individual-patient data have shown that disease-free survival (DFS) is a surrogate for overall survival in the adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer and in gastric cancer, whereas DFS with a landmark of six months is a surrogate for overall survival in the neoadjuvant therapy of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, or stomach.

SUMMARY

Testing novel agents in gastrointestinal cancer requires continued attention to statistical issues related to endpoints.

Clinical evidence for association of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy with efficacy and safety in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma (NewEC study)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment over surgery alone and that of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) over neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in resectable esophageal carcinoma remains inconclusive. This study (NewEC) used global data to comprehensively evaluate these comparisons and to provide a preferable strategy for patient subsets.

METHODS

This study included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from inception to May 2019 from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and congresses and a registry-based cohort study with patients from Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts, USA) and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangzhou, China) recruited from November 2000 and June 2017, to cross-validate the comparisons among NCRT versus NCT versus surgery. The GRADE approach was used to assessed quality of evidence in meta-analysis. Neural network machine learning propensity score-matched analysis was used to account for confounding by patient-level characteristics in the cohort study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The study was registered with PROSPERO CRD42017072242 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04027543.

FINDINGS

Of 22,070 studies assessed, there were 38 (n = 6,993 patients) eligible RCTs. Additionally, 423 out of 467 screened patients were included in the cohort study. The results from trials showed that NCT had a better OS than surgery alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·79-0·98; high quality) and was only favorable for adenocarcinoma (HR 0·83, 95% CI 0·72-0·96; moderate quality). High-quality evidence showed a significantly better OS for NCRT than surgery alone (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·66-0·82) for both adenocarcinoma (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·62-0·86) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·65-0·83). The OS benefit of NCRT over NCT was seen in the pairwise (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·62-0·99; high quality) and network (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·72-0·93; high quality) meta-analyses, with similar results before (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·40-0·91) and after (HR 0·44, 95% CI 0·25-0·77) matching in the cohort study, leading to a significantly increased 5-year OS rate in both adenocarcinoma and SCC before and after matching. The increased benefits from NCT or NCRT were not associated with the risk of 30-day or in-hospital mortality.

INTERPRETATION

NewEC Study provided high-quality evidence supporting the survival benefits of NCRT or NCT over surgery alone, with NCRT presenting the greatest benefit for resectable esophageal carcinoma.

FUNDING

National Science and Technology Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Guangzhou Science and Technology Major Program, the Medical artificial intelligence project of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, the Guangdong Science and Technology Department, the Guangdong Province Medical Scientific Research Foundation, and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital Intermural Program.

Connection and distinction of tumor regression grading systems of gastrointestinal cancer

OBJECTIVES

As the neoadjuvant therapy has been successfully introduced in the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies, the evaluation of therapeutic effectiveness is becoming increasingly important. Tumor-node-metastasis system has been widely applied. However, this system is mainly based on the location of residual tumor, but does not consider the amount of residual tumor. Tumor regression grading system, a quantitative method to assess the reaction of tumor to neoadjuvant treatment, could be used as a supplement to tumor-node-metastasis system and provide additional information on prognosis. To date, numerous gastrointestinal grading systems have been used in esophageal/esophagogastric junction carcinoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, colorectal cancer, and most of them were considered to associate with clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this review, firstly, we expounded the importance of tumor regression grading systems, and summarized the histopathological changes after neoadjuvant therapy. Secondly, we introduced some commonly used gastrointestinal systems, as well as the relationships and nuance. Finally, we discussed pivotal issues about these systems. In this part, we explained the calculation methods based on grid points and square measures, discussed several factors leading to observer bias, containing the slice number and the grading tier number, and analyzed the factors that might affect clinical significance, covering anatomical location, the selection of survival index, and the tumor type.

RESULTS

Tumor regression grade systems could be divided into two main classifications, the relative amount of fibrosis and residual tumor, and the proportion of residual tumor in the tumor bed. However, the definitions of these systems were still need to be improved.

CONCLUSIONS

The tumor regression grading system is useful in evaluating tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy, but more work is needed to refine and unify the system.

Baseline neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio holds no prognostic value for esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported that neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) can predict survival in esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, as it reflects systemic inflammation. Hence, we aimed to determine whether baseline NLR holds prognostic value for esophageal adenocarcinoma patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) followed by surgery.

METHODS

We studied the data of 139 patients that received nCT before undergoing esophagectomy with curative intent, all identified from a prospectively maintained database (1998-2016). Pretreatment hematology reports were used to calculate the baseline NLR. A receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-curve) was plotted to determine an optimal cutoff value. NLR quartiles were used to display possible differences between groups in relation to overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess the prognostic value of NLR.

RESULTS

The median OS and DFS times were 46 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 19-166) and 30 months (IQR: 13-166], respectively, for the entire cohort. The ROC-curve showed that NLR has no discriminating power for survival status (area under the curve = 0.462) and therefore no optimal cutoff value could be determined. There were no statistically significant differences in median OS times for NLR quartiles: 65 (Q1), 32 (Q2), 45 (Q3), and 46 months (Q4) (P = 0.926). Similarly, DFS showed no difference between quartile groups, with median survival times of 27 (Q1), 19 (Q2), 36 (Q3), and 20 months (Q4) (P = 0.973). Age, pN, pM, and resection margin were independent prognostic factors for both OS and DFS. On the contrary, NLR was not associated with OS or DFS in univariable and multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSION

Baseline NLR holds no prognostic value for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma patients treated with nCT in this study, in contrast to other recently published papers. This result questions the validity of NLR as a reliable prognostic indicator and its clinical usefulness in these patients.

A meta-analytic evaluation of the correlation between event-free survival and overall survival in randomized controlled trials of newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma

Background

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant treatment for malignant tumors, event-free survival (EFS) is considered the most acceptable surrogate for overall survival (OS). However, even though EFS has repeatedly been selected as a primary endpoint in RCTs of Ewing sarcoma (ES), the surrogacy of EFS for OS has not been investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between EFS and OS in RCTs of chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ES using a meta-analytic approach.

Methods

We identified seven RCTs of newly diagnosed ES through a systematic review, and a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with chemotherapy for previously untreated ES. The correlation between EFS and OS was investigated using weighted linear regression analysis and Spearman rank correlation coefficients (ρ). The strength of the correlation was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).

Results

A total of 3612 patients were randomly assigned to 17 treatment arms in the eligible RCTs. The meta-analysis revealed that the hazard ratios for OS and EFS showed significantly better results in the experimental treatment groups with increasing toxicities. The correlation between the hazard ratios for EFS and OS was good (R² = 0.747, ρ = 0.683), and the correlation tended to be more favorable in cases of localized ES (R² = 0.818, ρ = 0.929).

Conclusions

Overall, the trial-level correlation between EFS and OS was good for newly diagnosed ES and was very good in cases of localized disease. EFS may be a useful endpoint in RCTs of ES chemotherapy, and it is worth verifying using individual patient data.

The Impact of Signet Ring Cell Differentiation on Outcome in Patients with Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

Background

Little is known about the association between signet ring cell (SRC) differentiation and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to assess if SRC differentiation is associated with survival and response to nCT or nCRT in patients with EAC.

Methods

Patients who underwent nCT and nCRT followed by surgery for EAC from 2000 until 2016 were identified from two institutional prospectively maintained databases. The pretreatment biopsy report or surgical resection specimen was used to differentiate patients into an SRC or non-SRC group.

Results

Overall, 129 (19%) of 689 patients included had SRCs (nCT: n = 64; nCRT: n = 65). The SRC group had a more advanced ypT stage (p = 0.003), a higher number of positive lymph nodes in the resection specimen {median (interquartile range [IQR]) 2 [0–5] vs. 1 [0–3]; p = 0.002} and a higher rate of R1/R2 resections (19.4% vs. 12%; p = 0.026). SRC differentiation was not an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS). Following nCT, the SRC group had significantly shorter DFS (median [IQR] 12 [5–50] vs. 23 [8–164]; p = 0.013), but not OS, compared with the non-SRC group. In contrast, no differences according to SRC status for OS or DFS were found in patients who underwent nCRT.

Conclusions

SRC differentiation was not independently associated with worse OS in patients with EAC who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and surgery. However, nCRT was associated with greater tumor downstaging and better DFS.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-019-07322-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The preferred neoadjuvant treatment for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma is still matter of debate. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the different impact of neoadjuvant combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CTRT) versus chemotherapy (CT) alone.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30th June 2018. Studies comparing survival of patients who underwent CTRT or CT alone before surgery for GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. Hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) was extracted, and a random-effects model was used for pooled analysis. Median OS, 5-year OS, complete pathologic response (pCR), locoregional and distant failure rates were also calculated.

RESULTS

22 studies including 18,260 patients were considered for the final analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that combined CTRT do not significantly reduce the risk of death (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.07; P = 0.41) but has a positive impact on the risk of relapse (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.97; P = 0.01) compared to CT alone. Addition of RT to CT alone significantly increased the odds of pCR by 2.8 (95% CI 2.27-3.47; P < 0.001) and reduced the risk of locoregional failure (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.39-0.91; P = 0.01) but not the risk of distant metastases (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.11; P = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis comparing neoadjuvant CTRT with CT for adenocarcinoma of GEJ, we found no difference in terms of median OS, despite a higher pCR rate and a reduced risk of locoregional recurrences for the combined approach. Further studies, preferably large randomized clinical trials, are needed to confirm these results.