Accuracy of clinical staging for T2N0 oesophageal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Multicentre validation of CT grey-level co-occurrence matrix features for overall survival in primary oesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Personalising management of primary oesophageal adenocarcinoma requires better risk stratification. Lack of independent validation of proposed imaging biomarkers has hampered clinical translation. We aimed to prospectively validate previously identified prognostic grey-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) CT features for 3-year overall survival.

METHODS

Following ethical approval, clinical and contrast-enhanced CT data were acquired from participants from five institutions. Data from three institutions were used for training and two for testing. Survival classifiers were modelled on prespecified variables ('Clinical' model: age, clinical T-stage, clinical N-stage; 'ClinVol' model: clinical features + CT tumour volume; 'ClinRad' model: ClinVol features + GLCM_Correlation and GLCM_Contrast). To reflect current clinical practice, baseline stage was also modelled as a univariate predictor ('Stage'). Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) analysis; calibration by Brier scores; and clinical relevance by thresholding risk scores to achieve 90% sensitivity for 3-year mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 162 participants were included (144 male; median 67 years [IQR 59, 72]; training, 95 participants; testing, 67 participants). Median survival was 998 days [IQR 486, 1594]. The ClinRad model yielded the greatest test discrimination (AUC, 0.68 [95% CI 0.54, 0.81]) that outperformed Stage (ΔAUC, 0.12 [95% CI 0.01, 0.23]; p = .04). The Clinical and ClinVol models yielded comparable test discrimination (AUC, 0.66 [95% CI 0.51, 0.80] vs. 0.65 [95% CI 0.50, 0.79]; p > .05). Test sensitivity of 90% was achieved by ClinRad and Stage models only.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to Stage, multivariable models of prespecified clinical and radiomic variables yielded improved prediction of 3-year overall survival.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Previously identified radiomic features are prognostic but may not substantially improve risk stratification on their own.

KEY POINTS

• Better risk stratification is needed in primary oesophageal cancer to personalise management. • Previously identified CT features-GLCM_Correlation and GLCM_Contrast-contain incremental prognostic information to age and clinical stage. • Compared to staging, multivariable clinicoradiomic models improve discrimination of 3-year overall survival.

T staging esophageal tumors with x rays

With histopathology results typically taking several days, the ability to stage tumors during interventions could provide a step change in various cancer interventions. X-ray technology has advanced significantly in recent years with the introduction of phase-based imaging methods. These have been adapted for use in standard labs rather than specialized facilities such as synchrotrons, and approaches that enable fast 3D scans with conventional x-ray sources have been developed. This opens the possibility to produce 3D images with enhanced soft tissue contrast at a level of detail comparable to histopathology, in times sufficiently short to be compatible with use during surgical interventions. In this paper we discuss the application of one such approach to human esophagi obtained from esophagectomy interventions. We demonstrate that the image quality is sufficiently high to enable tumor T staging based on the x-ray datasets alone. Alongside detection of involved margins with potentially life-saving implications, staging tumors intra-operatively has the potential to change patient pathways, facilitating optimization of therapeutic interventions during the procedure itself. Besides a prospective intra-operative use, the availability of high-quality 3D images of entire esophageal tumors can support histopathological characterization, from enabling "right slice first time" approaches to understanding the histopathology in the full 3D context of the surrounding tumor environment.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).

METHODS

This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022.

RESULTS

EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

The impact of refusing esophagectomy for treatment of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma

Objective

Patients with esophageal cancer may be reluctant to proceed with surgery due to high complication rates. This study aims to compare outcomes between eligible surgical candidates who proceeded with surgery versus those who refused surgery.

Methods

Characteristics and survival of patients with locally advanced (cT3N0M0, cT1-3N+M0) mid-/distal esophageal adenocarcinoma in the National Cancer Database (2006-2019) who either proceeded with or refused surgery after chemoradiotherapy were evaluated with logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards methods.

Results

Of the 13,594 patients included in the analysis, 595 (4.4%) patients refused esophagectomy. Patients who refused surgery were older, had less distance to travel to their treatment facility, were more likely to have cN0 disease, and were more likely to be treated at a community rather than academic or integrated network program, but did not have significantly different comorbid disease distributions. On multivariable analysis, refusing surgery was independently associated with older age, uninsured, lower income, less distance to a hospital, and treatment in a community program versus an academic/research or integrated network program. Esophagectomy was associated with better survival (5-year survival 40.1% [39.2-41] vs 23.6% [19.9-27.9], P < .001) and was also independently associated with better survival in the Cox model (hazard rate, 0.78 [95% confidence interval, 0.7-0.87], P < .001).

Conclusions

The results of this study can inform selected patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma that their survival will be significantly diminished if surgery is not pursued. Many factors associated with refusing surgery are non-clinical and suggest that access to or support for care could influence patient decisions.