Oncological recurrence following pathological complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in patients with esophageal cancer - a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate recurrence in patients with post-neoadjuvant pathological complete response (pCR) and in patients with complete response of primary tumor but persisting lymphatic spread of disease (non-pCR, ypT0ypN +) of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients (63 pCR, 12 non-pCR) were analyzed retrospectively. Pattern and incidence of local and distant recurrence as well as the impact on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated. The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to FLOT protocol was compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation according to CROSS protocol.

RESULTS

In the pCR group, isolated local recurrence was diagnosed in 3%, while no isolated local recurrence was observed in the non-pCR group due to the high incidence of distant recurrence. Distant recurrence was most common in both cohorts (isolated distant recurrence: pCR group 10% to non-pCR group 55%; simultaneous distant and local recurrence: pCR group 3% to non-pCR group 18%). Median time to distant recurrence was 5.5 months, and median time to local recurrence was 8.0 months. Cumulative incidence of distant recurrence (with and without simultaneous local recurrence) was 16% (± 6%) in pCR patients and 79% (± 13%) in non-pCR patients (hazard ratio (HR) 0.123) estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. OS (HR 0.231) and DFS (HR 0.226) were significantly improved in patients with pCR compared to patients with non-pCR. Advantages for FLOT protocol compared to CROSS protocol, especially with regard to distant control of disease (HR 0.278), were observed (OS (HR 0.361), DFS (HR 0.226)).

CONCLUSION

Distant recurrence is the predominant site of treatment failure in patients with pCR and non-pCR grade 1a regression, whereby recurrence rates are much higher in patients with non-pCR.

Proximal gastrectomy and double-tract reconstruction vs total gastrectomy in gastric and gastro-esophageal junction cancer patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500)

BACKGROUND

In Germany and Western Europe, gastroesophageal junction cancer (AEG) and proximal gastric cancer are currently treated with (transhiatal-extended) total gastrectomy (TG) according to the latest treatment guidelines. TG leads to a severe and long-lasting impairment of postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the treated patients. Recent studies have suggested that HRQoL of these patients could be improved by proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (PG-DTR) without compromising oncologic safety. Our aim is therefore to conduct a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing PG-DTR with TG in AEG II/III and gastric cancer patients with overall survival as primary endpoint and HRQoL as key secondary endpoint.

METHODS

This protocol is written with reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P 2015) statement. We will conduct searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library. We will also check references of relevant studies and perform a cited reference research. Titles and abstracts of the records identified by the searches will be screened, and full texts of all potentially relevant articles will be obtained. We will consider randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias of the included studies will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.4 (Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will identify the current study pool concerning the comparison of TG and PG-DTR and help to finally refine the research questions and to allow an evidence-based trial design of the planned multicenter randomized-controlled trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Study findings will be shared by publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021291500.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing proximal gastrectomy with double-tract-reconstruction and total gastrectomy in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer patients: Still no sufficient evidence for clinical decision-making

BACKGROUND

To compare proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction and total gastrectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (AEG II-III) and gastric cancer.

METHODS

We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December 20, 2021 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021291500). Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool, as applicable. Evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 13 non-RCTs with 1,317 patients (715 patients with total gastrectomy and 602 patients with proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction) were included. Patients treated by total gastrectomy had a significantly higher proportion of advanced cancer stages International Union Against Cancer IB-III (odds ratio: 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.91, P = .01). This heterogeneity biases the observed improved overall survival of patients after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction (odds ratio: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.44-1.01, P = .05). Both procedures were comparably efficient regarding perioperative parameters. Postoperative/preoperative bodyweight ratio (mean difference: 3.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.32-5.79, P = .002), postoperative/preoperative serum-hemoglobin ratio (mean difference 3.73, 95% confidence interval: 1.59-5.88, P < .001), and postoperative serum vitamin B₁₂ levels (mean difference 42.46, 95% confidence interval: 6.37-78.55, P = .02) were superior after proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction, while postoperative/preoperative serum-albumin ratio (mean difference 1.24, 95% confidence interval: -4.76 to 7.24, P = .69) and postoperative/preoperative serum total protein ratio (mean difference 1.12, 95% confidence interval: -2.77 to 5.00, P = .57) were not different. Health-related quality of life data were reported in only 2 studies, which found no significant advantages for proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction offers advantages in postoperative nutritional parameters compared to total gastrectomy (GRADE: moderate quality of evidence). Oncological effectiveness of proximal gastrectomy with double-tract reconstruction cannot be assessed (GRADE: very low quality of evidence). Further thoroughly planned randomized controlled trials in Western patient cohorts are necessary to improve treatment for gastric cancer patients.

Pathological complete response in multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

To evaluate pathological complete response (pCR, ypT0ypN0) after neoadjuvant treatment compared with non-complete response (non-CR) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC), and 393 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Survival probability was analyzed in patients with: (i) pCR vs non-CR; (ii) complete response of the primary tumor but persisting lymphatic metastases (non-CR-T0N+) and (iii) pCR and tumor-free lymphnodes exhibiting signs of postneoadjuvant regression vs. no signs of regression. (i) Median overall survival (mOS) was favorable in patients with pCR (pCR: mOS not reached vs. non-CR: 41 months, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that grade of regression was not an independent predictor for prolonged survival. Instead, the achieved postneoadjuvant TNM-stage (T-stage: Hazard ratio [HR] ypT3-T4 vs. ypT0-T2: 1.837; N-stage: HR ypN1-N3 vs. ypN0: 2.046; Postneoadjuvant M-stage: HR ypM1 vs. ycM0: 2.709), the residual tumor (R)-classification (HR R1 vs. R0: 4.195) and the histologic subtype of EC (HR ESCC vs. EAC: 1.688) were prognostic factors. Patients with non-CR-T0N+ have a devastating prognosis, similar to those with local non-CR and lymphatic metastases (non-CR-T + N+) (non-CR-T0N+: 22.0 months, non-CR-T + N-: mOS not reached, non-CR-T + N+: 23.0 months; P-values: non-CR-T0N+ vs. non-CR-T + N-: 0.016; non-CR-T0N+ vs. non-CR-T + N+: 0.956; non-CR-T + N- vs. non-CR-T + N+: <0.001). Regressive changes in lymphnodes after neoadjuvant treatment did not influence survival-probability in patients with pCR (mOS not reached in each group; EAC-patients: P = 0.0919; ESCC-patients: P = 0.828). Particularly, the achieved postneoadjuvant ypTNM-stage influences the survival probability of patients with EC. Patients with non-CR-T0N+ have a dismal prognosis, and only true pathological complete response with ypT0ypN0 offers superior survival probabilities.