Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Compared to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy With Esophagectomy for Locoregional Esophageal Cancer: National Population-Based Cohort Study

Induction Immunochemotherapy Yields a Higher Conversion Rate and Better Overall Survival than Chemotherapy in Initially Unresectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the surgical conversion rate and overall survival (OS) between induction chemotherapy (iC) and induction immunochemotherapy (iIC) for patients with initially unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (iuESCC).

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, patients from four high-volume institutions with unresectable diseases were included. The primary endpoints were the conversion surgery rate and OS. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify the independent significant prognostic factors associated with OS. The stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to confirm the survival comparison between the iIC and iC cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 309 patients (150 in the iIC cohort and 159 in the iC cohort) were included. A significantly higher conversion surgical rate was observed in the iIC cohort (iIC vs. iC: 127/150, 84.7% vs. 79/159, 49.7%, P < 0.001). The pathological complete response rates were 22.0% and 5.1% in the iIC and the iC cohorts, respectively (P = 0.001). A significant difference in the OS was observed between the iIC (not reached) and iC cohorts (median 95% CI 36.3 [range 27.2-45.5]). The stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting yielded similar results. Regimen (iIC vs. iC, HR 0.215, 95% CI 0.102-0.454, P < 0.001) and operation (yes vs. no, HR 0.262, 95% CI 0.161-0.427, P < 0.001) were the significant prognostic factors for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunochemotherapy plus conversion surgery in the induction setting may be a better treatment option to achieve high pathological responses and improve OS in iuESCC patients.

The Prognostic Impact of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy on Survival After Esophagectomy Following a Delayed Interval After Chemoradiotherapy: A Secondary Analysis of the DICE Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prognostic differences between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in patients with surgery after a prolonged interval (>12 wk) following chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

BACKGROUND

Previously, we established that a prolonged interval after CRT before esophagectomy was associated with poorer long-term survival.

METHODS

This was an international multicenter cohort study involving 17 tertiary centers, including patients who received CRT followed by surgery between 2010 and 2020. Patients undergoing MIE were defined as thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 428 patients (145 MIE and 283 OE) had surgery between 12 weeks and 2 years after CRT. Significant differences were observed in American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, radiation dose, clinical T stage, and histologic subtype. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, sex, body mass index, pathologic T or N stage, resection margin status, tumor location, surgical technique, or 90-day mortality. Survival analysis showed MIE was associated with improved survival in univariate ( P =0.014), multivariate analysis after adjustment for smoking, T and N stage, and histology (HR=1.69; 95% CI: 1.14-2.5) and propensity-matched analysis ( P =0.02). Further subgroup analyses by radiation dose and interval after CRT showed survival advantage for MIE in 40 to 50 Gy dose groups (HR=1.9; 95% CI: 1.2-3.0) and in patients having surgery within 6 months of CRT (HR=1.6; 95% CI: 1.1-2.2).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE was associated with improved overall survival compared with OE in patients with a prolonged interval from CRT to surgery. The mechanism for this observed improvement in survival remains unknown, with potential hypotheses including a reduction in complications and improved functional recovery after MIE.

Role of surgery in T4N0-3M0 esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate an unsettled issue that whether T4 esophageal cancer could benefit from surgery.

METHODS

Patients with T4N0-3M0 esophageal cancer from 2004 to 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were included in this study. Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional hazard regression, and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to compare overall survival (OS) between the surgery and no-surgery group.

RESULTS

A total of 1822 patients were analyzed. The multivariable Cox regression showed the HR (95% CI) for surgery vs. no surgery was 0.492 (0.427-0.567) (P < 0.001) in T4N0-3M0 cohort, 0.471 (0.354-0.627) (P < 0.001) in T4aN0-3M0 cohort, and 0.480 (0.335-0.689) (P < 0.001) in T4bN0-3M0 cohort. The HR (95% CI) for neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery vs. no surgery and surgery without neoadjuvant therapy vs. no surgery were 0.548 (0.461-0.650) (P < 0.001) and 0.464 (0.375-0.574) (P < 0.001), respectively. No significant OS difference was observed between neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery and surgery without neoadjuvant therapy: 0.966 (0.686-1.360) (P = 0.843). Subgroup analyses and PSM-adjusted analyses showed consistent results.

CONCLUSION

Surgery might bring OS improvement for T4N0-3M0 esophageal cancer patients, no matter in T4a disease or in T4b disease. Surgery with and without neoadjuvant therapy might both achieve better OS than no surgery.

Delayed Surgical Intervention After Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer: (DICE) Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of delayed surgical intervention following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on survival from esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND

CRT is a core component of multimodality treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer. The timing of surgery following CRT may influence the probability of performing an oncological resection and the associated operative morbidity.

METHODS

This was an international, multicenter, cohort study, including patients from 17 centers who received CRT followed by surgery between 2010 and 2020. In the main analysis, patients were divided into 4 groups based upon the interval between CRT and surgery (0-50, 51-100, 101-200, and >200 days) to assess the impact upon 90-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs adjusted for relevant patient, oncological, and pathologic confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 2867 patients who underwent esophagectomy after CRT were included. After adjustment for relevant confounders, prolonged interval following CRT was associated with an increased 90-day mortality compared with 0 to 50 days (reference): 51 to 100 days (HR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.04-2.29), 101 to 200 days (HR=2.14, 95% CI: 1.37-3.35), and >200 days (HR=3.06, 95% CI: 1.64-5.69). Similarly, a poorer 5-year overall survival was also observed with prolonged interval following CRT compared with 0 to 50 days (reference): 101 to 200 days (HR=1.41, 95% CI: 1.17-1.70), and >200 days (HR=1.64, 95% CI: 1.24-2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged interval following CRT before esophagectomy is associated with increased 90-day mortality and poorer long-term survival. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanism that underpins these adverse outcomes observed with a prolonged interval to surgery.

Time trends in mortality of oesophageal cancer in Finland over 30 years

INTRODUCTION

Oesophageal cancer survival is reported by epidemiological studies, but knowledge on survival trends regarding different histologies and operative treatment status is lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from all patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in Finland in 1987-2016 was collected from national registries. 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were examined stratified by histology (adenocarcinoma (OAC) and squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC)) and treatment strategy (surgery, no surgery). Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for death were provided by multivariable Cox regression, adjusted for confounders.

RESULTS

Of the 9102 patients, 3140 had OAC (1074 [34%] oesophagectomies), and 3778 had OSCC (870 [23%] oesophagectomies). Men were overrepresented in both OAC (77%) and OSCC (55%). The proportion of oesophagectomies decreased in both histologies. From 1987 to 1991 to 2012-2016, 5-year survival increased from 11% to 22% in OAC and from 7% to 13% in OSCC. For patients undergoing oesophagectomy, the corresponding increases were from 20% to 49% in OAC and from 11% to 54% in OSCC, and non-operated patients from 5% to 8% and from 5% to 7%, respectively. Earlier calendar period, older age and comorbidity were associated with mortality in both histologies. Female sex was a protective factor for patients operated for OSCC (HR 1.56 (95% CI 1.33-1.83), men versus women).

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of oesophageal cancer has improved in Finland over the last 30 years in both main histological types. The survival of patients undergoing oesophagectomy has drastically improved, while the prognosis of patients not undergoing surgery is slowly improving but remains poor.

Predictive and prognostic markers from endoscopic ultrasound with biopsies during definitive chemoradiation therapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may play a role in evaluating treatment response after definitive chemoradiation therapy (dCRT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study explored the prognostic markers of EUS with biopsies and developed two nomograms for survival prediction.

METHODS

A total of 821 patients newly diagnosed with ESCC between January 2015 and December 2019 were reviewed. We investigated the prognostic value of the changes in tumor imaging characteristics and histopathological markers by an interim response evaluation, including presence of stenosis, ulceration, tumor length, tumor thickness, lumen involvement, and tumor remission. Independent prognostic factors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using Cox regression analysis and further selected to build two nomogram models for survival prediction. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to respectively assess its discriminatory capacity, predictive accuracy, and clinical usefulness.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients were enrolled in this study and divided into the training (109 cases) and testing (46 cases) cohorts. Tumor length, residual tumor thickness, reduction in tumor thickness, lumen involvement, and excellent remission (ER) of spatial luminal involvement in ESCC (ER/SLI) differed significantly between responders and non-responders. For patients undergoing dCRT, tumor stage (P = 0.001, 0.002), tumor length (P = 0.013, 0.008), > 0.36 reduction in tumor thickness (P = 0.004, 0.004) and ER/SLI (P = 0.041, 0.031) were independent prognostic markers for both PFS and OS. Time-dependent ROC curves, calibration curves, and DCA indicated that the predicted survival rates of our two established nomogram models were highly accurate.

CONCLUSION

Our nomogram showed high accuracy in predicting PFS and OS for ESCC after dCRT. External validation and complementation of other biomarkers are needed in further studies.

What has the past taught us about the future in esophageal cancer? Personal reflections

Since the first successful esophagectomy for cancer in 1913 spectacular advancements have been made in diagnosis, staging, and therapy. Refinement of imaging, surgery, perioperative management together with multidisciplinary collaboration are the cornerstones. Today therapy with curative option is offered to more patients than ever. Further innovations in imaging, molecular biology, genetics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, nanotechnology will have an increasing impact. The end result being a unique therapeutic plan shaped on each patient's individual profile.

Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in locally advanced esophageal cancer for patients of advanced age or significant comorbidities

The addition of surgery to chemoradiation for esophageal cancer has not shown a survival benefit in randomized trials. Patients with more comorbidities or advanced age are more likely to be given definitive chemoradiation due to surgical risk. We aimed to identify subsets of patients in whom the addition of surgery to chemoradiation does not provide an overall survival (OS) benefit. The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who received either definitive chemoradiation or neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery. Bivariate analysis was used to assess the association between patient characteristics and treatment groups. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models were performed to assess for differences in survival. A total of 15,090 with adenocarcinoma and 5,356 with squamous cell carcinoma met the inclusion criteria. Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery had significantly improved survival by Cox proportional hazards model regardless of histology if <50, 50-60, 61-70, or 71-80 years old. There was no significant benefit or detriment in patients 81-90 years old. Survival advantage was also significant with a Charlson/Deyo comorbidity condition score of 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 in adenocarcinoma squamous cell carcinoma with scores of 2 or ≥3 had no significant benefit or detriment. Patients 81-90 years old or with squamous cell carcinoma and a Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score ≥ 2 lacked an OS benefit from neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with definitive chemoradiation. Careful consideration of esophagectomy-specific surgical risks should be used when recommending treatment for these patients.

Planned oesophagectomy after chemoradiotherapy versus salvage oesophagectomy following definitive chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer and sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Salvage oesophagectomies are associated with an increased risk of mortality, although recent data suggests that long-term survival rates following salvage oesophagectomy are similar to planned oesophagectomy. The aim was therefore to meta-analyse outcomes for patients undergoing salvage versus planned oesophagectomies to assess the differences in short-term mortality and long-term survival.

METHODS

A systematic review of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies meeting inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, which compared patients in the planned oesophagectomy group (n = 23 555) to patients in the salvage oesophagectomy group (n = 2227). There were significant differences between the groups in terms of rates of postoperative mortality (5.7% salvage oesophagectomy versus 3.1% planned oesophagectomy, P = 0.0004), anastomotic leak (20.6% salvage oesophagectomy versus 14.5% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.00001), pulmonary complications (37.1% salvage oesophagectomy versus 24.2% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.0001) and R0 margin (87.6% salvage oesophagectomy versus 91.3% planned oesophagectomy, P < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference between long-term survival rates at 5 years with 39.2% for salvage and 42.6% for planned oesophagectomy (P = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage oesophagectomies do offer a meaningful chance of long-term survival (at 5 years) for select patients with oesophageal cancer, but the elevated risk of post-operative complications and mortality following salvage oesophagectomy should be recognized.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical surgery for locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The literature lacks robust evidence comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (nCRS) for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study aimed to compare long-term survival of these approaches in patients with ESCC.

METHODS

A systematic review performed according to PRISMA guidelines included studies identified from PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to July 2021 comparing outcomes between dCRT and nCRS for ESCC. The main outcome measure was overall survival (OS), secondary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). A meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects modelling to determine pooled adjusted multivariable hazard ratios (HRs).

RESULTS

Ten studies including 14 092 patients were included, of which 30 per cent received nCRS. Three studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the remainder were retrospective cohort studies. dCRT and nCRS regimens were reported in six studies and surgical quality control was reported in two studies. Outcomes for OS and DFS were reported in eight and three studies respectively. Following meta-analysis, nCRS demonstrated significantly longer OS (HR 0.68, 95 per cent c.i. 0.54 to 0.87, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.50, 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.70, P < 0.001) compared with dCRT.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy correlated with improved survival compared with definitive chemoradiation in the treatment of ESCC; however, there is a lack of literature on RCTs.

Efficacy and Safety of Apatinib plus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cancer: A Phase II Trial

Evidence for neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cancer (ESCC) is inadequate. We conducted a single-arm phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib combined with taxol and cisplatin (ATP) for locally advanced ESCC. All patients were cT3-4aN0-3 M0 (IIIb-IVa) stage, which were confirmed by histopathology. Apatinib was taken orally (425 mg/d) for two cycles, followed by one cycle of rest. Taxol was administered at 135 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, and cisplatin was administered at 20 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 to day 3. Radical ESCC resection was performed 4 weeks after ATP. The primary endpoint was pathological response rate (pCR). Secondary endpoints were pathologic response rate (MPR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), R0 resection rate, and safety profile. This trial was registered. We evaluated 41 patients for screening from Oct 2018 to July 2020, of whom 39 were enrolled in the study, with a median age of 65 years (range 49-75 years), and 29 (74.4%) were male. Among the 39 patients, 1 was considered unresectable by the multidisciplinary team due to tumor progression, and 38 patients underwent surgery eventually. The median follow-up was 22 months (range 5-29 months), and the follow-up rate was 100%. The 1-year and 2-year OS was 95% and 95%, and the 1-year and 2-year DFS was 85% and 82%, respectively. Thirty-eight (97.3%) successfully underwent R0 resection. Of the 38 evaluable patients, 9 (23.6%) were pCR, and 15 (39.5%) were MPR. The most common ATP-related AEs were nausea (76.9%), leucopenia (53.8%), neutropenia (51.2%) and vomit (51.2%), anemia (41.0%), and hypertension (25.6%). The most frequent grade 3-4 events included leucopenia (15.3%), neutropenia (15.3%), nausea (12.8%), vomit (12.8%), and hypertension (10.2%). No treatment-related death occurred. Neoadjuvant apatinib combined with taxol and cisplatin for locally advanced ESCC showed favorable activity and manageable safety.

Advances in the curative management of oesophageal cancer

The incidence of oesophageal cancer, in particular adenocarcinoma, has markedly increased over the last four decades with adenocarcinoma becoming the dominant subtype in the West, and mortality rates are high. Nevertheless, overall survival of patients with oesophageal cancer has doubled in the past 20 years, with earlier diagnosis and improved treatments benefiting those patients who can be treated with curative intent. Advances in endotherapy, surgical approaches, and multimodal and other combination therapies have been reported. New vistas have emerged in targeted therapies and immunotherapy, informed by new knowledge in genomics and molecular biology, which present opportunities for personalised cancer therapy and novel clinical trials. This review focuses exclusively on the curative intent treatment pathway, and highlights emerging advances.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A population-based comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data supporting routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) compared to no AC (noAC) for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (hCCA) is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether AC improves long-term survival following resection for hCCA.

METHODS

Patients receiving resection for hCCA followed by AC or no AC from 2010 to 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression was performed to account for selection bias and analyze impact of AC on overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 924 (56%) noAC and 719 (44%) AC, 320 noAC and 320 AC patients remained after PSM. After matching, AC was associated with improved survival (median: 28.2 vs 19.9 months, p < 0.001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.61, CI_95%: 0.50-0.75, p < 0.001). On multivariable interaction analyses, the benefit of AC over no AC persisted irrespective of nodal status: N0 (HR: 0.62, CI_95%: 0.41-0.92, p = 0.019), N1 (HR: 0.52, CI_95%: 0.36-0.75, p = 0.001), N2 (HR: 0.31, CI_95%: 0.11-0.90, p = 0.032), Nx (HR: 0.22, CI_95%: 0.09-0.55, p = 0.001) and margin status: R0 (HR: 0.74, CI_95%: 0.57-0.97, p = 0.026), R1 (HR: 0.31, CI_95%: 0.21-0.47, p < 0.001). Stratified analysis by nodal, margin and AC status demonstrated consistent results.

CONCLUSION

AC following resection for hCCA was associated with improved survival in this study, even in margin-negative and node-negative disease. These findings suggest incorporation of AC into multimodality therapy for hCCA in all cases, where appropriate.

Primary gross tumor volume is prognostic and suggests treatment in upper esophageal cancer

Background

To aid clinicians strategizing treatment for upper esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), this retrospective study investigated associations between primary gross tumor volume (GTVp) and prognosis in patients given surgical resection, radiotherapy, or both resection and radiotherapy.

Methods

The population comprised 568 patients with upper ESCC given definitive treatment, including 238, 216, and 114 who underwent surgery, radiotherapy, or combined radiotherapy and surgery. GTVp as a continuous variable was entered into the multivariate Cox model using penalized splines (P-splines) to determine the optimal cutoff value. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust imbalanced characteristics among the treatment groups.

Results

P-spline regression revealed a dependence of patient outcomes on GTVp, with 30 cm³ being an optimal cut-off for differences in overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS). GTVp ≥30 cm³ was a negative independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS. PSM analyses confirmed the prognostic value of GTVp. For GTVp < 30 cm³, no significant survival differences were observed among the 3 treatments. For GTVp ≥30 cm³, the worst 5-year OS rate was experienced by those given surgery. The 5-year PFS rate of patients given combined radiotherapy and surgery was significantly better than that of patients given radiotherapy. The surgical complications of patients given the combined treatment were comparable to those who received surgery, but radiation side effects were significantly lower.

Conclusion

GTVp is prognostic for OS and PFS in upper ESCC. For patients with GTVp ≥30 cm³, radiotherapy plus surgery was more effective than either treatment alone.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08838-w.

Adjuvant radiotherapy improves long-term survival after resection for gallbladder cancer A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data supporting routine use of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) compared to without RT (noRT) for gallbladder cancer (GBC) is unclear. This study aimed to determine whether RT improves long-term survival following resection for GBC.

METHODS

Patients receiving resection for GBC followed by RT from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients with survival <6 months were excluded to account for immortal time bias. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression was performed to account for selection bias and analyze impact of RT on overall survival.

RESULTS

Of 7514 (77%) noRT and 2261 (23%) RT, 2067 noRT and 2067 RT patients remained after PSM. After matching, RT was associated with improved survival (median: 26.2 vs 21.5 months, p < 0.001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.82, CI_95%: 0.76-0.89, p < 0.001). On multivariable interaction analyses, this benefit persisted irrespective of nodal status: N0 (HR: 0.84, CI_95%: 0.77-0.93), N1 (HR: 0.77, CI_95%: 0.68-0.88), N2/N3 (HR: 0.56, CI_95%: 0.35-0.91), margin status: R0 (HR: 0.85, CI_95%: 0.78-0.93), R1 (HR: 0.78, CI_95%: 0.68-0.88) and use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) (HR: 0.67, CI_95%: 0.57-0.79). Benefit with RT were also seen in patients with T2 - T4 disease and in patients undergoing simple and extended cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSION

RT following resection was associated with improved survival in this study, even in margin-negative and node-negative disease. These findings may suggest addition of RT into multimodality therapy for GBC.

[Impact of COVID-19 on oncological surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract]

BACKGROUND

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic imposed limitations for elective surgery, impacting the associated hospital standards worldwide. As certain treatment windows must be adhered to in oncological surgery, the limited intensive care unit (ICU) capacity had to be critically distributed in order to do justice to both acutely ill and oncology patients. This manuscript summarizes the impact of COVID-19 on the management of oncological surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract and particularly esophageal surgery in German medical centers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A survey of German centers for esophageal surgery was performed on the impact of COVID-19 on operative management for esophageal surgery during the first lockdown. After inspection, assessment, critical analysis and interpretation, the results were compared to the international literature.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initial recommendations of international societies warned for caution and restraint regarding interventions of the upper gastrointestinal tract that were not absolutely necessary. Oncological surgery should be performed under strict restrictions, especially only after negative testing for COVID-19 and only with sufficiently available personal protective equipment for the personnel. Furthermore, minimally invasive procedures were preferably not recommended. In diseases with alternative treatment options, such as definitive chemoradiotherapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, these should be given priority when possible. In the further development of the pandemic, it was shown that due to a high standardization of preoperative management, postoperative results comparable to pre-pandemic times could be achieved particularly with respect to the diagnostics of infections.

[Current preoperative and perioperative concepts in tumor treatment for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma from a surgical perspective]

Locally advanced esophageal cancer is mostly treated in multimodal therapy protocols according to the current western treatment guidelines. In squamous cell cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is in the foreground. Unimodal surgical and chemoradiation treatment alternatives achieve poorer results for this entity. Surgical salvage resection for tumor recurrence after definitive chemoradiotherapy can be carried out with good oncological results but the frequency of postoperative complications is increased. For locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, perioperative chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy are two competing level 1 evidence-based treatment concepts that are superior to treatment by surgery alone. The results of head-to-head comparative treatment studies are still pending. A significant number of patients show a complete locoregional remission of the tumor in the surgical specimen after treatment with the modern neoadjuvant protocols. Currently, European prospective randomized noninferiority studies with an oncological endpoint are testing the possibilities of organ-retaining concepts in clinical complete remission (surgery as needed; watch and wait). For the future, it is to be expected that the curative treatment results of locally advanced esophageal carcinoma will again significantly improve, in particular through the additional possibilities of immunotherapy and organ-preserving therapy concepts for postneoadjuvant complete remission.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Esophagectomy or Total Gastrectomy for Siewert 2 Gastroesophageal Junction (GEJ) Adenocarcinoma? A Registry-Based Analysis

Backgrounds

Due to a lack of randomized and large studies, the optimal surgical approach for Siewert 2 gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains unknown. This population-based cohort study aimed to compare survival between esophagectomy and total gastrectomy for the treatment of Siewert 2 GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Methods

Data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2010 to 2016 was used to identify patients with non-metastatic Siewert 2 GEJ adenocarcinoma who received either esophagectomy (n = 999) or total gastrectomy (n = 8595). Propensity score-matching (PSM) and multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias.

Results

Comparison of the unmatched cohort’s baseline demographics showed that the patients who received esophagectomy were younger, had a lower burden of medical comorbidities, and had fewer clinical positive lymph nodes. The patients in the unmatched cohort who received gastrectomy had a significantly shorter overall survival than those who received esophagectomy (median, 47 vs. 68 months [p < 0.001]; 5-year survival, 45 % vs. 53 %). After matching, gastrectomy was associated with significantly reduced survival compared with esophagectomy (median, 51 vs. 68 months [p < 0.001]; 5-year survival, 47 % vs. 53 %), which remained in the adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.35; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this large-scale population study with propensity-matching to adjust for confounders, esophagectomy was prognostically superior to gastrectomy for the treatment of Siewert 2 GEJ adenocarcinoma despite comparable lymph node harvest, length of stay, and 90-day mortality. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials with robust surgical quality assurance are the next step in evaluating the prognostic outcomes of these surgical strategies for GEJ cancer.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10346-x.

Thinking through the multimodal treatment of localized oesophageal cancer: the point of view of the surgeon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines current developments and controversies in the multimodal management of oesophageal cancer, with an emphasis on surgical dilemmas and outcomes from the surgeon's perspective.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the advancement of oncological neoadjuvant treatments, there is still no consensus on what regimen is superior. The majority of patients may still fail to respond to neoadjuvant therapy and suffer potential harm without any survival advantage as a result. In patients who do not respond, adjuvant therapy is still often recommended after surgery despite any evidence for its benefit. We examine the implications of different regimens and treatment approaches for both squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus.

SUMMARY

The efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment is highly variable and likely relates to variability of tumour biology. Ongoing work to identify responders, or optimize treatment on an individual patient, should increase the efficacy of multimodal therapy and improve patient outcomes.

Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA)

BACKGROUND

The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).

METHODS

The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up.

RESULTS

The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P < 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy Associated with Survival Benefit Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background

Data supporting the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) compared with no AC (noAC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are lacking. This study aimed to determine whether AC improves long-term survival in patients receiving NAC and resection.

Methods

Patients receiving resection for PDAC following NAC from 2004 to 2016 were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Patients with a survival rate of < 6 months were excluded to account for immortal time bias. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression analysis were performed to account for selection bias and analyze the impact of AC on overall survival.

Results

Of 4449 (68%) noAC patients and 2111 (32%) AC patients, 2016 noAC patients and 2016 AC patients remained after PSM. After matching, AC was associated with improved survival (median 29.4 vs. 24.9 months; p < 0.001), which remained after multivariable adjustment (HR 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–0.88; p < 0.001). On multivariable interaction analyses, this benefit persisted irrespective of nodal status: N0 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% CI 0.72–0.90; p < 0.001), N1 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67–0.86; p < 0.001), R0 margin status (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75–0.89; p < 0.001), R1 margin status (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64–0.93; p = 0.007), no neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NART; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.96; p = 0.009), and use of NART (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73–0.88; p < 0.001). Stratified analysis by nodal, margin, and NART status demonstrated consistent results.

Conclusion

AC following NAC and resection is associated with improved survival, even in margin-negative and node-negative disease. These findings suggest completing planned systemic treatment should be considered in all resected PDACs previously treated with NAC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-09823-0.

Successful maintenance of process and outcomes for oesophageal cancer surgery in Ireland during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

The emergence of the novel coronavirus Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the coronavirus disease COVID-19 has impacted enormously on non-COVID-19-related hospital care. Curtailment of intensive care unit (ICU) access threatens complex surgery, particularly impacting on outcomes for time-sensitive cancer surgery. Oesophageal cancer surgery is a good example. This study explored the impact of the pandemic on process and short-term surgical outcomes, comparing the first wave of the pandemic from April to June in 2020 with the same period in 2019.

Methods

Data from all four Irish oesophageal cancer centres were reviewed. All patients undergoing resection for oesophageal malignancy from 1 April to 30 June inclusive in 2020 and 2019 were included. Patient, disease, and peri-operative outcomes (including COVID-19 infection) were compared.

Results

In 2020, 45 patients underwent oesophagectomy, and 53 in the equivalent period in 2019. There were no differences in patient demographics, co-morbidities, or use of neoadjuvant therapy. The median time to surgery from neoadjuvant therapy was 8 weeks in both 2020 and 2019. There were no significant differences in operative interventions between the two time periods. There was no difference in operative morbidity in 2020 and 2019 (28% vs 40%, p = 0.28). There was no in-hospital mortality in either period. No patient contracted COVID-19 in the perioperative period.

Conclusions

Continuing surgical resection for oesophageal cancer was feasible and safe during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland. The national response to this threat was therefore successful by these criteria in the curative management of oesophageal cancer.

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on esophageal cancer surgery in Northern Italy: lessons learned from a multicentric snapshot

Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak has significantly burdened healthcare systems worldwide, leading to reorganization of healthcare services and reallocation of resources. The Italian Society for Study of Esophageal Diseases (SISME) conducted a national survey to evaluate changes in esophageal cancer management in a region severely struck by COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based questionnaire (26 items) was sent to 12 SISME units. Short-term outcomes of esophageal resections performed during the lockdown were compared with those achieved in the same period of 2019. Six (50%) centers had significant restrictions in their activity. However, overall number of resections did not decrease compared to 2019, while a higher rate of open esophageal resections was observed (40 vs. 21.7%; P = 0.034). Surgery was delayed in 24 (36.9%) patients in 6 (50%) centers, mostly due to shortage of anesthesiologists, and occupation of intensive care unit beds from intubated COVID-19 patients. Indications for neoadjuvant chemo (radio) therapy were extended in 14% of patients. Separate COVID-19 hospital pathways were active in 11 (91.7%) units. COVID-19 screening protocols included nasopharyngeal swab in 91.7%, chest computed tomography scan in 8.3% and selective use of lung ultrasound in 75% of units. Postoperative interstitial pneumonia occurred in 1 (1.5%) patient. Recovery from COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by screening of patients in all units, and follow-up outpatient visits in only 33% of units. This survey shows that clinical strategies differed considerably among the 12 SISME centers. Evidence-based guidelines are needed to support the surgical esophageal community and to standardize clinical practice in case of further pandemics.

Delivering esophago-gastric cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: a surgical perspective

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a significant impact on the provision of medical care. Planning to ensure there is capability to treat those that become ill with the virus has led to an almost complete moratorium on elective work. This study evaluates the impact of COVID-19 on cancer, in particular surgical intervention, in patients with esophago-gastric cancer at a high-volume tertiary center.

METHODS

All patients undergoing potential management for esophago-gastric cancer from 12 March to 22 May 2020 had their outcomes reviewed. Multi-disciplinary team (MDT) decisions, volume of cases, and outcomes following resection were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall 191 patients were discussed by the MDT, with a 12% fall from the same period in 2019, including a fall in new referrals from 120 to 83 (P = 0.0322). The majority of patients (80%) had no deviation from the pre-COVID-19 pathway. Sixteen patients had reduced staging investigations, 4 had potential changes to their treatment only, and 10 had a deviation from both investigation and potential treatment. Only one patient had palliation rather than potentially curative treatment. Overall 19 patients underwent surgical resection. Eight patients (41%) developed complications with two (11%) graded Clavien-Dindo 3 or greater. Two patients developed COVID-19 within a month of surgery, one spending 4 weeks in critical care due to respiratory complications; both recovered. Twelve patients underwent endoscopic resections with no complications.

CONCLUSION

Care must be taken not to compromise cancer treatment and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Excellent results can be achieved through meticulous logistical planning, good communication, and maintaining high-level clinical care.

The influence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on esophagogastric cancer services: an international survey of esophagogastric surgeons

BACKGROUND

Several guidelines to guide clinical practice among esophagogastric surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic were produced. However, none provide reflection of current service provision. This international survey aimed to clarify the changes observed in esophageal and gastric cancer management and surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

An online survey covering key areas for esophagogastric cancer services, including staging investigations and oncological and surgical therapy before and during (at two separate time-points-24th March 2020 and 18th April 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic were developed.

RESULTS

A total of 234 respondents from 225 centers and 49 countries spanning six continents completed the first round of the online survey, of which 79% (n = 184) completed round 2. There was variation in the availability of staging investigations ranging from 26.5% for endoscopic ultrasound to 62.8% for spiral computed tomography scan. Definitive chemoradiotherapy was offered in 14.8% (adenocarcinoma) and 47.0% (squamous cell carcinoma) of respondents and significantly increased by almost three-fold and two-fold, respectively, in both round 1 and 2. There were uncertainty and heterogeneity surrounding prioritization of patients undergoing cancer resections. Of the surgeons symptomatic with COVID-19, only 40.2% (33/82) had routine access to COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction testing for staff. Of those who had testing available (n = 33), only 12.1% (4/33) had tested positive.

CONCLUSIONS

These data highlight management challenges and several practice variations in caring for patients with esophagogastric cancers. Therefore, there is a need for clear consistent guidelines to be in place in the event of a further pandemic to ensure a standardized level of oncological care for patients with esophagogastric cancers.