Clinical characteristics and associated factors of Japanese patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a multicenter clinicoepidemiological study

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy and chemoradiation have become essential adjuncts to improve the survival of patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the perioperative period. Although preoperative treatment plus surgery is commonly used, controversy remains regarding the optimal treatment strategy for patients with locally advanced ESCC.

METHODS

A retrospective review of clinical stage II and III ESCC patients who underwent esophagectomy at Henan Cancer Hospital between October 2014 and October 2017 was performed. The patients were divided into a neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) group and an adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to exclude confounders. Survival was estimated using Kaplan‒Meier analysis and compared by the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for both the univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 684 patients were enrolled, including 365 (53.4%) patients in the NAC group. After PSM, 294 pairs of patients were left. NAC prolonged the OS (not reached versus 57.3 months, P = 0.002) and DFS (57.2 vs. 36.4 months, P = 0.010) and decreased the total rate of recurrence (50.1% vs. 59.2%, P = 0.025) and local recurrence (27.9% vs. 36.7%, P = 0.022) compared with AC. The multivariable analyses showed that NAC plus surgery modality was an independent predictor for improved OS (HR: 0.582, 95% CI: 0.467-0.786, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

NAC plus surgery prolonged OS and DFS, and significantly decreased the total rate of recurrence compared with surgery plus AC in patients with clinical stage II and III ESCC.

Visceral obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing esophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinoma in Japan: a population-based case-control study in Akita Prefecture

BACKGROUND

While an association between esophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinomas (EGJACs) and obesity, especially visceral obesity, has been suggested in Western countries, the association remains unclear in Asia, including Japan. In this population-based case-control study, we investigated the association between EGJACs and obesity.

METHODS

To perform near-population-based data collection for all early-stage EGJACs occurring in Akita Prefecture from 2014 to 2019, clinical data, including endoscopic and computed tomography (CT) findings, were collected from 11 cancer treatment base hospitals in the area. Age- and gender-matched controls were extracted at a case-to-control ratio of 1:2 from healthy subjects who received health checkups in the same area. The visceral fat area (VFA) was calculated using CT images. Logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations between EGJACs and obesity-related parameters.

RESULTS

In total, 74 EGJAC cases (62 males, median age of 70 years old) and 148 controls were extracted. Multivariable analyses showed a significantly negative association between the BMI and EGJACs and a significantly positive association between the VFA and EGJACs with odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of 0.65 (0.53-0.80) and 1.01 (1.01-1.02), respectively. These findings were confirmed in another dataset (40 EGJACs and 80 controls). In addition, as a categorical variable, VFA ≥ 100 cm² showed a significantly positive association with EGJACs (OR [95% CI] 1.96 [1.02-3.76]).

CONCLUSIONS

We found paradoxical associations between EGJACs and obesity-related parameters (BMI vs. VFA) in a Japanese population, suggesting a potentially pivotal role of the VFA rather than the BMI as a risk factor for EGJACs.

Transthoracic, thoracoabdominal, and transabdominal surgical approaches for gastric cardia adenocarcinomas: a survival evaluation based on a cohort of 7103 patients

Background

This study compared the survival outcomes of different surgical approaches to determine the optimal approach for gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) and aimed to standardize the surgical treatment guidelines for GCA.

Methods

A total of 7103 patients with GCA were enrolled from our previously established gastric cardia and esophageal carcinoma databases. In our database, when the epicenter of the tumor was at or within 2 cm distally from the esophagogastric junction, the adenocarcinoma was considered to originate from the cardia and was considered a Siewert type 2 cancer. The main criteria for the enrolled patients included treatment with radical surgery, no radio- or chemotherapy before the operation, and detailed clinicopathological information. Follow-up was mainly performed by telephone or through home interviews. According to the medical records, the surgical approaches included transthoracic, thoracoabdominal, and transabdominal approaches. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to correlate the surgical approach with survival in patients with GCA.

Results

There were marked differences in age and tumor stage among the patients who underwent the three surgical approaches (P < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that survival was related to sex, age, tumor stage, and N stage (P < 0.001 for all). Cox regression model analysis revealed that thoracoabdominal approach (P < 0.001) and transabdominal approach (P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for poor survival. GCA patients treated with the transthoracic approach had the best survival (5-year survival rate of 53.7%), and survival varied among the different surgical approaches for different tumor stages.

Conclusion

Thoracoabdominal approach and transabdominal approach were shown to be poor prognostic factors. Patients with (locally advanced) GCA may benefit from the transthoracic approach. Further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-022-02680-5.

Serum metabolomic profiling for patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of adenocarcinoma in the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has increased in the recent years. AEG is reported to have a worse prognosis compared with tumor confined to the stomach (non-AEG). Although the metabolic changes of non-AEG have been investigated in extensive studies, little effort focused on the metabolic profiling of AEG serum.

OBJECTIVES

Here we report an untargeted gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method to explore the abnormal metabolism underlying AEG.

METHODS

GC-MS-based untargeted metabolomics approach combined with multivariate statistical analyses were used to study the metabolic profiling of serum samples from AEG patients (n = 70), non-AEG patients (n = 70) and health controls (n = 71).

RESULTS

A novel serum metabolic profiling of 18 metabolites from patients of AEG and non-AEG was indicated, in comparison with health controls. Moreover, AEG and non-AEG were also well-classified with 9 distinguishing metabolites including hypoxanthine, alanine, proline, pyroglutamate, glycine, lactate, succinic acid, glutamate and kynurenine, which produced a discriminatory model with an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.852, suggesting a distinct metabolic signature of AEG. Importantly, lactate and glutamate disclosed outcome-prediction values by multivariate cox-proportional hazard model and Kaplan-Meier method based on follow-up information for 2-5 years.

CONCLUSION

This is the first metabolomics study to identify serum metabolic signature of AEG. The distinguishing metabolites show a promising application on clinical diagnose and outcome prediction, and allow us to unveil several key metabolic variations coexisting in AEG, which may aid to understand the underlying metabolic mechanisms.

Current status of surveillance for Barrett's esophagus in Japan and the West

Prospective studies in western countries have shown that the obvious risk factors for Barrett's esophageal cancer are male sex, smoking habit, a longer length of Barrett's esophagus, and low‐grade dysplasia. However, few reports have prospectively examined risk factors for adenocarcinoma development from Barrett's esophagus in Japan. In the West, where adenocarcinoma is common among esophageal cancer, endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus every 2–5 years is recommended for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, there is no established surveillance method in Japan. In recent years, the incidence of adenocarcinoma from long‐segment Barrett's esophagus and short‐segment Barrett's esophagus longer than 2 cm in Japan has been reported to be similar to the West. For surveillance of adenocarcinoma arising from Barrett's esophagus, recognizing the characteristics of superficial adenocarcinoma and carefully observing the entire Barrett's esophagus are needed. It has been reported that representative characteristics of Barrett's adenocarcinoma are a reddish area or a lesion located on the anterior to the right sidewall. It is necessary to establish surveillance methods for Barrett's esophagus sooner in Japan.

The abdominal-transhiatal surgical approach versus the thoracoabdominal surgical approach in Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: protocol for a multicenter prospective, open, parallel, and randomized controlled trial

Background

To date, Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (ST-II AEG) can be removed radically utilizing either the abdominal-transhiatal (TH) or the right thoracoabdominal (RTA) approaches. Because of a paucity of high-quality direct evidence, the appropriate surgical approach for ST-II AEG remains debatable. In the present, only several retrospective studies are available, representing ambiguous results. Thus, prospective randomized clinical trials are demanded to compare the survival, oncological outcomes, safety and efficiency and life quality between the TH and RTA approach in patients with resectable AEG of Siewert type II.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, open, randomized, and parallel controlled study named S2AEG will be conducted. Three hundred and twelve patients who match the inclusion criteria but not the exclusion criteria will be participating in the trial and randomly divided into the TH (156) and RTA (156) cohorts. The primary efficacy endpoint is the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) following the operation. The rate of R0-resection, the number and site of lymph nodes infiltrated and dissected, postoperative complications, hospital days and life quality are the second endpoints.

Discussion

This study is the first prospectively randomized controlled trial aiming to compare the surgical outcomes between TH and RTA approaches in patients with resectable ST-II AEG. It is hypothesized that patients in the TH cohort would harvest equivalent oncological results and survival while maintaining acceptable life quality when compared to patients in the RTA cohort. Our findings will provide high-level clinical evidence for clinical decision-making on the appropriate surgical approach for patients with ST-II AEG. Embarked in November 2019, this research will be completed 3 years after the final participant’s enrolment date.

Trial registration

Clinical Trial.gov ID: NCT04910789 May 29, 2021. Name: S2AEG.

Epidemiological Review of Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma in Asian Countries

BACKGROUND

Similar trends in the prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, and Helicobacter pylori infection have been observed in Asian and Western countries despite their time differences. However, it is unclear whether the prevalence of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas in Asian countries is increasing. In this review, we discuss the epidemiological trends of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in Asian countries.

SUMMARY

The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asian countries, but most cases are considered mild. Obesity is a serious problem worldwide, but it is considered less serious in Asia than in Western countries. In Asian countries where gastric cancer is common, both cardiac and noncardiac cancers are associated with high rates of H. pylori infection, which is considered a carcinogenic risk factor for both sites of cancer. The widespread use of H. pylori eradication therapy for chronic gastritis in several Asian countries has not directly led to an increased prevalence of esophageal adenocarcinoma. One of the originating sites of junctional adenocarcinoma in most Asian countries is Barrett's esophagus, with short-segment Barrett's esophagus having much lower carcinogenicity than long-segment Barrett's esophagus. Key Messages: Considering the future trends of several risk factors for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in Asian countries, it is likely that the incidence of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma will gradually increase, but not at a rate that exceeds that of squamous cell carcinoma, as in Western countries.

Correlation of Barrett's esophagus with colorectal polyps in Japanese patients: A retrospective chart review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Barrett's esophagus and colorectal polyps have several overlapping risk factors. Whereas several reports in Western countries have indicated a close relationship between Barrett's esophagus and colorectal polyps, the relationship between these two diseases remains unclear in Japan. This study was performed to determine whether the prevalence of Barrett's esophagus is related to that of colorectal polyps in Japanese patients.

METHODS

The present retrospective chart review included 1582 Japanese patients who underwent both total colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy from January 2010 to December 2016. The data on colorectal polyps and Barrett's esophagus were obtained from the endoscopic findings. The medical record of each patient was checked for age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol drinking, use of acid suppression agents, and comorbidities including a history of diabetes, ischemic heart disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatal hernia, and Helicobacter pylori infection.

RESULTS

Colorectal polyps were detected in 789 of the 1582 patients (49.9%). Barrett's esophagus was detected in 233 patients (14.7%), and most cases of Barrett's esophagus (n = 229) were classified as short-segment Barrett's esophagus. Colorectal polyps were more frequent in patients with than without Barrett's esophagus (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.46; P < 0.001). In addition to Barrett's esophagus, the data indicated that old age, male sex, obesity, smoking, alcohol drinking, diabetes mellitus, and ischemic heart disease were independent risk factors for colorectal polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed the correlation between the prevalence of Barrett's esophagus and colorectal polyps in Japanese patients.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Versus Upfront Esophagectomy in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) compared to upfront esophagectomy (UE) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is controversial. Our purpose was to determine whether clinical stages based on the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system could guide treatment decision.

METHODS

Data from 2503 patients with clinical stages II and III ESCC diagnosed between 2008 and 2014 were obtained from a nationwide database. Propensity score matching was used to identify well-balanced pairs of patients. Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank test were used in the survival analysis. The outcomes of patients receiving "NCRT followed by surgery" or "UE" strategies were compared.

RESULTS

The treatment modality (UE or NCRT) was not a prognostic factor in clinical stage II ESCC (HR: 0.97; p = 0.778). In contrast, the UE group demonstrated a significantly worse outcome compared with the NCRT group in clinical stage III ESCC (HR: 1.39; p < 0.001). After matching, patients who underwent UE for clinical stage II ESCC had median survival/3-year overall survival (OS) rates of 27.8 months/39.2% compared with 32.7 months/49.8% in the NCRT group (p = 0.508). The patients who underwent UE for clinical stage III ESCC had median survival/3-year OS rates of 17.9 months/28.2% in the UE group compared with 24.0 months/41.8% in the NCRT group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that NCRT strategy improved survival compared with UE in clinical stage III ESCC but not in clinical stage II tumors.

Validity of upfront surgery for patients with unsuspected lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer: a propensity scoring matching study

Background

Although neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy is well-established as being superior to upfront esophagectomy when locoregional lymph node (LN) metastasis is present in esophageal cancer, upfront esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy may be performed in patients with LN metastasis due to unreliable preoperative evaluations. However, outcomes in this setting remain unclear. The purpose of the present study was to clarify whether upfront esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy in patients with unsuspected lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer is appropriate.

Methods

We included 215 squamous cell esophageal cancer patients who met the study criteria. Inclusion criteria included complete (R0) and curative surgery cases, intra-thoracic esophageal cancer, preoperative biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma, and cases without LN metastasis (WL, cN0 and pN0) or with unsuspected LN metastasis (UL, cN0 and pN1). Exclusion criteria were palliation or salvage cases, other uncured previous or current primary cancers, complete remission cases, and operative mortalities (defined as patients who died during hospitalization or within one month after surgery). We compared 5-year disease- free survival (DFS) between WL and UL. In addition, we investigated the influence of neoadjuvant therapy in UL. To overcome heterogeneity in baseline characteristics between the groups, a propensity matched-analysis based on propensity scores was then carried out to create a cohort of WL with clinical characteristics similar to those in UL.

Results

The incidence of UL among preoperative N0 patients was 25.6% and the incidence of UL cases who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy was 47.2%. All subjects were stratified into either WL (160 patients) or UL (55 patients). Twenty nine of 55 patients in UL received neoadjuvant therapy before esophagectomy and all patients with LN metastasis received adjuvant therapy after esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in DFS between WL and UL (p = 0.242). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in DFS between cases that received and did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.769).

Conclusions

Upfront surgery without neoadjuvant therapy in UL is appropriate for patients who can tolerate adjuvant therapy.

Upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation strategy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Adjuvant chemoradiation is reported to have a survival benefit for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We evaluated the “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation” strategy, in which adjuvant therapy is guided by pathological stage, in locally advanced ESCC. Data from 2976 clinical stage II/III ESCC patients, including 1735 in neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 1241 in upfront surgery groups, were obtained from a nationwide database. Patients in the upfront surgery group were further categorized into the “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation” and “upfront surgery only” groups. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates in the “neoadjuvant chemoradiation”, “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation”, and “upfront surgery only” groups were 41.5%, 45.8%, and 28.5%, respectively. In propensity score matched patients, the 3-year OS rate was 41.7% in the neoadjuvant chemoradiation group, compared to 35.6% in the “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation” group (p = 0.147), and 20.3% in the “upfront surgery only” group (p < 0.001). No survival difference was observed between the “neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery” protocol and the “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation” strategy.