Prognostic differences in 8th edition TNM staging of esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant treatment

Development of a novel staging classification for Siewert II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Stage classification for Siewert II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has not been established.

AIM

To investigate the optimal stage classification for Siewert II AEG with NAC.

METHODS

A nomogram was established based on Cox regression model that analyzed variables associated with overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). The nomogram performance in terms of discrimination and calibration ability was evaluated using the likelihood-ratio test, Akaike information criterion, Harrell concordance index, time-receiver operating characteristic curve, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 725 patients with Siewert type II AEG who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and gastrectomy were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that sex, marital status, race, ypT stage, and ypN stage were independent prognostic factors of OS, whereas sex, race, ypT stage, and ypN stage were independent prognostic factors for DSS. These factors were incorporated into the OS and DSS nomograms. Our novel nomogram model performed better in terms of OS and DSS prediction compared to the 8^th American Joint Committee of Cancer pathological staging system for esophageal and gastric cancer. Finally, a user-friendly web application was developed for clinical use.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram established specifically for patients with Siewert type II AEG receiving NAC demonstrated good prognostic performance. Validation using external data is warranted before its widespread clinical application.

Development of a novel staging classification for Siewert II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Stage classification for Siewert II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has not been established.

AIM

To investigate the optimal stage classification for Siewert II AEG with NAC.

METHODS

A nomogram was established based on Cox regression model that analyzed variables associated with overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). The nomogram performance in terms of discrimination and calibration ability was evaluated using the likelihood-ratio test, Akaike information criterion, Harrell concordance index, time-receiver operating characteristic curve, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 725 patients with Siewert type II AEG who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and gastrectomy were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that sex, marital status, race, ypT stage, and ypN stage were independent prognostic factors of OS, whereas sex, race, ypT stage, and ypN stage were independent prognostic factors for DSS. These factors were incorporated into the OS and DSS nomograms. Our novel nomogram model performed better in terms of OS and DSS prediction compared to the 8th American Joint Committee of Cancer pathological staging system for esophageal and gastric cancer. Finally, a user-friendly web application was developed for clinical use.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram established specifically for patients with Siewert type II AEG receiving NAC demonstrated good prognostic performance. Validation using external data is warranted before its widespread clinical application.

Prognostic factors in clinicopathology of oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma: a single-centre longitudinal study of 347 cases over a 20-year period

Oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA) includes oesophageal (EA), gastro-oesophageal junctional (GEJA), and gastric (GA) adenocarcinomas. The prognostic values of clinicopathological factors in these tumours remain obscure, especially for GEJA that has been inconsistently classified and staged. We studied the prognosis of EGA patients among the three geographic groups in 347 consecutive patients with a median age of 70 years (range 47-94). All patients were male, and 97.1% were white. Based on tumour epicentre location, EGAs were sub-grouped into EA (over 2 cm above the GEJ; n=3, 18.1%), GEJA (within 2 cm above and 3 cm below the GEJ; n=231, 66.6%), and GA (over 3 cm below the GEJ; n=53, 15.3%). We found that the median overall survival (OS) was the longest in EA (62.9 months), compared to GEJA (33.4), and GA (38.1) (p<0.001). Significant risk factors for OS included tumour location (p=0.018), size (p<0.001), differentiation (p<0.001), adenocarcinoma subtype (p<0.001), and TNM stage (p<0.001). Independent risk factors for OS comprised low-grade papillary adenocarcinoma [odds ratio (OR) 0.449, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.214-0.944, p<0.05), mixed adenocarcinoma (OR 1.531, 95% CI 1.056-2.218, p<0.05), adenosquamous carcinoma (OR 2.206, 95% CI 1.087-4.475, p<0.05), N stage (OR 1.505, 95% CI 1.043-2.171, p<0.05), and M stage (OR 10.036, 95% CI 2.519-39.993, p=0.001)]. EGA was further divided into low-risk (common well-moderately differentiated tubular and low-grade papillary adenocarcinomas) and high-risk (uncommon adenocarcinoma subtypes, adenosquamous carcinoma) subgroups. In this grouping, the median OS was significantly longer in the low-risk (83 months) than in the high-risk (10 months) subgroups (p<0.001). In conclusion, the prognosis of EGA patients was significantly better in EA than in GEJA or GA and could be stratified into low and high-risk subgroups with significantly different outcomes.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma heterogeneity in clinicopathology and prognosis: A single center longitudinal study of 146 cases over a 20-year period

Recent genomic studies suggest that esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is not homogeneous and can be divided into true (tEAC) and probable (pEAC) groups. We compared clinicopathologic and prognostic features between the two groups of EAC. Based on endoscopic, radiologic, surgical, and pathologic reports, tumors with epicenters beyond 2 cm of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) were assigned to the tEAC group (N = 63), while epicenters within 2 cm of, but not crossing the GEJ, were allocated to the pEAC group (N = 83). All 146 consecutive patients were male (age: median 70 years, range: 51-88) and White-predominant (98.6 %). There was no significant difference in gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, comorbidity, and the prevalence of Barrett's esophagus, and cases diagnosed during endoscopic surveillance. However, compared to the pEAC group, the tEAC group had significantly more cases with hiatal hernia (P = 0.003); their tumors were significantly smaller in size (P = 0.007), more frequently with tubular/papillary adenocarcinoma (P = 0.001), had fewer cases with poorly cohesive carcinoma (P = 0.018), and demonstrated better prognosis in stage I disease (P = 0.012); 5-year overall survival (34.9 months) was significantly longer (versus 16.8 months in pEACs) (P = 0.043). Compared to the patients without resection, the patients treated with endoscopic or surgical resection showed significantly better outcomes, irrespective of stages. We concluded that EACs were heterogeneous with two distinct tEAC and pEAC groups in clinicopathology and prognosis; resection remained the better option for improved outcomes. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: Esophageal adenocarcinoma can be divided into true or probable groups with distinct clinicopathology and better prognosis in the former than in the latter. we showed that resection remained the better option for improved outcomes.

Nivolumab adjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer: a review based on subgroup analysis of CheckMate 577 trial

Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Approximately 50% of patients have locally advanced disease. The CROSS and NEOCRTEC5010 trials have demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment for patients with resectable disease. However, a pathological complete response is frequently not achieved, and most patients have a poor prognosis. The CheckMate 577 trial demonstrates that nivolumab adjuvant therapy improves disease-free survival in patents without a pathological complete response. However, there are still numerous clinical questions of concern that remain controversial based on the results of the subgroup analysis. In this review, we aim to offer constructive suggestions addressing the clinical concerns raised in the CheckMate 577 trial.

Applying post-neoadjuvant pathologic stage as prognostic tool in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

It is still uncertain whether the newly released eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) post-neoadjuvant pathologic (yp) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage for esophageal carcinoma can perform well regarding patient stratification. The current study aimed to assess the prognostication ability of the eighth AJCC ypTNM staging system and attempted to explore how to facilitate the staging system for more effective evaluation of prognosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 486 patients treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (nRT/CRT) were enrolled. ypN stage was reclassified by recursive partitioning. Prognostic performance, monotonicity, homogeneity, and discriminatory of yp and modified yp (myp) staging systems were assessed by time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC), linear trend log-rank test, likelihood ratio χ2 test, Harrell's c statistic, and Akaike information criterion (AIC).

RESULTS

The ypT stage, ypN stage, and pathologic response were significant prognostic factors of overall survival. Survival was not discriminated well using the eighth AJCC ypN stage and ypTNM stage. Recursive partitioning reclassified mypN0-N2 as metastasis in 0, 1-2, and ≥3 regional lymph nodes. Applying the ypT stage, mypN stage, and pathologic response to construct the myp staging system, the myp stage performed better in time-dependent ROC, linear trend log-rank test, likelihood ratio χ2 test, Harrell's c statistic, and AIC.

CONCLUSIONS

The eighth AJCC ypTNM staging system performed well in differentiating prognosis to some extent. By reclassifying the ypN stage and enrolling pathologic response as a staging element, the myp staging system holds significant potential for prognostic discrimination.

Nomograms for Predicting Disease-Free Survival in Patients With Siewert Type II/III Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction Receiving Neoadjuvant Therapy and Radical Surgery

Objective

This study aimed to develop prognostic prediction models for patients with Siewert type II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) who received neoadjuvant therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy) and radical surgery. A baseline nomogram and a post-operative nomogram were constructed before neoadjuvant therapy and after surgery. The predictive performance of the constructed nomograms was internally validated and compared to the TNM staging system.

Materials and Methods

A total of 245 patients diagnosed with Siewert type II/III AEG and treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical surgery at The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University between January 2011 and December 2017 were enrolled. The variables before neoadjuvant therapy were defined as baseline factors, while the variables of baseline factors along with the variables of treatment and postoperative pathology were defined as post-operative factors. To construct the corresponding nomograms, independent predictors of baseline and post-operative factors were identified. The C-index and a time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve were used to evaluate the model’s discrimination ability. The calibration ability of the model was determined by comparing the probability of predicted free-recurrence to the actual free-recurrence. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to determine the clinical usefulness of the nomogram.

Results

Among the baseline factors, age, cT stage, cN stage, Borrmann type, and staging laparoscopy were independent prognostic predictors. In contrast, among the post-operative factors, age, cN stage, staging laparoscopy, ypT stage, clinical response, number of positive lymph nodes, number of negative lymph nodes, laurén classification, and lymphatic, or perineural invasion (VELPI) were independent prognostic predictors. The two nomograms were constructed using the independent predictors of prognosis. The C-indexes for the baseline and post-operative nomograms were 0.690 (95% CI, 0.644-0.736) and 0.817 (95% CI, 0.782-0.853), respectively. The AUCs of the baseline nomogram at 3 and 5 years were both greater than cTNM (73.1 vs 58.8, 76.1 vs 55.7). Similarly, the AUCs of the post-operative nomogram were both greater than ypTNM (85.2 vs 69.1, 88.2 vs 71.3) at 3 and 5 years. The calibration curves indicated that both models had a high degree of calibration ability. By comparing the DCA at 3 and 5 years, we determined that the two nomograms constructed had better clinical utility than the TNM staging system.

Conclusions

The constructed nomograms have a more accurate predictive ability than the eighth edition TNM staging system, which can be useful for treatment selection and follow-up monitoring of patients.

Adjuvant Nivolumab in Resected Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer

BACKGROUND

No adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk for recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

METHODS

We conducted CheckMate 577, a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial to evaluate a checkpoint inhibitor as adjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Adults with resected (R0) stage II or III esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or matching placebo. The maximum duration of the trial intervention period was 1 year. The primary end point was disease-free survival.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 24.4 months. Among the 532 patients who received nivolumab, the median disease-free survival was 22.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.6 to 34.0), as compared with 11.0 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 14.3) among the 262 patients who received placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% CI, 0.56 to 0.86; P<0.001). Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple prespecified subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were considered by the investigators to be related to the active drug or placebo occurred in 71 of 532 patients (13%) in the nivolumab group and 15 of 260 patients (6%) in the placebo group. The trial regimen was discontinued because of adverse events related to the active drug or placebo in 9% of the patients in the nivolumab group and 3% of those in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, disease-free survival was significantly longer among those who received nivolumab adjuvant therapy than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 577 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02743494.).

Does Pathological Stage and Nodal Involvement Influence Long Term Oncological Outcomes after CROSS Regimen for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction? A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

Simple Summary

Chemoradiotherapy according to CROSS regimen is the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer. The studies conducted on this topic have demonstrated the benefits of this type of treatment particularly for squamocellular cancers. Its application for adenocarcinoma has evidenced different results and few studies have investigated its role for adenocarcinomas of esophagogastric junction. Our intent is to evaluate the relation between pathological (yp) stage after CROSS regimen followed by surgery for adenocarcinoma of cardia and overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in a retrospectively analyzed group of patients. Sites of relapse after surgery were also analyzed. Our results evidenced no differences in term of OS and DFS according to different pathological response after chemoradiotherapy and surgery. Further analyses could be performed to identify the histological and molecular characteristics of these tumors and predict the efficacy of systemic therapy identifying patients who can most benefit from this type of treatment.

Abstract

Background:After the results reported by the “Chemoradiotherapy for esophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study” (CROSS) trial, neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy became the standard treatment for locally advanced cancers of esophagus and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Excellent results were reported for squamocellular carcinomas (SCCs). Since the advent of the CROSS regimen, the results of surgery for esophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC) have cast some doubts about its efficacy on overall survival (OS) even in the presence of local response. This study evaluated the relation between pathological (yp) stage after CROSS regimen followed by surgery for adenocarcinoma of cardia and overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Sites of relapse after surgery were also analyzed. Methods: Patients submitted to the CROSS regimen for locally advanced EAC of the cardia followed by transthoracic esophagectomy were analyzed. Actuarial OS and DFS were analyzed and stratified according to yp stage. The site of relapse, distal and local, was also analyzed. Results: The study included 132 patients. The 50-month OS and DFS were 45% and 6.7%, respectively. No differences emerged analyzing OS according to yp stage. Time to relapse was significantly longer for yp Stage I and II, and for yp N0, compared with yp N+. Recurrence occurred in 48 cases (36.3%) with a 9 months median time to relapse. Local and distal relapse were 10 (7.5%) and 38 (28.7%) cases, respectively (p ≦ 0.001). Conclusions: Pathological stage after CROSS regimen does not relate to OS and DFS. Time to recurrence is significantly longer for yp Stages I and II and ypN0. Chemoradiotherapy in a neoadjuvant setting may influence the site of relapse, significantly reducing local recurrences.

Characteristics and Prognostic Factors of Metachronous Second Primary Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with metachronous malignancies before carcinomas of the upper gastrointestinal tract were analyzed regarding clinical parameters, oncological outcome, and prognosis.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of 1583 patients with gastroesophageal cancer who underwent oncological resections between 2002 and 2018. Of 1583 patients, 172 had a malignant tumor before the upper gastrointestinal cancer (second primary carcinomas) and 1411 without preceding malignancies served as the control group. The analyses were performed between both groups and within the subgroup of second primary carcinomas.

RESULTS

Patients with second primary carcinomas were older (P < 0.0001), had more comorbidities (P < 0.0001), and underwent longer surgical resections (P = 0.0024). They had lower (y)pT-categories (P = 0.0427) and had longer stays in intensive care unit (P = 0.0002) and hospital (P = 0.0018). R0-resection was more frequent (P = 0.0275) while having more surgical complications (P = 0.0378). The median survival was 39.5 mo (primary carcinoma) versus 32.9 mo for (second primary carcinoma) and was not significantly different (P = 0.5359).In the subgroup analysis of second primaries, there were no significant survival differences depending on primary tumor entity (P = 0.4989). pT status (P = 0.0062), pN status (P < 0.0001), pM status (P < 0.0001), and R-status (P < 0.0001) were significant prognostic factors. A time period >9 y after the primary cancer could be identified as a novel and beneficial survival factor (P = 0.0496). Most patients with primary colorectal, prostate, hematogenous, or breast cancer had adenocarcinoma, whereas patients with initial otolaryngologic cancers mainly had squamous cell carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Second primary carcinomas of the upper gastrointestinal tract show distinct clinical and oncological characteristics. Common prognostic factors are applicable, and oncologic resection is recommended.

Distribution of lymph node metastases in locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (cT2-4): comparison between Siewert type I and selected Siewert type II tumors

INTRODUCTION

The distribution of lymph node metastases in locally advanced Siewert type I and type II AEG (adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction) remains unclear. The diversity of data in the literature reflects the non-uniformity of tumor stages and surgical procedures in previous studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on a retrospective analysis from our single-center database, we examined distributions of lymph node metastases in types I and II cT2-4 AEG. The dataset comprised 44 patients; 19 and 25 patients had type I and type II, respectively. All patients underwent subtotal esophagectomy and total mediastinal lymphadenectomy, which included dissection of the upper mediastinal lymph nodes. The histological data of the surgical specimens were analyzed to evaluate metastasis rates in each lymph node station according to the Japanese Esophageal Society (JES) and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines.

RESULTS

Lymph node metastases were observed in 75.0% cases (n = 33/44). There was no significant difference in the total lymph node metastasis rate between the two groups (type I 73.7% versus type II 76.0%). On comparing each lymph node region separately, no statistically significant differences were noted between the groups: upper mediastinal (type I 31.6% versus type II 24.0%), middle and lower mediastinal (type I 31.6% versus type II 44.0%), paragastric (type I 61.1% versus type II 76.0%), and celiac lymph nodes (type I 16.7% versus type II 25.0%).

CONCLUSION

In advanced clinical stages, the metastasis rate is high at all mediastinal lymph node regions in both type I and type II AEGs.

Evaluating the eighth edition TNM staging system for esophageal cancer among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy: A SEER study

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of the eighth edition of ypTNM staging system for patients with esophageal cancer was limited in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

A total of 2324 patients with esophageal cancer receiving radio(chemo)therapy prior to surgery from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2004 and 2013 were eligible for the analysis. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate overall survivals.

RESULTS

Among patients with preoperative therapy, both the seventh edition TNM grouping and the eighth edition ypTNM grouping could significantly stratify the overall survival (both log-rank P < .001). There was not significant difference in the C-index of the seventh edition TNM grouping (0.575; 95%CI, 0.558-0.593) and the eighth edition ypTNM grouping (0.569; 95%CI, 0.551-0.587) (P = .098). In multivariable Cox analysis, ypN category was the strongest predictor of overall survival (P < .001), followed by tumor grade (HR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.12-1.56; P = .001). The combination of ypT, ypN, and ypG categories yielded significantly higher C-index (0.591; 95%CI, 0.573-0.609) than that of the seventh edition TNM staging (P = .024).

CONCLUSION

Tumor grade remained an independent predictor of overall survival in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy, and could improve the performance of ypTNM staging system.

Comparison of the 8th UICC staging system for esophageal and gastric cancers in Siewert type II junctional adenocarcinomas

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate whether adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) are better staged as cancers of the esophagus (TNM-EC) or stomach (TNM-GC) according to the 8th edition of the UICC classification.

METHODS

A single-center cohort of 246 patients operated on for AEG type II was staged according to the 8th edition of the UICC classification for esophageal and stomach cancer. Kaplan-Meier and univariate Cox regression analyses were performed to investigate the impact on survival.

RESULTS

For AEG type II TNM-EC classified most of the patients (n = 126; 51.2%) to UICC stage IIIC and IVA while TNM-GC more evenly distributed the patients over the stages. Hazard ratios increased in between all stages in a stepwise manner except between stage IA and IIA for TNM-EC and between stage IIB and IIIA for TNM-GC. Survival curves for TNM-GC demonstrated significant differences between all four major UICC stages, while in TNM-EC no significant difference between stage I and II was found. When comparing the area under the curves of both staging systems a marginal superiority for TNM-EC was found.

CONCLUSION

Neither the esophageal nor the stomach staging system is flawless in predicting survival in AEG type II. A marginal superiority of the TNM-EC was found in discriminating survival rates after three and five years. However, the advantage of the TNM-GC lies in the division of the N3 category into N3a and N3b. We therefor suggest a similar division in future TNM-EC classifications to improve its prognostic value.