Waiting Time from Diagnosis to Treatment has no Impact on Survival in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Impact of Preoperative Time Intervals for Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy on Short-term Postoperative Outcomes of Esophageal Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Study Using the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) Data

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the impact of the preoperative time intervals on short-term postoperative and pathological outcomes in esophageal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The impact of preoperative intervals on esophageal cancer patients who received multimodality treatment remains unknown.

METHODS

Patients(cT1-4aN0-3M0) treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy were included using the Dutch national DUCA-database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effect of different time intervals upon short-term postoperative and pathological outcomes: diagnosis-to-nCRT intervals (≤5, 5-8 and 8-12 wk), nCRT-to-surgery intervals (5-11, 11-17 and >17 wk) and total preoperative intervals (≤16, 16-25 and >25 wk).

RESULTS

Between 2010-2021, a total of 5052 patients were included. Compared to diagnosis-to-nCRT interval ≤5 weeks, the interval 8-12 weeks was associated with higher risk of overall complications (P=0.049). Compared to nCRT-to-surgery interval 5-11 weeks, the longer intervals (11-17 wk and >17 wk) were associated with higher risk of overall complications (P-value=0.016; P-value<0.001) and anastomotic leakage (P-value=0.004; P-value=0.030), but the interval >17 weeks was associated with lower risk of ypN+ (P-value=0.021). The longer total preoperative intervals were not associated with the risk of 30-day mortality and complications compared to the interval ≤16 weeks, but the longer total preoperative interval (>25 wk) was associated with higher ypT stage (P-value=0.010) and lower pCR rate (P-value=0.013).

CONCLUSION

In patients with esophageal cancer undergoing nCRT and esophagectomy, prolonged preoperative time intervals may lead to higher morbidity and disease progression, and the causal relationship requires further confirmation.

Managed Clinical Network for esophageal cancer enables reduction of variation between hospitals trends in treatment strategies, lead time, and 2-year survival

INTRODUCTION

Despite evidence-based guidelines, variation in esophageal cancer care exists in daily practice. Many oncology networks deployed regional agreements to standardize the patient care pathway and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. The aim of this study was to explore the trends in variation of esophageal cancer care between participating hospitals of the Managed Clinical Network (MCN) in the Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed from 2012 to 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Variation on treatment strategies, lead time to start of treatment, and 2-year survival, were calculated and compared between five clusters of hospitals within the network.

RESULTS

A total of 1763 patients, diagnosed in 17 hospitals, were included. 71% of all patients received treatment with a curative intent, which ranged from 69% to 77% between the clusters of hospitals in 2015-2016. Although variation in treatment modalities between the clusters was observed in 2012-2014, no significant variation existed in 2015-2016, except for patients receiving no treatment at all. The 2-year overall survival of patients receiving treatment with a curative intent did not vary significantly between the clusters of hospitals (range: 56%-63%). Nevertheless, the median lead time before patients started treatment with a curative intent varied between clusters of hospitals in 2015-2016 (range: 34-47 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Limited variation in esophageal cancer treatment between clusters of hospitals in the MCN existed. This study shows that oncology networks can promote standardization of cancer care and reduce variation between hospitals through insight into variation.

Dynamic monitoring revealed a slightly prolonged waiting time for total gastrectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing the short-term complications

We aimed to determine the pattern of delay and its effect on the short-term outcomes of total gastrectomy before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Overlaid line graphs were used to visualize the dynamic changes in the severity of the pandemic, number of gastric cancer patients, and waiting time for a total gastrectomy. We observed a slightly longer waiting time during the pandemic (median: 28.00 days, interquartile range: 22.00–34.75) than before the pandemic (median: 25.00 days, interquartile range: 18.00–34.00; p = 0.0071). Moreover, we study the effect of delayed surgery (waiting time > 30 days) on short-term outcomes using postoperative complications, extreme value of laboratory results, and postoperative stay. In patients who had longer waiting times, we did not observe worse short-term complication rates (grade II–IV: 15% vs. 19%, p = 0.27; grade III–IV: 7.3% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.51, the short waiting group vs. the prolonged waiting group) or a higher risk of a longer POD (univariable: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80–1.49, p = 0.59; multivariable: OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.78–1.55, p = 0.59). Patients in the short waiting group, rather than in the delayed surgery group, had an increased risk of bleeding in analyses of laboratory results (plasma prothrombin activity, hemoglobin, and hematocrit). A slightly prolonged preoperative waiting time during COVID-19 pandemic might not influence the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent total gastrectomy.

Time to Surgery for Patients with Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Trimodal Therapy in Ontario: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Patients with resectable esophageal cancer are recommended to undergo chemoradiotherapy before esophagectomy. A longer time to surgery (TTS) and/or time to consultation (TTC) may be associated with inferior cancer-related outcomes and heightened anxiety. Thoracic cancer surgery centers (TCSCs) oversee esophageal cancer management, but differences in TTC/TTS between centers have not yet been examined. This Ontario population-level study used linked administrative healthcare databases to investigate patients with esophageal cancer between 2013–2018, who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and then surgery. TTC and TTS were time from diagnosis to the first surgical consultation and then to surgery, respectively. Patients were assigned a TCSC based on the location of the surgery. Patient, disease, and diagnosing physician characteristics were investigated. Quantile regression was used to model TTS/TTC at the 50th and 90th percentiles and identify associated factors. The median TTS and TTC were 130 and 29 days, respectively. The adjusted differences between the TCSCs with the longest and shortest median TTS and TTC were 32 and 18 days, respectively. Increasing age was associated with a 16-day longer median TTS. Increasing material deprivation was associated with a 6-day longer median TTC. Significant geographic variability exists in TTS and TTC. Therefore, the investigation of TCSC characteristics is warranted. Shortening wait times may reduce patient anxiety and improve the control of esophageal cancer.

Early vs Delayed Surgery for Esophageal Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, national guidelines recommended that elective surgery for esophageal cancer be deferred by 3 months when hospital resources are limited. The impact of this delay on patient outcomes is unknown. We sought to evaluate the survival of patients with stage I and II/III esophageal cancer who undergo early vs delayed treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017, multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score-matched analysis were employed to compare survival of patients with stage I esophageal cancer who received early (0 to 4 weeks after diagnosis) vs delayed esophagectomy (12 to 16 weeks) and of patients with stage II/III esophageal cancer who-after receiving timely chemoradiation (0 to 4 weeks after diagnosis)-underwent early (9 to 17 weeks) vs delayed esophagectomy (21 to 29 weeks).

RESULTS

For stage I esophageal cancer, 226 (41.7%) patients underwent early esophagectomy, and 316 (58.3%) patients underwent delayed esophagectomy. Propensity score matching created 2 groups of 134 patients with early or delayed esophagectomy, whose 5-year survival was comparable (hazard ratio [HR] 65.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 55.2% to 73.2%] vs HR 65.1% [95% CI 55.6% to 73.1%], p = 0.50). For stage II/III esophageal cancer, 1,236 (86.1%) patients underwent early esophagectomy, and 200 (13.9%) underwent delayed esophagectomy. Propensity score matching created 2 groups of 130 patients; the early esophagectomy group had improved 5-year survival compared with the delayed esophagectomy group (HR 41.6% [95% CI 32.1% to 50.8%] vs HR 22.9% [95% CI 14.9% to 31.8%], p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Early esophagectomy was associated with similar survival compared with delayed esophagectomy for patients with stage I esophageal cancer. For patients with stage II/III esophageal cancer, early esophagectomy was associated with improved survival relative to delayed esophagectomy.

Does Loosening the Inclusion Criteria of the CROSS Trial Impact Outcomes in the Curative-Intent Trimodality Treatment of Oesophageal and Gastroesophageal Cancer Patients?

AIM

To determine the efficacy of preoperative chemoradiotherapy as per the CROSS protocol for oesophageal/gastroesophageal junction cancer (OEGEJC), when expanded to patients outside of the inclusion/exclusion criteria defined in the original clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively on 229 OEGEJC patients referred for curative-intent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Outcomes including pathological complete response (pCR), overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients who met CROSS inclusion criteria (MIC) versus those who failed to meet criteria (FMIC) were determined.

RESULTS

In total, 42.8% of patients MIC, whereas 57.2% FMIC; 16.6% of patients did not complete definitive surgery. The MIC cohort had higher rates of pCR, when compared with the FMIC cohort (33.3% versus 20.6%, P = 0.039). The MIC cohort had a better RFS, cancer-specific survival and OS compared with the FMIC cohort (P = 0.006, P = 0.004 and P = 0.009, respectively). Age >75 years and pretreatment weight loss >10% were not associated with a poorer RFS (P = 0.541 and 0.458, respectively). Compared with stage I-III patients, stage IVa was associated with a poorer RFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.158; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.339-3.480, P = 0.001). Tumours >8 cm in length or >5 cm in width had a trend towards worse RFS (HR = 2.060; 95% CI = 0.993-4.274, P = 0.052).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the robust requirements of the CROSS trial may limit treatment for patients with potentially curable OEGEJC and can be adapted to include patients with a good performance status who are older than 75 years or have >10% pretreatment weight loss. However, the inclusion of patients with celiac nodal metastases or tumours >8 cm in length or >5 cm in width may be associated with poor outcomes.

Considerations for the Surgical Management of Thoracic Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Rational Strategies for Thoracic Surgeons

Objective

The novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a global health crisis since first case was identified in December 2019. As the pandemic continues to strain global public health systems, elective surgeries for thoracic cancer, such as early-stage lung cancer and esophageal cancer (EC), have been postponed due to a shortage of medical resources and the risk of nosocomial transmission. This review is aimed to discuss the influence of COVID-19 on thoracic surgical practice, prevention of nosocomial transmission during the pandemic, and propose modifications to the standard practices in the surgical management of different thoracic cancer.

Methods

A literature search of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar was performed for articles focusing on COVID-19, early-stage lung cancer, and EC prior to 1 July 2021. The evidence from articles was combined with our data and experience.

Results

We review the challenges in the management of different thoracic cancer from the perspectives of thoracic surgeons and propose rational strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of early-stage lung cancer and EC during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the optimization of hospital systems and medical resources is to fight against COVID-19. Indolent early lung cancers, such as pure ground-glass nodules/opacities (GGOs), can be postponed with a lower risk of progression, while selective surgeries of more biologically aggressive tumors should be prioritized. As for EC, we recommend immediate or prioritized surgeries for patients with stage Ib or more advanced stage and patients after neoadjuvant therapy. Routine COVID-19 screening should be performed preoperatively before thoracic surgeries. Prevention of nosocomial transmission by providing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as N-95 respirator masks with eye protection to healthcare workers, is necessary.

Presentation, Treatment, and Prognosis of Esophageal Carcinoma in a Nationwide Comparison of Sweden and the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

This population-based study aimed to compare presentation, treatment allocation and survival of potentially curable esophageal cancer patients between Sweden and the Netherlands.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Identification of inter-country differences in treatment allocation and survival may be used for targeted esophageal cancer care improvement.

METHODS

Nationwide datasets were acquired from a Swedish cohort study and the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with potentially curable (cT1-T4a/Tx, cN0/+, cM0/x) esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) diagnosed in 2011-2015 were included. Multivariable logistic regression provided odds ratios (OR) for treatment allocation, and multivariable Cox model provided hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for age, sex, year, tumor sub-location and stage.

RESULTS

Among 1980 Swedish and 7829 Dutch esophageal cancer patients, Swedish patients were older (71 vs 69 years, P <0.001) and had higher cT-stage (cT3: 49% vs 46%, P <0.001). After adjustment for confounders, Swedish patients were less frequently allocated to curative treatment (adenocarcinoma: OR=0.31, 95%CI 0.26-0.36; SCC: OR=0.28, 95%CI 0.22-0.36). Overall survival was lower in Swedish patients (adenocarcinoma: HR=1.36, 95%CI 1.27-1.46; SCC: HR=1.38, 95%CI 1.24-1.53), also when allocated to curative treatment (adenocarcinoma: HR=1.12, 95%CI 1.01-1.24; SCC: HR=1.34, 95%CI 1.14-1.59).

CONCLUSION

Swedish patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer were less frequently allocated to curative treatment, and showed lower survival compared to Dutch patients. The less pronounced inter-country survival difference after curative treatment suggests that the overall survival difference could at least partly be due to relative undertreatment of Swedish patients. Shared curative treatment thresholds across Europe may help improve survival of esophageal cancer patients.

Impact of Preoperative Time Interval on Survival in Patients With Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

A time interval between diagnosis and surgery for gastric cancer is necessary, although its impact on survival remains controversial. We evaluated the impact of preoperative time interval on survival in gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

We enrolled 332 patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for clinical stage (cStage) I-III gastric cancer between 2012 and 2015. We separately analyzed early- (cStage I) and advanced-stage (cStages II and III) patients. Early-stage patients were divided according to preoperative time interval: short (≤ 42 days) and long (> 42 days) groups. Advanced-stage patients were also divided into short (≤ 21 days) and long (> 21 days) groups. We compared the survival between the short and long groups in early- and advanced-stage patients.

RESULTS

The median preoperative time interval was 29 days, and no significant differences were found in patient characteristics between the short and long groups in early- and advanced-stage patients. In early-stage patients, the 5-year survival rates of the short and long groups were 86.5% and 88.4%, respectively (P = 0.917). In advanced-stage patients, the 5-year survival rates were 72.1% and 70.0%, respectively (P = 0.552). In multivariate analysis, a longer time interval was not selected as an independent prognostic factor in early- and advanced-stage patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, survival difference was not found based upon preoperative time interval. The results do not affirm the delay of treatment without reason, however, imperative extension of preoperative time interval may be justified from the standpoint of long-term survival.

Anesthesia Medications and Interaction with Chemotherapeutic Agents

Cancer is now a leading health concern worldwide. In an effort to provide these patients with adequate care, coordination between anesthesiologists and surgeons is crucial. In cancer-related treatment, it is very clear that radio-chemotherapy and medical procedures are important. There are some obstacles to anesthesia when dealing with cancer treatment, such as physiological disturbances, tumor-related symptoms, and toxicity in traditional chemotherapy treatment. Therefore, it is important that a multisystemic, multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach is used to preserve perioperative homeostasis and immune function integrity. Adding adjuvants can help increase patient safety and satisfaction and improve clinical efficacy. Correctly paired anesthetic procedures and medications will reduce perioperative inflammatory and immune changes that could potentially contribute to improved results for future cancer patients. Further research into best practice strategies is required which will help to enhance the acute and long-term effects of cancer care in clinical practice.

Effect of miR-630 expression on esophageal cancer cell invasion and migration

Background

Esophageal cancer (EC) is a common malignancy of the digestive tract, with high incidence. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of miR‐630 expression on esophageal cancer (EC) cell invasion and migration.

Methods

The study group comprised 58 EC patients admitted to our hospital from April 2014 to 2016, and the control group comprised 60 healthy people visiting the hospital during the same period. miR‐630 levels in the peripheral blood of the two groups were compared, and the diagnostic value of miR‐630 for EC was analyzed. EC cell lines were used to evaluate the influence of miR‐630 expression on EC cell invasion and migration.

Results

miR‐630 expression was low in EC (p < 0.050). A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that miR‐630 expression had a good diagnostic value for EC (p < 0.050) and was associated with disease course, pathological stage, differentiation degree, tumor metastasis, and patient prognosis and survival (p < 0.05). The ROC curve analysis showed that when cutoff value was 5.38, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of miR‐630 for EC were 73.33% and 76.67%, respectively; area under the ROC curve was 0.778 (95%CI 0.695–0.861). Transfection of miR‐630 into EC cells indicated that miR‐630 overexpression can reduce EC cell invasion and migration (p < 0.05). miR‐630 expression is low in EC and has good diagnostic value for EC.

Conclusion

miR‐630 overexpression can reduce EC cell invasion and migration, showing a possible key role of miR‐630 in EC diagnosis and treatment in the future.

Prognosis of Interval Distant Metastases After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

In esophageal cancer patients, distant metastases develop between the start of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and planned surgery, so-called interval metastases. The primary aim of this study was to assess management, overall survival (OS), and prognostic factors for OS in these patients. A secondary aim was to compare OS with synchronous metastatic patients.

METHODS

Esophageal cancer patients with interval distant metastases were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2010 to 2017). Management was categorized into metastasis-directed therapy (MDT), primary tumor resection, or best supportive care (BSC). The OS was calculated from the diagnosis of the primary tumor. Prognostic factors affecting OS were studied using Cox proportional hazard models. Propensity score-matching (1:3) generated matched cases with synchronous distant metastases.

RESULTS

In all, 208 patients with interval metastases were identified: in 87 patients (42%) MDT was initiated; in 10%, primary tumor resection only; in 7%, primary tumor resection plus MDT; and in 41%, BSC. Median OS was 10 months (interquartile range, 8.6 to 11.1). Compared with BSC, superior OS was independently associated with MDT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.49), primary tumor resection (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.94), and primary tumor resection plus MDT (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.38). Worse OS was independently associated with signet ring cell carcinoma (HR 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.28) and poor differentiation grade (HR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.83). The OS was comparable between matched patients with interval and synchronous distant metastases (10.2 versus 9.4 months, P = .760).

CONCLUSIONS

In esophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with interval distant metastases, the OS was poor and comparable to that of synchronous metastatic patients.

Time to surgery in thoracic cancers and prioritization during COVID-19: a systematic review

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has overwhelmed hospital resources worldwide, requiring widespread cancellation of non-emergency operations, including lung and esophageal cancer operations. In the United States, while hospitals begin to increase surgical volume and tackle the backlog of cases, the specter of a “second wave,” with a potential vaccine months to years away, highlights the ongoing need to triage cases based upon the risk of surgical delay. We synthesize the available literature on time to surgery and its impact on outcomes along with a critical appraisal of the released triage guidelines in the United States.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines evaluating relevant literature from the past 15 years.

Results

Out of 679 screened abstracts, 12 studies investigating time to surgery in lung cancer were included. In stage I–II lung cancer, delayed resection beyond 6 to 8 weeks is consistently associated with lower survival. No identified evidence justifies a 2 cm cutoff for immediate versus delayed surgery. For stage IIIa lung cancer, time to surgery greater than 6 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy is similarly associated with worse survival. For esophageal cancer, 254 abstracts were screened and 23 studies were included. Minimal literature addresses primary esophagectomy, but time to surgery over 8 weeks is associated with lower survival. In the neoadjuvant setting, longer time to surgery is associated with increased pathologic complete response, but also decreased survival. The optimal window for esophagectomy following neoadjuvant therapy is 6 to 8 weeks.

Conclusions

In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, timely resection of lung and esophageal cancer should be prioritized whenever possible based upon local resources and disease-burden.

To Do or Not to Do?-A Review of Cancer Surgery Triage Guidelines in COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a global health emergency involving more than 200 countries so far. The number of affected population is on rising, so is the mortality. This crisis has overwhelmed the healthcare infrastructures in many affected countries. Due to overall rising cancer incidence and specific concerns, a cohort of cancer patients forms a distinct subset of the population in whom a correct and timely treatment has a huge impact on the outcome. During this period, oncology care is definitely affected owing to many factors like lockdowns, reduced beds and deferral of elective cases to halt the spread of the pandemic. Surgery remains the best line of defence in many solid organ tumours especially in early stage and is potentially curative. China, the source of this pandemic, has taken more than 3 months to enter the post transitional phase of this pandemic. Deferring cancer surgeries for this long period may have a direct impact on the long-term outcomes of cancer patients. Many surgical oncology associations across the globe have come up with triage guidelines for surgical care of cancer patients; however, these are based on expert opinion rather than actual data. Herein, we intend to review these guidelines with respect to the risk of disease progression in cancer patients. In the absence of actual data on cancer surgery care during this pandemic, clinical decisions should be based on careful consideration of disease-related and patient-related factors. While some of the cancer surgeries can be safely delayed for some time, how long we can delay surgeries safely cannot be answered/ explained by any means. Thorough evaluation and discussion by an expert and experienced multidisciplinary team appears to be the most effective way forward.

Impact of preoperative wait time on survival in patients with clinical stage II/III gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Preoperative wait time is affected by various factors, and a certain time is needed before surgery. There is a concern that cancer treatment delay can lead to poor survival. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative wait time on survival in patients with clinical stage (cStage) II/III gastric cancer.

METHODS

The study included patients with cStage II/III primary gastric cancer undergoing surgery between 2002 and 2012. Preoperative wait time was defined as the time from endoscopy for initial diagnosis to surgery. Patients were divided into the following three groups according to wait time: short wait group (≤ 30 days), intermediate wait group (> 30 and ≤ 60 days), and long wait group (> 60 and ≤ 90 days). Patient characteristics and survival were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

This study included 467 male (67%) and 229 female (33%) patients, and the median patient age was 67 years. The numbers of cStage II and III patients were 332 (48%) and 364 (52%), respectively. The median wait time was 45 days. The body mass index was lower in the short wait group than in the other groups. A shorter wait time tended to be associated with a more advanced cStage. Although survival was significantly worse in the short wait group than in the long wait group, wait time was not identified as an independent prognostic factor in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative wait time up to 90 days does not affect survival in patients with cStage II/III gastric cancer.

Impact of ‘two-week wait’ referral pathway on the diagnosis, treatment and survival in upper and lower gastrointestinal cancers

Background

The ‘two-week wait’(2WW) referral pathway was introduced in the United Kingdom to reduce waiting times for treatment of cancer. There has been a debate regarding the efficacy of 2WW pathway since its implementation.

Methods

A singleinstitutional analysis of upper gastrointestinal(UGI) and lower gastrointestinal(LGI) malignancies treated between 1April 2015 and 31March 2017 was undertaken to analyse the impact of 2WWreferral pathway on the diagnosis, treatment and survival.

Results

2WW referral does not achieve an earlier diagnosis compared with non-2WW routes of referral in UGI (χ2(3)=2.6, p=0.458) and LGI (χ2(3)=0.884, p=0.829) malignancies. 2WW referral does not lead to an improvement in curative treatment in UGI (OR1.48, 95%CI0.68to3.21, p=0.321) and LGI (OR1.59, 95%CI0.97to2.62, p=0.067) malignancies. No improvement in survival is seen in UGI (HR0.99, 95%CI0.56to1.75, p=0.963) and LGI (HR1.10, 95%CI0.60to1.99, p=0.764) malignancies by virtue of 2WW referral. Emergency presentation is the most common presenting route in UGI malignancy(40%) and is associated with poor survival (HR0.55, 95%CI0.30to0.97, p=0.045).Non-emergency route of presentation is associated with higher rates of curative treatment in UGI malignancies (OR3.49, 95%CI1.57to7.76, p=0.002). Lower rate of curative treatment (OR 0.27, 95%CI0.16to0.43, p<0.001) and poor survival (HR0.44, 95%CI0.26to0.76, p=0.003) is also observed in emergency presentation of LGI malignancy(29%) which is the secondmost common route of presentation in this group.

Conclusion

2WW referral does not achieve early diagnosis nor does it lead to an improvement in the rate of curative treatment in UGI and LGI malignancies. No improvement in short-term survival is seen in UGI malignancies nor in LGI malignancies on multivariate analysis by virtue of 2WW referral.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) improves perioperative outcomes: a review

Robotic assisted minimal invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly applied as a clinically and oncologically safe technique in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. This review focuses on the advantages and potential opportunities of RAMIE to improve the perioperative and oncological outcomes based on the evidence from current literature. In addition, critical notes on aspects such as procedure duration and costs are addressed in this paper.

Improving oncological care organization in Poland-The 2015 reform evaluation in the context of European experiences

Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with a significant economic impact which has been increasing in recent decades. Numerous expert groups and/or international organizations have developed guidelines on how to build effective cancer control mechanisms, while in the European Union the majority of countries have developed national programmes. In Poland, cancer is the second leading cause of death. Compared with other European countries, Poland is characterized by a relatively low cancer incidence ratio, yet in terms of mortality and survival ratios, the situation is much worse than the average. On 1 January 2015, an oncological therapy fast track was implemented in Poland, popularly known as the "oncological package." Its formal objectives were to improve access to and systemize the process of cancer diagnostics and treatment. The reform introduced some of the solutions existing in other European countries, including waiting time limits, patient pathways, multidisciplinary medical consultations, and a care coordinator position. The preliminary evaluation analyses suggest that after the reform implementation the average waiting time for diagnostics and treatment for patients covered by the new system was significantly shortened in comparison to those excluded. Further research evaluating the reform impact on quality and/or comprehensiveness of care are needed.

Can we assess Cancer Waiting Time targets with cancer survival? A population-based study of individually linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times monitoring dataset in England, 2009-2013

BACKGROUND

Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography combined with Chitosan-Fe3O4 nanoparticles targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor in the screening of early esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is a malignant tumor with a relatively high invasiveness, metastatic potential and worldwide incidence among human cancers. The majority of patients with esophageal cancer are diagnosed in a late tumor stage due to a lack of advanced and sensitive protocols for the diagnosis of patients with early-stage esophageal cancer. In the current study, contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CECT) combined with Chitosan-Fe₃O₄ nanoparticles targeting fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR; CECT-CNFV) were used to diagnose patients with suspected esophageal cancer. A Chitosan-Fe₃O₄-parceled bispecific antibody targeting FGFR and VEGFR was produced and its affinity to esophageal cancer cells was determined both in vitro and in vivo. A total of 320 patients with suspected esophageal cancer were voluntarily recruited to evaluate the efficacy of CECT-CNFV in the diagnosis of early-stage esophageal cancer. All participants were subjected to CT and CECT-CNFV to detect whether tumors were present in the esophageal area. A Chitosan-Fe₃O₄ nanoparticles contrast agent was orally administered at 20 min prior to CT and CECT-CNFV. The results demonstrated that CECT-CNFV improved diagnostic sensitivity and provided a novel protocol for the diagnosis of tumors in patients with suspected gastric cancer at an early-stage. Furthermore, the resolution ratio of images was enhanced by CECT-CNFV, which enabled the visualization of tiny tumor nodules in esophageal tissue. Clinical data demonstrated that CECT-CNFV diagnosed 200 patients with suspected early-stage esophageal cancer and 120 patients as tumor free. In addition, CECT-CNFV exhibited higher signal enhancement of tumor nodules than CT, suggesting a higher accuracy and accumulation of nanoparticle contrast agent within the tumor nodules of esophageal tissue. Notably, the survival rate of patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed at an early-stage by CECT-CNFV was higher than the mean five-year survival rate (P<0.01). In conclusion, CECT-CNFV enhanced the sensitivity and accuracy of CT in the diagnosis of early-stage esophageal cancer. Thus, CECT-CNFV may improve the accuracy of CT in the diagnosis of mural enhancement in patients with esophageal cancer.

Disseminated tumour cells with highly aberrant genomes are linked to poor prognosis in operable oesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Chromosomal instability (CIN) has repeatedly been identified as a prognostic marker. Here we evaluated the percentage of aberrant genome per cell (PAG) as a measure of CIN in single disseminated tumour cells (DTC) isolated from patients with operable oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), to assess the impact of CIN^high DTCs on prognosis.

METHODS

We isolated CK18^positive DTCs from bone marrow (BM) or lymph node (LN) preparations of operable EAC patients. After whole-genome amplification, single DTCs were analysed for chromosomal gains and losses using metaphase-based comparative genomic hybridisation (mCGH). We calculated the PAG for each DTC and determined the critical threshold value that identifies high-risk patients by STEPP (Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot) analysis in two independent EAC patient cohorts (cohort #1, n=44; cohort #2; n=29).

RESULTS

The most common chromosomal alterations observed among the DTCs were typical for EAC, but the DTCs showed a varying PAG between individual patients. Generally, LNDTCs displayed a significantly higher PAG than BMDTCs. STEPP analysis revealed an increasing PAG of DTCs to be correlated with an increased risk for short survival in two independent EAC cohorts as well as in the corresponding pooled analysis. In all three data sets (cohort #1, cohort #2 and pooled cohort), PAG^high DTCs conferred an independent risk for a significantly decreased survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of PAG/CIN in solitary marker-positive DTCs identifies operable EAC patients with poor prognosis, indicating a more aggressive minimal residual disease.

Association Between Waiting Time from Diagnosis to Treatment and Survival in Patients with Curable Gastric Cancer: A Population-Based Study in the Netherlands

Background

In the Netherlands, a maximum waiting time from diagnosis to treatment (WT) of 5 weeks is recommended for curative cancer treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the association between WT and overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing gastrectomy for cancer.

Methods

This nationwide study included data from patients diagnosed with curable gastric adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2014 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into two groups: patients who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by gastrectomy, or patients who underwent gastrectomy as primary surgery. WT was analyzed as a categorical (≤5 weeks [Reference], 5–8 weeks, >8 weeks) and as a discrete variable. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to assess the influence of WT on OS.

Results

Among 3778 patients, 1701 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by gastrectomy, and 2077 underwent primary gastrectomy. In the neoadjuvant group, median WT to neoadjuvant treatment was 4.6 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 3.4–6.0), and median OS was 32 months. In the surgery group, median WT to surgery was 6.0 weeks (IQR 4.3–8.4), and median OS was 25 months. For both groups, WT did not influence OS (neoadjuvant: 5–8 weeks, hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, p = 0.068; >8 weeks, HR 0.85, p = 0.354; each additional week WT, HR 0.96, p = 0.078; surgery: 5–8 weeks, HR 0.91, p = 0.175; >8 weeks, HR 0.92, p = 0.314; each additional week WT, HR 0.99, p = 0.264).

Conclusions

Longer WT until the start of curative treatment for gastric cancer is not associated with worse OS. These results could help to put WT into perspective as indicator of quality of care and reassure patients with gastric cancer.

Waiting time for cancer treatment and mental health among patients with newly diagnosed esophageal or gastric cancer: a nationwide cohort study

Background

Except for overall survival, whether or not waiting time for treatment could influences other domains of cancer patients’ overall well-being is to a large extent unknown. Therefore, we performed this study to determine the effect of waiting time for cancer treatment on the mental health of patients with esophageal or gastric cancer.

Methods

Based on the Swedish National Quality Register for Esophageal and Gastric Cancers (NREV), we followed 7,080 patients diagnosed 2006–2012 from the time of treatment decision. Waiting time for treatment was defined as the interval between diagnosis and treatment decision, and was classified into quartiles. Mental disorders were identified by either clinical diagnosis through hospital visit or prescription of psychiatric medications. For patients without any mental disorder before treatment, the association between waiting time and subsequent onset of mental disorders was assessed by hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI), derived from multivariable-adjusted Cox model. For patients with a preexisting mental disorder, we compared the rate of psychiatric care by different waiting times, allowing for repeated events.

Results

Among 4,120 patients without any preexisting mental disorder, lower risk of new onset mental disorders was noted for patients with longer waiting times, i.e. 18–29 days (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.00) and 30–60 days (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.93) as compared with 9–17 days. Among 2,312 patients with preexisting mental disorders, longer waiting time was associated with more frequent psychiatric hospital care during the first year after treatment (37.5% higher rate per quartile increase in waiting time; p for trend = 0.0002). However, no such association was observed beyond one year nor for the prescription of psychiatric medications.

Conclusions

These data suggest that waiting time to treatment for esophageal or gastric cancer may have different mental health consequences for patients depending on their past psychiatric vulnerabilities. Our study sheds further light on the complexity of waiting time management, and calls for a comprehensive strategy that takes into account different domains of patient well-being in addition to the overall survival.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-3013-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of diagnosis-to-treatment waiting time on survival in esophageal cancer patients - A population-based study in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine whether the waiting time from diagnosis to treatment with curative intent for esophageal cancer impacts oncologic outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients treated by esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma in 2005-2013 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients who underwent multimodality treatment and patients treated with surgery only were analyzed separately. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of diagnosis-to-treatment waiting time on pT-status, pN-status, and R0 resection rates. Cox regression was applied to estimate the influence of waiting time on overall survival. Analyses were performed with the original scale and in three categorized groups of waiting time (≤5 weeks, 5-8 weeks, and >8 weeks) based on guidelines and previous studies.

RESULTS

Of 3839 patients, 2589 underwent multimodality treatment and 1250 were treated with surgery only. In both groups, pT-status, pN-status, and R0 resection rates were not significantly influenced by waiting time (p-values >0.05). Also, waiting time was not significantly associated with overall survival in the multimodality treatment group (5-8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, p = 0.171; and >8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 1.21, p = 0.167), nor in the surgery only group (5-8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 0.92, p = 0.432; and >8 weeks vs. ≤5 weeks, HR 1.00, p = 0.973).

CONCLUSION

This large population-based cohort study demonstrates that longer waiting time from diagnosis to treatment in patients treated for esophageal cancer with curative intent does not negatively impact pT-status, pN-status, R0 resection rates, and overall survival.