Quality of Life in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Health-related quality of life assessment among patients with oesophageal cancer at Tikur Anbessa Specialised Tertiary Hospital in Ethiopia: a cross sectional study

Background

In low-income countries, oesophageal cancer often presents at an advanced stage, leaving patients with limited curative treatment options. Furthermore, palliative treatments such as oesophageal stents or brachytherapy are lacking. This has a detrimental effect on their quality of life. In this study, we investigated the health-related quality of life of patients with oesophageal cancer at a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at Tikur Anbessa Specialised Tertiary Hospital in Ethiopia. The validated Amharic version of the questionnaire of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ C-30) and the oesophageal cancer disease-specific questionnaire QLQ-OES18 were used to assess the quality of life of each patient.

Results

The overall mean score for the EORTC QLQ C-30 was 35.43 (SD 18.04). The mean scores for the functional scales revealed that cognitive function was the highest, whereas role function was the lowest. The symptom scale results showed the highest score for pain and the lowest for diarrhoea. Dysphagia, choking, role functioning and financial difficulty correlated with the quality of life of patients with oesophageal cancer.

Conclusion

Dysphagia, choking, role functioning and financial difficulty are important factors that affect the quality of life of patients with oesophageal cancer patients. Increasing the availability of palliative treatments for dysphagia to improve the quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer is recommended.

Recovery of Patient-reported Quality of Life After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is an important, but potentially morbid, operation used to treat benign and malignant conditions that may significantly impact patient quality of life (QOL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are measures of QOL that come directly from patient self-report. This study characterizes patterns of change and recovery in PROs in the first year after esophagectomy.

METHODS

Longitudinal QOL scores measuring physical function, pain, and dyspnea were obtained from esophagectomy patients during all clinic visits. PRO scores were obtained using the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System from April 2018 to February 2021. Mean PRO scores over 100 days after surgery were compared with baseline PRO scores using mixed-effects modeling with compound symmetry correlational structure.

RESULTS

One hundred three patients with PRO results were identified. Reasons for esophagectomy were malignancy (87.4%), achalasia (5.8%), stricture (5.8%), and dysplasia (1.0%). When comparing mean PRO scores at visits ≤ 50 days after surgery with preoperative PRO scores, physical function scores declined by 27.3% (P < .001), whereas dyspnea severity and pain interference scores had increased by 24.5% (P < .001) and 17.1% (P < .001), respectively. Although recovery occurred over the course of the 100 days after surgery, mean physical function scores and dyspnea scores were still 12.7% (P = .02) and 26.4% (P = .001) worse, respectively, than mean preoperative levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite declines in QOL scores immediately after esophagectomy, recovery back toward baseline was observed during the first 100 days. These findings are of considerable importance when counseling patients regarding esophagectomy, tracking recovery, and implementing quality improvement initiatives. Further long-term follow-up is needed to determine recovery beyond 100 days.

Symptom clusters and impact on quality of life in esophageal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer patients can experience co-occurring, related symptoms labeled symptom clusters. This study aimed to identify symptom clusters and explore which SCs independently affect the quality of life (QoL) among esophageal cancer patients.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was performed in Shenyang, China, from February 2021 to February 2022. Finally, 118 esophageal cancer patients effectively completed the survey. Questionnaires' information included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Gastrointestinal Cancer Module (MDASI-GI), the Multidimensions Scale of Perceived Social Support, and demographic and clinical characteristics. Exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring was used to identify symptom clusters, and multiple regression analysis was employed to analyze the influencing factors of QoL.

RESULTS

The mean score of FACT-G was 69.88 (SD = 17.85) among 118 esophageal cancer patients. Four symptom clusters were identified: psychological-somatic, dysphagia, fatigue-pain, and gastrointestinal symptom clusters. Results of regression analysis indicated a significant impact on QoL for chemotherapy (β = 0.140, P < 0.045), psychological-somatic symptom cluster (β = - 0.329, P = 0.013), and social support (β = 0.409, P < 0.001) after adjusting demographic and clinical characteristics. The linear combination explained 47.8% of the variance in QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical need to emphasize the importance of psychological-somatic symptoms clusters management programs and increasing social support to improve QoL in esophageal cancer patients.

Trajectories of Health-Related Quality of Life, Health Literacy, and Self-Efficacy in Curatively-Treated Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Longitudinal Single-Center Study in Italy

This prospective longitudinal study aimed to describe the trajectories of HRQoL, health literacy, and self-efficacy in patients with esophageal cancer, which have been thus far poorly described. Data were collected at baseline (preoperative phase) and in the postoperative period (two weeks, and one, two, and three months after esophagectomy). The study hypothesis was that health literacy and self-efficacy might predict better health status and quality of life over time. Forty-five patients were enrolled between 2018 and 2019. HRQoL, health literacy, and self-efficacy were assessed using validated scales. The ability to analyze information to exert greater control over life events critically (critical health literacy) (η²p = 0.660) and the individual's confidence in dealing with challenging tasks (self-efficacy) (η²p = 0.501) strongly predicted the scores of general health status over time. Overall, the functional status improved at 3 months after surgery, and this trend paralleled the decline of cancer-specific and surgery-related symptoms. In conclusion, researchers and clinicians should pay greater attention to optimizing baseline health literacy and self-efficacy levels. Future educational and motivational interventions should be further tested and possibly integrated into the prehabilitation programs.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions.

METHODS

This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

Short-course compared to long-course palliative radiotherapy for oesophageal cancer: a single centre observational cohort study

Background

Common symptoms of oesophageal cancer are dysphagia, pain, and bleeding. These symptoms can be relieved with palliative radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of two different palliative radiotherapy schedules.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study on palliative radiotherapy for oesophageal cancer given at Karolinska University Hospital. Patients included were treated with either short-course (20 Gy in 4 Gy fractions daily, 5 consecutive workdays) or long-course (30–39 Gy in 3 Gy fractions, 10–13 consecutive workdays) palliative external beam radiotherapy between January 2009 and December 2013. The primary endpoint was dysphagia relief and secondary endpoints were adverse events, re-interventions, and overall survival. Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the effect of treatment schedule on survival.

Results

A total of 128 patients received external beam radiotherapy under the study period, of these 75 (58.6%) received short-course radiotherapy and 53 (41.4%) long-course radiotherapy. Sixteen (30.8%) patients experienced dysphagia relief after short-course radiotherapy and 9 (22.0%) patients after long-course radiotherapy (p = 0.341). Acute toxicity was less frequent after short-course radiotherapy than after long-course radiotherapy, particularly oesophagitis (35.4% vs. 56.0%, p = 0.027) and nausea/emesis (18.5% vs. 36.0% p = 0.034). Re-interventions tended to be more common after short-course radiotherapy (32.0%) than after long-course radiotherapy (18.9%) (p = 0.098). There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups.

Conclusions

Short- and long-course palliative radiotherapy for oesophageal cancer were equally effective to relieve dysphagia and no difference was seen in overall survival. Acute toxicity was, however, more frequent and more severe after long-course radiotherapy. Our results suggest that short-course radiotherapy is better tolerated with equal palliative effects as long-course radiotherapy.

Long-Term Quality of Life Following Endoscopic Therapy Compared to Esophagectomy for Neoplastic Barrett's Esophagus

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic therapy (ET) and esophagectomy result in similar survival for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but the long-term quality of life (QOL) has not been compared.

AIMS

We aimed to compare long-term QOL between patients who had undergone ET versus esophagectomy.

METHODS

Patients were included if they underwent ET or esophagectomy at the University of Michigan since 2000 for the treatment of HGD or T1a EAC. Two validated survey QOL questionnaires were mailed to the patients. We compared QOL between and within groups (ET = 91, esophagectomy = 62), adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

The median time since initial intervention was 6.8 years. Compared to esophagectomy, ET patients tended to be older, had a lower prevalence of EAC, and had a shorter duration since therapy. ET patients had worse adjusted physical and role functioning than esophagectomy patients. However, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of having symptoms was significantly less with ET for diarrhea (0.287; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.114, 0.724), trouble eating (0.207; 0.0766, 0.562), choking (0.325; 0.119, 0.888), coughing (0.291; 0.114, 0.746), and speech difficulty (0.306; 0.0959, 0.978). Amongst the ET patients, we found that the number of therapy sessions and need for dilation were associated with worse outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Multiple measures of symptom status were better with ET compared to esophagectomy following treatment of BE with HGD or T1a EAC. We observed worse long-term physical and role functioning in ET patients which could reflect unmeasured baseline functional status rather than a causal effect of ET.

The modern approach to esophageal palliative and emergency surgery

Thoracic surgeons currently have multiple options and strategies to guide treatment in esophageal palliative and emergency conditions. To guide the selection of an individualized palliative approach, physicians, including thoracic surgeons, must take into consideration many factors including prognosis, performance status and comorbidities of patients. For dysphagia more specifically, esophageal stent placement is the most widely used intervention for rapidly relieving dysphagia in inoperable esophageal cancer patients. The combination of esophageal stent placement with other therapies has an impact on palliative care. Innovations including radioactive stents, drug-eluding stents and biodegradable stents will require further evaluation and validation studies. Currently, patients with inoperable esophageal cancer have access to oncological and biological therapies that are improving their prognosis. A shift toward restaging and potential curative intent is occurring in current clinical practice. In acute intrathoracic esophageal perforation cases, high index of suspicion, multidisciplinary team expertise, antibiotics and hybrid treatment strategies, have significantly improved outcomes of patients in recent years. Hybrid treatment strategies denote the combination of minimally invasive interventions for source control and endoluminal procedures to seal the esophageal perforation. Endoluminal procedures as treatment of acute intrathoracic esophageal perforation include stent placement, over-the-scope clip and endoluminal vacuum therapy. Future perspective in the management of esophageal perforation seems to be the combination of endoluminal therapies tailored to the specific clinical scenario. Thoracic surgeons benefit from mastering endoluminal therapies and advanced endoscopic techniques. An understanding of these rapidly evolving therapies, i.e., outcomes, limitations and innovations, is required to optimally manage esophageal palliative and emergency conditions.

Choosing the right survey-patient reported outcomes in esophageal surgery

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) fulfill a crucial and unique niche in patient management, providing health-care providers a glimpse into their patients’ health experience. This is of utmost importance in patients with benign and malignant disorders of esophagus requiring surgery, which carries significant morbidity, in part due to a high burden of symptoms affecting health-related quality of life (HRQOL). There are a variety of generic and disease-specific patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) available for use in esophageal surgery. This article provides a broad overview of commonly used HRQOL instruments in esophageal surgery, including their utility in comparative effectiveness research, prognostication and shared decision-making for patients undergoing surgery for benign and malignant disorders of the esophagus.

Does it matter how we evaluate HRQOL? Longitudinal comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30/QLQ-OG25 and FACT-E

PURPOSE

To determine whether EORTC QLQ-C30/QLQ-OG25 and FACT-E compared longitudinally provide similar reflections of health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

Eighty-six esophageal cancer patients treated with curative intent, scheduled to complete both questionnaires at baseline and post-treatment time points until 36 months. A generalized estimating equation model utilizing a Gaussian family compared instruments longitudinally. The two-one-sided-test (TOST) method assessed equivalence between the instruments.

RESULTS

Trajectories for social domain and overall quality of life differed significantly between instruments. Also, FACT-G's functional well-being post-treatment returns to baseline 3-6 months earlier than the EORTC QLQ-C30's role functioning subscale, suggesting measurement of different components. Trajectories for physical and esophageal symptom subscales are similar and are deemed equivalent. Emotional domains are comparable and bear little resemblance to the physical domain trajectories indicating reflection of emotional experience rather than a physical proxy. EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales have a trajectory similar to its physical functioning scale except for the emotional and esophageal symptoms scales. Overall HRQOL in both instruments showed a consistent return to baseline/pre-treatment levels by 6 months post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall HRQOL recovers earlier after curative-intent treatment than previously reported despite persistence of physical symptoms, with a consistent return to pre-treatment levels by 6 months after treatment. This supports the concept that HRQOL is not primarily defined by physical function. Based on this longitudinal comparison, FACT-E provides a more multidimensional assessment of HRQOL.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Curative intent treatment for esophageal cancer has adverse effects on HRQOL but despite intense treatment, overall HRQOL recovers within 6 months.

Palliative Radiotherapy Versus Esophageal Stent Placement in the Management of Patients With Metastatic Esophageal Cancer

Background:Patients with advanced esophageal cancer often experience pain and dysphagia, yet the optimal palliative management remains unclear. This retrospective study evaluated outcomes and adverse effects of palliative radiotherapy (RT) compared with esophageal stenting among a cohort of U.S. veterans with metastatic esophageal cancer.Patients and Methods:We identified 1,957 veterans in the United States with metastatic esophageal cancer who received palliative RT to the esophagus or esophageal stenting, and assessed the risks of severe adverse effects, including esophageal fistula formation, perforation, obstruction, hemorrhage, and esophagitis. We determined palliative efficacy by evaluating pain and dysphagia scores before and after intervention. Multivariable analyses were used to control for potential confounding factors.Results:In our cohort, 1,593 patients underwent RT and 364 underwent esophageal stenting. The cumulative incidence of any severe adverse effect at 6 months was higher among patients who received stents compared with those who received RT (21.7% vs 12.4%;P<.0010). In multivariable analysis, patients who received stents had an increased risk of any severe adverse effect, including fistula, perforation, and hemorrhage (allP<.0500). Multivariable analysis also showed that, compared with stenting, RT was associated with more rapid and durable pain relief (P<.0010) with no difference in relief of dysphagia over time when accounting for pretreatment dysphagia scores (P=.1029).Conclusions:Compared with esophageal stenting, RT was associated with a decreased risk of adverse effects, greater pain relief, and equivalent relief of moderate to severe dysphagia over time. Unmeasured patient- or tumor-related factors could have influenced the choice of intervention, thereby impacting our study outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date analyzing the comparative risks and benefits of palliative RT and esophageal stenting among patients with metastatic esophageal cancer.

Short-Course 2-Dimensional Radiation Therapy in the Palliative Treatment of Esophageal Cancer in a Developing Country: A Phase II Study (Sharon Project)

PURPOSE

Patients with locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer are usually affected by cancer-related symptoms, which worsen their performance status and quality of life. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of short-course accelerated radiation therapy for symptomatic palliation in a low resourced setting where only a 2-dimensional radiation therapy (RT) technique was available.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A phase II trial based on Simon's 2-stage design was planned. A total dose of 12 Gy in 4 fractions, twice per day, over 2 days, ≥8 hours apart, using a 2-dimensional conventional RT technique was delivered with a Cobalt 60 unit (Equinox, Best Theratronics, Ottawa, Ontario). Symptoms were graded using the International Atomic Energy Agency scoring system.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients were treated (male/female = 10/7; median age, 50.0 years; range, 27-78 years; histology: 6 adenocarcinomas and 11 squamous cell carcinomas; tumor site: 4 gastresophageal junction and 13 esophagus). The most frequent baseline symptoms were dysphagia or regurgitation (100%), odynophagia (76%), and chest or back pain (53%). At 1 month after RT, all patients were alive with palliative response rates (complete plus partial) for dysphagia, regurgitation, odynophagia, and chest or back pain of 76%, 82%, 69%, and 56%, respectively. No patients presented acute ≥G3 toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-course accelerated radiation therapy treatment, planned and delivered using a conventional 2-dimensional RT technique, was effective and well tolerated for the symptomatic palliation of locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer. This schedule may be useful for RT centers in developing countries to reduce treatment times, costs, and patient waiting times before treatment.

A rare rarity: Neuroendocrine tumor of the esophagus

Esophageal Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, aggressive and lacking specific symptoms. This causes a diagnostic delay, worsening the prognosis. Numerous cases are reported in literature, without a consensus on the management. Our aim was to clarify epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic, therapeutic management of esophageal NETs. Extensive literature search identified a total of 226 articles. One hundred twenty-five articles (n = 1676) met the inclusion criteria, showing that: the incidence of esophageal NET varies geographically; men (60-70 years) are more affected; smoking and alcohol abuse are the major risk factors; dysphagia, weight loss, appetite loss are the most common clinical features. The histotypes include high-grade small and large cell esophageal carcinomas and low-grade carcinoid tumors. Mixed neuroendocrine/non-neuroendocrine neoplasms are the most common. Often the diagnosis occurs randomly on endoscopic examination. Circulating markers, functional combined with conventional imaging contributes to the diagnosis and management. Treatment depends on type, grade and stage of the tumor.

Insights in work rehabilitation after minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Little is known about work rehabilitation after totally minimally invasive esophagectomy. The goal of this study was to further objectify the postoperative work rehabilitation. Not only duration of sick leave, but also the extent of return to work will be assessed.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study was conveyed between January 2009 and April 2014. Eighty-six preoperatively employed patients were included. Data regarding patients' preoperative occupation, actual job status, and postoperative duration until return to work were retrieved. Potential prognostic factors for work rehabilitation were analyzed. Complaints that could impede rehabilitation were questioned (based on EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18). Work activity, defined as either partially or fully resumed professional activity as compared to the preoperative status, was measured at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

At 6-month follow-up, 40.2% of patients reached partial and 14.6% had full professional recovery and after 12 months 28.2% and 40.8%, respectively. After 18 months, a stagnation was seen (19.0% partial; 43.1% full recovery). Median follow-up was 18 months (IQR 12-18). Self-employment was a significant predictor for full professional recovery (p = 0.005, OR 2.45 95% CI 1.32-4.56). The median time to full professional recovery was shorter for this group. The most common complaint among all patients was fatigue. This complaint did not significantly differ between working (fully and partially) and non-working groups (p = 0.727).

CONCLUSIONS

Only approximately 40% of patients reached full professional recovery 1 year after totally minimally invasive esophagectomy. Barely any progression toward return to work was seen after 1 year postoperatively. Roughly 30% of patients never returned to work. Self-employed workers had a higher percentage of restoration to full professional activity, as well as shorter duration to return. These findings highlight the importance of adequate counseling of patients in order to prepare them for the impact of this procedure on professional activities.

Suicide rates among patients with cancers of the digestive system

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have suggested that suicide rates are elevated among cancer patients relative to the general population. In this analysis, we comprehensively evaluated characteristics associated with higher suicide rates among patients with cancers of the digestive system.

METHODS

Using the United States Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we identified all patients diagnosed with digestive system cancers during 2000 to 2014. Patients were classified as having died of suicide if their cause of death in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results was listed as "suicide and self-inflicted injury." Suicide rates were compared to age-, sex-, and race-adjusted rates in the general population.

RESULTS

A total of 881 suicides were identified among 856 293 patients diagnosed with digestive system cancers. The suicide rate in this population was 32.8 per 100 000 person-years and was nearly twice that in the general population (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.79-2.04). Suicide rates were significantly elevated for all cancer sites but were highest for esophageal (SMR = 5.03), pancreatic (SMR = 5.28), stomach (SMR = 2.84), and liver (SMR = 2.14) cancers. Standardized mortality ratios for suicide were highest within the first 5 years of diagnosis and increased with age at diagnosis for all sites except colon and stomach.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancers of the digestive system have a higher incidence of suicide than the general population. Suicide rates among esophageal and pancreatic cancer patients are more than 5 times general population rates. The involvement of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals may be a critical component of cancer care for these high-risk patient subgroups.

Health-related quality of life measure distinguishes between low and high clinical T stages in esophageal cancer

Background

Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophagus (FACT-E) is a health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instrument validated in patients with esophageal cancer. It is made up of both a general component and an esophageal cancer subscale (ECS). Our objective was to explore the relationship between baseline FACT-E, ECS and clinically determined T-stage in patients with stage II-IV cancer of the gastroesophageal junction or thoracic esophagus.

Methods

Data from four prospective studies in Canadian academic hospitals were combined. These were consecutive and eligible patients treated between 1996 and 2014 with clinical stage II-IV cancer of the gastroesophageal junction or thoracic esophagus. All patients completed pre-treatment FACT-E. Parametric (ANOVA) and non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis) analyses were performed.

Results

Of the 135 patients that were deemed eligible, the T-stage distribution determined clinically was: 10 (7.4%) T1, 33 (24.4%) T2, 79 (58.5%) T3 and 13 (9.6%) T4. Parametric analysis showed no significant association between FACT-E & T-stage, although there was a trend towards significance (P=0.08). Non-parametric analysis showed a significant association between FACT-E and T-stage (P=0.05). Post-hoc tests identified that the most significant differences in FACT-E scores were between T1 and T3 patients. Both parametric (P=0.002) and non-parametric (P=0.003) analyses showed an association between ECS & T-stage. Post-hoc analyses showed significant differences in ECS scores between T1 and higher T-stages (P<0.01).

Conclusions

Patient-reported HRQOL scores appear to be significantly different in patients with clinical T1 esophageal cancer as compared to those with higher clinical T stages. Since distinguishing T1 from T2/T3 lesions is important in guiding the most appropriate treatment modality and since EUS appears to have difficulties reliably making such T-stage distinctions, FACT-E and ECS scores may be helpful as an adjunct to guide decision-making.

Surveillance versus esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after induction chemoradiation

There currently exists an area of controversy in treatment of esophageal cancer for patients who have an apparent clinical complete response (cCR) after induction chemoradiation. A standard treatment is to offer these patients an esophagectomy, but increasingly there is interest from both the patient and provider for active surveillance with so-called "salvage" esophagectomies for local recurrence as an alternative treatment paradigm. In this article, we review the existing evidence that stakeholders should consider for clinical decision-making in this specific patient population, including: the accuracy of post-induction clinical restaging, the reliability of operative risk assessment, the feasibility and adherence to surveillance strategies, and the observed outcomes in these patients after salvage esophagectomy or continued active surveillance. We also briefly discuss quality of life and future directions for this field.

Quality of life assessment in esophagectomy patients

Esophagectomy is the mainstay of curative therapy for esophageal cancer; however, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with subsequent major impact on quality of life. This paper reviews the evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in esophageal cancer patients undergoing curative intent therapy, the relationship between postoperative HRQOL and survival as well the potential utility of pre-treatment HRQOL as a prognostic tool. HRQOL assessment is valuable in helping clinicians understand the impact on patients of esophageal cancer and the various treatments thereof. HRQOL is also valuable as an end-point in studies of esophageal cancer and esophageal cancer treatment. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with the various treatments for esophageal cancer, it could be argued that HRQOL is as important an endpoint as survival, if not more so. Patient-reported pre-treatment HRQOL assessment appears to predict survival better than clinician-derived performance status assessment period. HRQOL assessment also appears to be responsive to surgical and non-surgical therapy and thus could potentially be used in trials and in practice to serve that function. Thus, HRQOL assessment could be a potentially important adjunct in shared decision-making and guiding treatment planning as well as monitoring the progress of treatment.

Management of treatment-naïve limited-stage small cell esophagus carcinoma

Objectives:

To identify the problems and principles of treatment decisions in treatment-naïve limited-stage small cell esophagus carcinoma (LD-SCEC).

Methods:

Clinical data from 39 patients with LD-SCEC treated in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China between 2000 and 2013 were retrospectively collected with regard to pathologic characteristics, overall survival (OS), and relevant prognostic factors.

Results:

The median OS was 21.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.4-29.7 months). The one-year OS was 76%, 3-year was 25%, and the 5-year OS was 8%. Depth of invasion, lymph metastasis status, and chemotherapy were independent prognostic factors. Of the 39 cases, only 38.4% (15 cases) were diagnosed as SCEC by the biopsy specimen. Eight of the 15 patients (group A) received chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, while the remaining 7 patients (group B) and the other 24 patients (group C) received surgery as initial treatment. The one-year survival of group A was 87%, of group B was 69%, and of group C was 74% (p=0.037). The accuracy of the biopsy diagnosis influenced the treatment decisions and prognosis.

Conclusion:

Small cell esophagus carcinoma is a systemic disease, with depth of invasion, lymph metastasis status, and chemotherapy as independent prognostic factors. Systemic therapy based on chemotherapy is recommended. The top priority is to improve the accuracy of diagnosis before deciding on the initial treatment option.

Quality of life for patients with esophageal/gastric cardia precursor lesions or cancer: a one-year prospective study

BACKGROUND

The current study examined health-related quality of life (QoL) for patients with esophageal/ gastric cardia precursor lesions or cancer before and after treatment to facilitate improved prevention and treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with different stages of esophageal/gastric cardia lesions completed two QoL questionnaires, EORTC QLQ-C30 and supplemental QLQ-OES 18, before primary treatment, and at 1, 6 and 12 months after treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients with precursor lesions, 57 with early stage cancer, and 43 with advanced cancer responded to our survey. Patients with precursor lesions or early stage cancer reported better QoL overall than those with advanced cancer before treatment (p<0.01). Global QoL scores before treatment and at 1 month after treatment were 71±9 versus 69±9 (p>0.01), 71±8 versus 61±11 (p<0.01), 67 ± 11 versus 62 ± 9 (p<0.01) for three stages of lesions. At 6 months after treatment, some QoL measures recovered gradually in precursor lesion and early cancer patients, while some continuously deteriorated in advanced cancer patients. At 12 months, all QoL scores were comparable to baseline for patients with precursor lesions (p>0.01), while global QoL, social, pain, and insomnia scores for early stage and advanced cancer were inferior to corresponding baseline levels (difference between means>5, p<0.01). At this time point, compared with patients with early stage cancer, those with advanced cancer showed worse QoL with all function and most symptom measures (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with precursor lesions or early stage esophageal/gastric cardia cancer show better QoL than those with advanced cancer. This indicates that screening, early diagnosis and treatment may improve the QoL for esophageal/gastric cardia cancer patients. Target intervention and counseling should be given by health care providers during treatment and follow-up to facilitate QoL improvement.

Outcomes in the management of esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer rates have continued to rise in the Western World. Esophageal cancer will be responsible for an estimated 15,450 deaths in the United States in 2014 alone. Esophageal resection with or without preoperative therapy remains the mainstay of treatment. Advances in surgical technique and perioperative care have improved short-term outcomes considerably by decreasing operative mortality. Despite these advances though, esophagectomy remains a procedure associated with considerable morbidity from a wide range of complications. Prompt recognition and treatment of complications can lower overall morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, long-term outcomes remain poor as the vast majority of patients present with loco-regionally advanced or metastatic disease. Surgery by itself provides poor loco-regional control and fails to address micrometastatic disease. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation provides a modest survival advantage compared to surgical resection alone. Future gains in understanding the molecular biology of esophageal cancer will hopefully lead to improved therapeutics and resultant outcomes.