Long-term outcomes and prognostic factor analysis of resected Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of esophagogastric junction in China: a seven-year study

Comparison of thoracoabdominal versus abdominal-transhiatal surgical approaches in Siewert type II adenocarcinoma at the esophagogastric junction: Protocol for a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (Siewert II AEG) can be resected by the right thoracoabdominal surgical approach (RTA) or abdominal-transhiatal surgical approach (TH) under minimally invasive conditions. Although both surgical methods achieve complete tumor resection, there is a debate as to whether the former method is superior to or at least noninferior to the latter in terms of surgical safety. Currently, a small number of retrospective studies have compared the two surgical approaches, with inconclusive results. As such, a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial is necessary to validate the value of RTA (Ivor-Lewis) compared to TH.

Methods

The planned study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Patients (n=212) with Siewert II AEG that could be resected by either of the above two surgical approaches will be included in this trial and randomized to the RTA group (n=106) or the TH group (n=106). The primary outcome will be 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes will include 5-year overall survival (OS), incidence of postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, local recurrence rate, number and location of removed lymph nodes, quality of life (QOL), surgical Apgar score, and duration of the operation. Follow-ups are scheduled every three months for the first 3 years after the surgery and every six months for the next 2 years.

Discussion

Among Siewert II AEG patients with resectable tumors, this is the first prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing the surgical safety of minimally invasive RTA and TH. RTA is hypothesized to provide better digestive tract reconstruction and dissection of mediastinal lymph nodes while maintaining a high quality of life and good postoperative outcome. Moreover, this trial will provide a high level of evidence for the choice of surgical procedures for Siewert II AEG.

Clinical trial registration

Chinese Ethics Committee of Registering Clinical Trials, identifier (ChiECRCT20210635); Clinical Trial.gov, identifier (NCT05356520).

Surgical Treatment of Siewert II Gastroesophagel Junction Adenocarcinoma: Esophagectomy or Gastrectomy? Review

Introduction. Surgery is the only curative treatment option for patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. These tumors can be resected by gastrectomy or esophagectomy depending on tumor localization. Although, both surgeries are available for Siewert type II GEJ cancer, it remains unknown which one is superior. This review summarizes current evidences on the optimal surgical approach for Siewert type II GEJ adenocarcinoma. Methods. The literature search was performed within the PubMed database and 9 stu­dies comparing gastrectomy and esophagectomy for Siewert type II GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. The outcomes of interest included: length of surgery, numbers of retrieved lymph nodes, resection margins, postoperative morbidity and mortality, hospitalization time, 5-year overall, and disease-free survival rates. Results. Current studies do not favor any type of surgery in terms of length of the surgery, R0 resection rate, or postoperative morbidity. There is some tendency towards higher anastomotic leakage and postoperative surgical site infections rate after gastrectomy, while a higher incidence of pneumonia after esophagectomy. Similar, available studies suggest, that esophagectomy may lead to improved long-term outcomes. Conclusions. There is a lack of high-quality studies comparing gastrectomy and esophagectomy for Siewert type II GEJ adenocarcinoma. Esophagectomy may lead to improved long-term outcomes, but this preliminary data has to be confirmed in large, randomized control trials.

The Long-Term Outcomes of Surgery Versus Endoscopic Treatment in Patients With Siewert Type II T1M0N0 Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction

OBJECTIVE

We compared the long-term prognosis of surgery and endoscopic treatment (ET) in patients diagnosed with Siewert Type II pT1N0M0 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we performed a real-world retrospective cohort study and enrolled patients with Siewert Type II pT1N0M0 AEG who underwent surgery or endoscopic treatment (ET) from 2010 to 2018. Matched cohorts were generated using propensity score matching Competing-risk analysis was applied. The cumulative incidence function was used to calculate cancer-specific death and other causes of death (OCD) at different time points. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify significant prognostic factors by using the subdistribution hazard ratio.

RESULTS

We enrolled 725 patients: 462 underwent surgery and 263 received ET. The 5 year cumulative CSD incidence significantly differed between surgery and ET cohorts (16.87% vs 11.08%, P = .01). Following PSM, 2 balanced groups (n = 219 patients each) were analyzed. No significant difference in the 5 year cumulative incidences of CSD was noted between cohorts (17.61% vs. 12.16%, P = .14). In multivariable analysis, the CSD incidence was high among patients with aged ≥65 (SHR 2.29, 95%CI 0.99-5.33, P = .05) and T1b-stage (SHR 1.92, 95%CI 1.03-3.57, P = .04); treatment (surgery or ET) was not significantly associated with cancer survival (SHR 1.51, 95% CI 0.81-2.81, P = .20).

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival did not significantly differ among patients with Siewert Type II pT1N0M0 AEG adenocarcinoma undergoing surgery or ET. ET may be considered in patients >65 years old or those with submucosal (T1b-stage) cancer of AEG.

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

Objective

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Prognostic Value of Intraoperative Blood Transfusion in Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction

Background and objectives: Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has a complicated surgical anatomy, due to which it sometimes induces excessive intraoperative blood loss that necessitates intraoperative blood transfusion (BTF). However, few reports have focused on the impact of BTF on the survival outcomes of patients with AEG. We aimed to evaluate the impact of BTF on AEG prognosis. Materials andMethods: We included 63 patients who underwent surgical resection for AEG at our hospital between January 2010 and September 2020. Clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes were compared between patients with (n = 12) and without (n = 51) BTF. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify the independent prognostic factors for overall survival. Results: None of the patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery received BTF. Patients who received BTF had a significantly worse 5-year survival rate than those who did not (67.8% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.001). BTF was an independent risk factor for overall survival (hazard ratio: 3.90, 95% confidence interval 1.30–11.7), even after patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery were excluded. Conclusions: BTF adversely affected the survival outcomes of patients with AEG who underwent curative surgery. To avoid BTF, surgeons should strive to minimize intraoperative bleeding.

Prognostic nomogram for Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction patients with and without neoadjuvant radiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the prognostic factors of Siewert type II AEG patients who had received neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) versus those who did not receive nRT. Nomograms for outcome prediction were constructed for the two treatment modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data for 1,745 Siewert II type AEG patients who underwent radical surgery between 2010 and 2015 were retrieved from SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database. Patients were assigned to neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) and non-neoadjuvant radiotherapy (non-nRT) groups based on treatment modality. Independent prognostic predictors were used to develop nomograms. Concordance index (C-index), receiver operating characteristic (ROC), calibration curves, and decision curve analyses (DCA) were used to determine the performance and prognostic value of the nomograms. The predictive accuracy of nomograms was compared with the prognostic value of the Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging system.

RESULTS

The results showed that age, lymph node rate (LNR), and the number of removed lymph nodes (RLN) were independent prognostic factors for CSS in the nRT group. Tumor size, tumor grade, T stage, LNR, and therapy type were independent prognosis factors for CSS in patients in the non-nRT group. The C-indices for the nomograms were 0.652 (95% CI, 0.614-0.690) and 0.663 (95% CI, 0.606-0.720) in the training and validation cohort, respectively, for the nRT group. C-indices for the nomogram in non-nRT group were 0.754 (95% CI, 0.723-0.785) and 0.747 (95% CI, 0.688-0.800) for the training and validation cohorts, respectively. C-indices and ROC curves showed good predictive value compared with the TNM staging system in both groups. C-indices, as well as the AUC values of the nomograms and the TNM staging system for both cohorts in the non-nRT group were higher compared with those in the nRT group. Analysis of the survival calibration curve revealed high consistency between actual versus predicted outcomes determined by the nomograms. Decision curve analyses revealed that the new models had higher prediction value and clinical significance compared with TNM staging system.

CONCLUSION

The established nomograms showed high prognostic value for Siewert type II AEG patients in both nRT and non-nRT groups. In addition, the nomogram and the TNM staging systems showed better prognostic performance for patients in the non-nRT group compared with patients in the nRT group.