Perioperative Chemotherapy Compared With Surgery Alone for Resectable Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: An FNCLCC and FFCD Multicenter Phase III Trial

D2 lymphadenectomy is not only safe but necessary in the era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Background

Patients with locally advanced resectable gastric cancers are increasingly offered neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) following the MAGIC and REAL-2 trials. However, information on the toxicity of NACT, its effects on perioperative surgical outcomes and tumor response is not widely reported in literature.

Methods

Analysis of a prospective database of gastric cancer patients undergoing radical D2 gastrectomy over 2 years was performed. Chemotherapy-related toxicity, perioperative outcomes and histopathological responses to NACT were analyzed. The data is presented and compared to a cohort of patients undergoing upfront surgery in the same time period.

Results

In this study, 139 patients (42 female and 97 male patients, median age 53 years) with gastric adenocarcinoma received NACT. Chemotherapy-related toxicity was noted in 32% of patients. Of the 139 patients, 129 underwent gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy, with 12% morbidity and no mortality. Major pathological response of primary tumor was noted in 22 patients (17%). Of these 22 patients, lymph node metastases were noted in 12 patients. The median blood loss and lymph node yield was not significantly different to the 62 patients who underwent upfront surgery. Patients who underwent upfront surgery were older (58 vs. 52 years, P <0.02), had a higher number of distal cancers (63% vs. 82%, P <0.015) and a longer hospital stay (11 vs. 9 days, P <0.001).

Conclusions

Perioperative outcomes of gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for locally advanced, resectable gastric cancer were not influenced by NACT. The number of lymph nodes harvested was unaltered by NACT but, more pertinently, metastases to lymph nodes were noted even in patients with a major pathological response of the primary tumor. D2 lymphadenectomy should be performed in all patients irrespective of the degree of response to NACT.

Multimodality management of esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is a highly lethal and aggressive disease and a major public health problem worldwide. The incidence of esophageal cancer in the western hemisphere has increased by 400 % in the past few decades (Posner et al. 2011). Surgery is the mainstay of definitive management of esophageal cancer; however, the results of surgery alone have been dismal, with survival rates of approximately 15 to 20 % at 5 years (Hingorani et al., Clin Oncol 23:696-705, 2011). The last three decades have seen growing interest in various adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment strategies, with an aim to improve disease control and overall survival. However, due to conflicting and often contradictory results, there was controversy on the ideal treatment paradigm. Recent evidence suggests an improvement in overall survival with neoadjuvant therapy, both chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, over surgery. In this review we address various issues concerning multimodality management of locally advanced esophageal cancers: Does neoadjuvant therapy offer a definite benefit over surgery alone? If so, which neoadjuvant strategy? Does the survival benefit outweigh the increased treatment related toxicity/morbidity? Finally, is neoadjuvant treatment the standard of care for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer?

Postoperative chemoradiotherapy combined with epirubicin-based triplet chemotherapy for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction

Background

Due to low tolerance to chemotherapy, the maximum number of cycles of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is 4 in adjuvant gastric clinical trials. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of adjuvant epirubicin-based triplet chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of resected locally advanced stomach or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Methodology/Principal Findings

From January 2004 to July 2008, ninety-seven consecutive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma patients in stages T3–4/N+ were treated with postoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The recommended treatment plan was radical resection followed by 1–2 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT), and, finally, 4–5 cycles of ACT. The patients were classified into two groups depending on the number of cycles of ACT: group 1 received 4–6 cycles (n = 59), and group 2 received 0–3 cycles (n = 38). The detailed grouping is as follows: RT alone, 2; RT and CT, 18; concurrent RTCT and CT, 41; and CRT, 36. Of the 97 patients, 77 patients received concurrent therapy (CRT, (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine), and 20 received radiotherapy alone because of patient refusal (n = 15) or treatment toxicity (n = 5). After a median follow-up of 44 months, the 3-year disease free survival(DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 66.5% and 69.5% for group 1 and 45.5% and 50% for group 2, respectively (p = 0.005 and p = 0.024). Multivariate analysis revealed that 4–6 cycles of ACT, lymphovascular invasion, or peritoneal metastasis were independent prognostic factors for disease-free survival or overall survival (p<0.05).

Conclusions/Significance

This study demonstrates that concurrent chemoradiation with adjuvant epirubicin-based triplet chemotherapy is feasible and tolerable for gastric or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma patients. Patients can benefit from more cycles of ACT.

Population-based outcome of stage IA-IIA resected gastric adenocarcinoma: who should get adjuvant treatment?

BACKGROUND

The benefit of adjuvant treatment in gastric adenocarcinoma was demonstrated by randomized, controlled trials of patients with locally advanced tumors. Thus, its role for stage IIB-IIIC disease is widely accepted. We aimed to identify patients with stage IA-IIA gastric adenocarcinoma who have a poor prognosis and thus may benefit from adjuvant treatment.

METHODS

Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent surgical resection with pathological evaluation of ≥15 lymph nodes and had available disease-specific survival (DSS) data were identified from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Registry. Survival differences were evaluated with the log-rank test and Cox multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Stage and TN grouping strongly predicted DSS (P < 0.001, P < 0.001). Stage IA tumors had an excellent outcome: 91 ± 1.2 % 5-year DSS. The TN groupings of stages IB and IIA had the next best outcomes with 5-year DSS from 66 ± 4.6 % to 81 ± 2.3 %. Older age (P < 0.001), higher grade (P = 0.004), larger tumor size (P < 0.001), and proximal tumor location (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of worse DSS in stage IB-IIA tumors. We devised a risk stratification scheme for stage IB-IIA tumors where 1 point was assigned for age >60 years, tumor size >5 cm, proximal tumor location, and grade other than well-differentiated. Five-year DSS was 100 % for patients with 0 points; 86 ± 4.3 %, 1 point; 76 ± 3 %, 2 points; 72 ± 2.8 %, 3 points; and 48 ± 4.9 %, 4 points (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with stage IB-IIA gastric adenocarcinoma and ≥2 adverse features (age >60 years, tumor size >5 cm, proximal location, and high-grade) have 5-year DSS ≤76 %. Adjuvant therapy may be warranted for these patients.

Long-term survival after gastrectomy for cancer in randomized, controlled oncological trials: comparison between West and East

BACKGROUND

The presence of mixed evidence about the value of lymphadenectomy in gastric cancer surgery coupled with the difference in patients' demographics and tumor stage between the West and East have doubted the needs to standardize surgical techniques in Western clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to compare survival rates between the West and East following gastrectomy in randomized, controlled, oncological trials with appropriate adjustment for confounding variables.

METHODS

Systematic search revealed 25 trials that have randomization into surgery and chemotherapy versus surgery alone between 1995 and 2012 (n = 7 (East) and n = 18 (West)). End points were 5-year survival and cancer recurrence.

RESULTS

There was association between gastrectomy performed in the East and improved 5-year survival (pooled odds ratio (OR) 4.83; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.27-7.12) and reduced cancer recurrence (pooled OR 0.33; 95 % CI 0.2-0.54). Association of improved 5-year survival with surgery in the East remained when meta-regression adjusted for the effect of age, sex, chemotherapy, tumor depth and nodal status, and gastrectomy type. Association of reduced cancer recurrence also persisted with meta-regression adjusting for age, chemotherapy, nodal status, and gastrectomy type. However, when adjustment for the percentage of patients with tumor depth T1 or 2 was made statistical significance was lost.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows association between gastrectomy performed in Eastern countries and improved survival. The known difference in surgical techniques between the East and the West is one potential unexamined variable that may be responsible in part for such discrepancy in outcomes.

A phase II study of neoadjuvant combination chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and S-1 for locally advanced resectable gastric cancer: nucleotide excision repair (NER) as potential chemoresistance marker

PURPOSE

The combination of docetaxel, cisplatin, and S-1 (DCS) chemotherapy is expected to be a promising regimen for advanced gastric cancer. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant DCS chemotherapy for locally advanced resectable gastric cancer.

METHODS

Patients with locally advanced gastric cancer received 2 courses of preoperative chemotherapy with S-1 (40 mg/m(2) b.i.d.) on days 1-14 and docetaxel (60 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (60 mg/m(2)) on day 8 every 3 weeks, followed by standard curative surgery within 4-8 weeks. The primary endpoint was R0 resectability. Expression of damage DNA binding protein complex subunit 2 (DDB2)/excision repair cross-complementing 1 (ERCC1) in the pretreated tumor tissues was examined by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The response rate was 74.4%, and disease control ratio was 100%. Grade 4 neutropenia developed in 53.5% of patients and febrile neutropenia in 16.3%. Non-hematological grade 3/4 adverse events were anorexia (23.3%), nausea (14.0%), and diarrhea (23.3%), but these were generally transient and manageable. The proportion of R0 resections in the 43 eligible patients was 90.7%, and a pathological response was found in 65.9% of patients. There were no treatment-related deaths and no major surgical complications. The accuracy of the combination of DDB2 and ERCC1 expression for predicting chemoresistance was 82.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative treatment with DCS combination for locally advanced gastric cancer demonstrated a sufficient R0 resection rate and a good pathological response with manageable toxicities. The DDB2/ERCC1-high phenotype, as determined by immunohistochemistry, may be useful predictor of resistance to DCS chemotherapy.

Proposal for a multifactorial prognostic score that accurately classifies 3 groups of gastric carcinoma patients with different outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery

OBJECTIVE

We have developed a multifactorial histopathological prognostic score (PRSC) for patients with gastric cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery for the accurate discrimination of patient subgroups with differing outcomes.

BACKGROUND

For patients with gastric cancer who undergo multimodal treatment, the postoperative staging classifications used for nontreated tumors may not accurately predict patient prognosis.

METHODS

We evaluated 428 gastric carcinoma specimens after a cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The factors for the Union for International Cancer Control/American Joint Committee on Cancer (UICC/AJCC) ypT-category, ypN-category, and histopathological tumor regression were assigned a value from 1 to 3 as follows: ypT0 to 2 = 1 point; ypT3 = 2 points; ypT4 = 3 points; ypN0 = 1 point; ypN1 to 2 = 2 points; ypN3a to 3b = 3 points; less than 10% residual tumor per tumor bed = 1 point; 10% to 50% residual tumor per tumor bed = 2 points; and greater than 50% residual tumor per tumor bed = 3 points. A 3-tiered PRSC based on the sum value was established (group A: 3-4 points; group B: 5-7 points; group C: 8-9 points) and was found to correlate with patient prognosis.

RESULTS

The PRSC showed a clear discrimination of 3 significantly different prognostic groups (group A: 76 patients; group B: 210 patients; group C: 142 patients; P < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, including the completeness of resection, tumor diameter, lymphatic vessel invasion, tumor grading, and Lauren classification, the PRSC was the only independent prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.03; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.49-2.78; P < 0.001). It was slightly superior to the UICC/AJCC staging system (HR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.20-2.27; P = 0.002) when analyzed with tumor regression as an additional independent factor (HR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.62; P = 0.044) included in the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed PRSC reveals the most accurate prediction of survival for patients with gastric carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. The PRSC clearly identifies 3 subgroups with different prognoses and may be helpful for therapeutic decisions.

Feasibility of perioperative chemotherapy with infusional 5-FU, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with (FLOT) or without (FLO) docetaxel in elderly patients with locally advanced esophagogastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this exploratory subgroup analysis of the fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, docetaxel (FLOT)65+ trial was to determine tolerability and feasibility of perioperative chemotherapy in elderly, potentially operable esophagogastric cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥65 with locally advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were randomized to perioperative chemotherapy consisting of four pre- and four postoperative cycles of infusional 5-FU, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FLO) without or with docetaxel 50 mg m(-)(2) (FLOT), every 2 weeks.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients with a median age of 70 years were randomized and 43 patients started preoperative chemotherapy (FLO, 22; FLOT, 21). Thirty-eight (86.4%) patients completed four cycles of preoperative chemotherapy and 32 (74.4%) proceeded to surgery, with 67.4% R0 resections on intent-to-treat analysis (90.1% of the 32 patients who underwent resection). Median overall survival was not reached and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17.3 months. Compared with the FLO group, the FLOT group showed a trend towards an improved median PFS (21.1 vs 12.0 months; P=0.09), however, associated with increased chemotherapy related toxicity. No perioperative mortality was observed. Postoperative morbidity was observed in 46.9% of patients (FLO, 35.3%; FLOT, 60%).

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant FLO or FLOT may offer a reasonable chance of curative surgery in elderly patients with locally advanced resectable gastroesophageal cancer. However, the increase in side effects with the FLOT regimen and postoperative morbidity should be carefully considered when an intensive chemotherapy regimen is planned.

Risk factors of peritoneal recurrence in eso-gastric signet ring cell adenocarcinoma: results of a multicentre retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

The poor prognosis of signet ring cell (SRC) eso-gastric adenocarcinoma (EGA) might be explained by its great affinity for the peritoneum. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of peritoneal carcinomatosis recurrence (PCR) after curative surgery and hence identify high risk patients.

METHODS

A retrospective national survey was conducted over 19 French surgical centers between 1997 and 2010. Patients with non-metastatic disease who benefited from curative surgery without postoperative death were included. Event-free patients who did not reach the time point of 24 months were excluded.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 3010 patients, 1050 were SRC EGA and 424 patients met the selection criteria. The tumor location was mainly gastric (68.9%) and a total gastrectomy was performed in 218 patients (51.4%). Chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy alone was given preoperatively to 71 (16.7%) and postoperatively to 150 (35.4%) patients. After a median follow-up of 54 months, recurrence was diagnosed in 214 patients (50.5%) within a mean delay of 17 ± 10.7 months. PCR was diagnosed in 81 patients (19.1%). In multivariable analysis, four factors were identified as predictors of PCR: linitis plastica (p < 0.001; OR = 4.83), tumor invasion of/or through the peritoneal serosa (p = 0.022; OR = 1.58), lymph node involvement (p = 0.005; OR = 1.7) and tumors of gastric origin (p = 0.026; OR = 2.36), with PCR rates of 55%, 26%, 23% and 22%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Identification of strong predictors for PCR among this large series of SRC EGA patients helps to identify subgroups of patients that may benefit from specific therapeutic strategies such as prophylactic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Management of localized gastric cancer

Gastric cancer continues to be a fatal disease with majority of cases presenting in late stages. For patients with advanced disease, we can only recommend palliative therapy. For localized gastric cancer, the approaches vary in various regions of the world. In western countries, preoperative chemotherapy or adjuvant chemo-radiation is preferred; however in Asia, surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is favored. The extent of the lymph node dissection also varies by region. D2 gastrectomy is difficult to implement in most western countries while it is standardized and is a routine in Asia. We recommend multidisciplinary evaluation of each patient before starting any therapy. The prognosis after resection depends of the pathologic stage. Long-term survivors are often <50% in the West and <70% in many Asian countries. Regional and systemic recurrences are common. Improved systemic treatments are needed. Detailed studies of molecular biology might uncover novel therapeutic targets and prognostic subgroups.

Unanswered questions in the management of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: an overview from the medical oncologist's perspective

Patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma have multiple treatment options; however, are victims of lack of consensus and wide variation in treatment, sometimes within the same hospital. While there is a consensus that surgery alone is inadequate for locally advanced disease, locoregional treatment has become the point for debate. Only in 2010 was the reclassification of GEJ cancers as esophageal cancers. Treatment options remain as varied as the classification of GEJ cancers: preoperative chemoradiotherapy, definitive chemoradiation, perioperative chemotherapy, and resection followed by postoperative chemoradiation. Several studies have examined the varying treatment paradigms; however, many fall short due to methodology or sample size. The MAGIC study determined perioperative chemotherapy to be an acceptable standard treatment option for patients with gastric cancer, althouth a significant portion of enrolled patients had distal esophageal and GEJ adenocarcinoma. The CROSS study concluded combination chemotherapy and radiation before resection beneficial. Preoperative therapy in cases of GEJ is beneficial for survival, but not as much impact is seen as in esophageal SCC, which exhibits an increased sensitivity to CRT. There is concurrence with two phase III studies from Japan and Korea on the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer. However, the applicability of these studies to GEJ adenocarcinoma remains a question, especially with the significantly different epidemiology of increased proximal and GEJ tumors in the West compared to Asia. To move forward with this increasingly prevalent disease, we will need to do more than understand the multiple treatment paradigms-we will need to select a strategy and examine it.

Effectiveness of 5-flurouracil-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally-advanced gastric/gastroesophageal cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM: To investigate the effectiveness of 5-flurouracil-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for gastroesophageal and gastric cancer by meta-analysis.

METHODS: MEDLINE and manual searches were performed to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of the flurouracil-based NAC for gastroesophageal and gastric cancer, and RCTs of NAC for advanced gastroesophageal and gastric cancer vs no therapy before surgery. Studies that included patients with metastases at enrollment were excluded. Primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improving overall survival rate of patients with gastroesophageal and gastric cancer. Secondary endpoints were the OR of efficiency for down-staging tumor and increasing R0 resection in patients with gastroesophageal and gastric cancer. Safety analyses were also performed. The OR was the principal measurement of effect, which was calculated as the treatment group (NAC plus surgery) vs control group (surgery alone) and was presented as a point estimate with 95% confidence intervals (CI). All calculations and statistical tests were performed using RevMan 5.1 software.

RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included for the analysis. A total of 1249 patients with advanced gastroesophageal and gastric cancer enrolled in the seven trials were divided into treatment group (n = 620) and control group (n = 629). The quality scores of the RCTs were assessed according to the method of Jadad. The RCT quality scores ranged from 2 to 7 (5-point scale), with a mean of 3.75. The median follow-up time in these studies was over 3 years. The meta-analysis showed that NAC improved the overall survival rate (OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.11-1.76; P = 0.005), which was statistically significant. The 3-year progression-free survival rate was significantly higher in treatment group than in control group (37.7% vs 27.3%) (OR 1.62, 95%CI 1.21-2.15; P = 0.001). The tumor down-stage rate was higher in treatment group than in control group (55.76% vs 41.38%) (OR 1.77, 95%CI 1.27-2.49; P = 0.0009) and the R0 resection rate of the gastroesophageal and gastric cancer was higher in treatment group than in control group (75.11% vs 68.56%) (OR 1.38, 95%CI 1.03-1.85; P = 0.03), with significant differences. No obvious safety concerns about mortality and complications were raised in these trials. There were no statistically significant differences in perioperative mortality (5.08% vs 4.86%) (OR 1.05, 95%CI 0.57-1.94; P = 0.87 fixed-effect model) and in the complication rate between the two groups (13.25% vs 9.66%) (OR 1.40, 95%CI 0.91-2.14; P = 0.12 fixed-effect model). Trials showed that patients from Western countries favored NAC compared with those from Asian countries (OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.07-1.83). Monotherapy was inferior to multiple chemotherapy (OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.07-1.83). Intravenous administration of NAC was more advantageous than oral route (OR 1.41, 95%CI 1.09-1.81).

CONCLUSION: Flurouracil-based NAC can safely improve overall survival rate of patients with gastroesophageal/gastric cancer. Additionally, NAC can down the tumor stage and improve R0 resection.

Factors predicting prognosis and recurrence in patients with esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma and histopathological response with less than 10 % residual tumor

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant treatment is an accepted standard approach for treating locally advanced esophago-gastric adenocarcinomas. Despite a response of the primary tumor, a significant percentage dies from tumor recurrence. The aim of this retrospective exploratory study from two academic centers was to identify predictors of survival and recurrence in histopathologically responding patients.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty one patients with adenocarcinomas (esophagus: n = 185, stomach: n = 46, cT3/4, cN0/+, cM0) treated with preoperative chemotherapy (n = 212) or chemoradiotherapy (n = 19) followed by resection achieved a histopathological response (regression 1a: no residual tumor (n = 58), and regression 1b < 10 % residual tumor (n = 173)).

RESULTS

The estimated median overall survival was 92.4 months (5-year survival, 56.6 %) for all patients. For patients with regression 1a, median survival is not reached (5-year survival, 71.6 %) compared to patients with regression 1b with 75.3 months median (5-year survival, 52.2 %) (p = 0.031). Patients with a regression 1a had lymph node metastases in 19.0 versus 33.7 % in regression 1b. The ypT-category (p < 0.001), the M-category (p = 0.005), and the type of treatment (p = 0.04) were found to be independent prognostic factors in R0-resected patients. The recurrence rate was 31.7 % (n = 66) (local, 39.4 %; peritoneal carcinomatosis, 25.7 %; distant metastases, 50 %). Recurrence was predicted by female gender (p = 0.013), ypT-category (p = 0.007), and M-category (p = 0.003) in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Response of the primary tumor does not guarantee recurrence-free long-term survival, but histopathological complete responders have better prognosis compared to partial responders. Established prognostic factors strongly influence the outcome, which could, in the future, be used for stratification of adjuvant treatment approaches. Increasing the rate of histopathological complete responders is a valid endpoint for future clinical trials investigating new drugs.

Does surgery improve outcomes for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? An analysis using the surveillance epidemiology and end results registry from 1998 to 2008

BACKGROUND

We examined survival associated with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer (SCC) to evaluate if treatment without surgery could be considered adequate.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Registry (SEER) registry with stage II-III SCC of the mid or distal esophagus from 1998-2008 were grouped by treatment with definitive radiation versus esophagectomy with or without radiation. Information on chemotherapy is not recorded in SEER. Tumor stage was defined as first clinical tumor stage in case of neo-adjuvant therapy and pathological report if no neo-adjuvant therapy was performed. Cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier approach and propensity-score adjusted Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Of the 2,431 patients analyzed, there were 844 stage IIA (34.7%), 428 stage IIB (17.6%), 1,159 stage III (47.7%) patients. Most were treated with definitive radiation (n = 1,426, 58.7%). Of the 1,005 (41.3%) patients who underwent surgery, 369 (36.7%) had preoperative radiation, 160 (15.9%) had postoperative radiation, and 476 (47.4%) had no radiation. Five-year survival was 17.9% for all patients, and 22.1%, 18.5%, and 14.5% for stages IIA, IIB, and stage III, respectively. Compared to treatment that included surgery, definitive radiation alone predicted worse propensity-score adjusted survival for all patients (CSS Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.48, p < 0.001; OS HR 1.46, p < 0.001) and for stage IIA, IIB, and III patients individually (all p values ≤ 0.01). Compared to surgery alone, surgery with radiation predicted improved survival for stage III patients (CSS HR 0.62, p = 0.001, OS HR 0.62, p < 0.001) but not stage IIA or IIB (all p values > 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagectomy is associated with improved survival for patients with locally advanced SCC and should be considered as an integral component of the treatment algorithm if feasible.

The role of perioperative radiotherapy in gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is one of the most common neoplasms and a main cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Surgery remains the mainstay for cure and is considered for all patients with potentially curable disease. However, despite the fact that surgery alone usually leads to favorable outcomes in early stage disease, late diagnosis usually means a poor prognosis. In these settings, multimodal therapy has become the established treatment for locally advanced tumors, while the high risk of locoregional relapse has favored the inclusion of radiotherapy in the comprehensive therapeutic strategy. We provide a critical, non-systematic review of gastric cancer and discuss the role of perioperative radiation therapy in its treatment.

Progress in medication treatment of esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is one of the common malignant tumors. Multimodality treatment (including surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy) of esophageal cancer has become a consensus. Although there is currently no standard treatment, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy based on risk factors, such as positive surgical margin and lymph node metastasis, and definitive chemoradiotherapy when inoperable, has been recommended by the NCCN Guidelines. In recent years, clinical trials show that targeted drugs can further improve the prognosis of esophageal cancer. How to choose chemotherapy drugs and develop reasonable treatment modality has become a hotspot of clinical research. This article aims to review recent progress in medication treatment of esophageal cancer.

Multidisciplinary approach for patients with esophageal cancer

Patients with esophageal cancer have a poor prognosis because they often have no symptoms until their disease is advanced. There are no screening recommendations for patients unless they have Barrett's esophagitis or a significant family history of this disease. Often, esophageal cancer is not diagnosed until patients present with dysphagia, odynophagia, anemia or weight loss. When symptoms occur, the stage is often stage III or greater. Treatment of patients with very early stage disease is fairly straight forward using only local treatment with surgical resection or endoscopic mucosal resection. The treatment of patients who have locally advanced esophageal cancer is more complex and controversial. Despite multiple trials, treatment recommendations are still unclear due to conflicting data. Sadly, much of our data is difficult to interpret due to many of the trials done have included very heterogeneous groups of patients both histologically as well as anatomically. Additionally, studies have been underpowered or stopped early due to poor accrual. In the United States, concurrent chemoradiotherapy prior to surgical resection has been accepted by many as standard of care in the locally advanced patient. Patients who have metastatic disease are treated palliatively. The aim of this article is to describe the multidisciplinary approach used by an established team at a single high volume center for esophageal cancer, and to review the literature which guides our treatment recommendations.

Management of gastroesophageal junction tumors

Tumors of the gastroesophageal junction have historically been treated as either gastric or esophageal cancer depending on institutional preferences. The Siewert classification system was designed to provide a more precise means of characterizing these tumors. In general, surgical treatment of Siewert 1 tumors is via esophagectomy. Siewert 2 and 3 tumors may be treated with either esophagectomy with proximal gastrectomy or extended total gastrectomy provided negative margins are obtained. All but the earliest stage tumors should be considered for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Preoperative therapy of esophagogastric cancer: the problem of nonresponding patients

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative treatment is nowadays standard for locally advanced esophagogastric cancer in Europe. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to nonresponders so far. The aim of our retrospective exploratory study was the comparison of responder, nonresponder, and primary resected patients in respect of outcome considering the tumor entity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2001-2011, 607 patients with locally advanced esophagogastric carcinoma (adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG), n = 293; squamous cell cancer (SCC), n = 111; gastric cancer, n = 203) after preoperative treatment (n = 281) or primary resection (n = 326) were included. Histopathological response evaluation (Becker criteria) was available for 263.

RESULTS

A total of 76/263 (28.9 %) were responders (<10 % residual tumor). There was an association of response with increased R0 resections (p < 0.001) but also with a higher complication rate (p = 0.008) compared to nonresponse and primary surgery. Mortality was not influenced. Increased R0 resections after response were confirmed in every tumor entity (AEG, p = 0.010; SCC, p = 0.023; gastric cancer, p = 0.006). Median survival was best for responders with 43.5 months [95 % confidence interval (CI), 27.9-59.1], followed by nonresponders with 24.3 months (95 % CI, 21.6-27.0) and primary resected patients with 20.8 months (95 % CI, 17.7-23.9; p = 0.002). AEG (p = 0.012) and gastric cancer (p = 0.017) revealed identical results, but in the subgroup of SCC, the survival of nonresponders (median, 11.6 months; 95 % CI, 6.9-16.3) was even worse than for primary resected patients (median, 23.8 months; 95 % CI, 1.7-46.0; p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The histopathological response rate was low. Generally, nonresponding patients with AEG or gastric cancer seem not to have a disadvantage compared to primary resected patients, but nonresponders with SCC have a worse prognosis, which strengthens the demand for a critical patient selection in surgery for this tumor entity.

Impact of targeted neoadjuvant therapies in the treatment of solid organ tumours

BACKGROUND

The advent of affordable technologies to perform detailed molecular profiling of tumours has transformed understanding of the specific genetic events that promote carcinogenesis and which may be exploited therapeutically. The application of targeted therapeutics has led to improved outcomes in advanced disease and this approach is beginning to become established in the management of potentially curable disease for surgical patients.

METHODS

This review article focuses on recent developments in the management of operable cancers of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, specifically discussing the currently available data that evaluate the incorporation of targeted therapies in this setting.

RESULTS

A variety of targeted molecules are now available as treatment options in the management of GI cancers. Most are aimed at growth inhibition by acting on cell surface targets or intracellular pathways. Treatment paradigms are gradually shifting towards more prevalent use of systemic treatment prior to surgical intervention for operable disease with the aim of tumour downsizing and improved rates of long-term cure.

CONCLUSION

A large number of ongoing clinical trials are evaluating novel targeted agents as neoadjuvant therapy in operable GI tumours. Therefore, further progress in the management of early-stage disease will undoubtedly be made over the next few years as these trials continue to report potentially practice-changing results.

Radiotherapy for tumors of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction--a review of its role in multimodal therapy

There is broad consensus on surgical resection being the backbone of curative therapy of gastric- and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Nevertheless, details on therapeutic approaches in addition to surgery, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy are discussed controversially; especially whether external beam radiotherapy should be applied in addition to chemotherapy and surgery is debated in both entities and differs widely between regions and centers. Early landmark trials such as the Intergroup-0116 and the MAGIC trial must be interpreted in the context of potentially insufficient lymph node resection. Despite shortcomings of both trials, benefits on overall survival by radiochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were confirmed in populations of D2-resected gastric cancer patients by Asian trials.

Recent results on junctional carcinoma patients strongly suggest a survival benefit of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in curatively resectable patients. An effect of chemotherapy in the perioperative setting as given in the MAGIC study has been confirmed by the ACCORD07 trial for junctional carcinomas; however both the studies by Stahl et al. and the excellent outcome in the CROSS trial as compared to all other therapeutic approaches indicate a superiority of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy as compared to perioperative chemotherapy in junctional carcinoma patients. Surgery alone without neoadjuvant or perioperative therapy is considered suboptimal in patients with locally advanced disease.

In gastric carcinoma patients, perioperative chemotherapy has not been compared to adjuvant radiochemotherapy in a randomized setting. Nevertheless, the results of the recently published ARTIST trial and the Chinese data by Zhu and coworkers, indicate a superiority of adjuvant radiochemotherapy as compared to adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of disease free survival in Asian patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. The ongoing CRITICS trial is supposed to provide reliable conclusions about which therapy should be preferred in Western patients with gastric carcinoma. If radiotherapy is performed, modern approaches such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and image guidance should be applied, as these methods reduce dose to organs at risk and provide a more homogenous coverage of planning target volumes.

Results of postoperative radiochemotherapy of the patients with resectable gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in Slovenia

Background.

Although the incidence of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) is sharply rising in the Western world, there are still some disagreements about the staging and the treatment of this disease. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse the effectiveness and safety of postoperative radiochemotherapy in patients with a GEJ adenocarcinoma treated at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana.

Patients and methods.

Seventy patients with GEJ adenocarcinoma, who were treated with postoperative radiochemotherapy between January 2005 and June 2010, were included in the study. The treatment consisted of 6 cycles of chemotherapy with 5-FU and cisplatin and concomitant radiotherapy with the total dose of 45 Gy.

Results.

Twenty-six patients (37.1%) completed the treatment according to the protocol. The median follow-up time was 17.7 months (range: 3.3–64 months). Acute toxicity grade 3 or more, such as stomatitis, dysphagia, nausea or vomiting, and infection, occurred in 2.9%, 34.3%, 38.6% and 41.5% of patients, respectively. At 3 years locoregional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS) were 78.2%, 25.3%, 35.8%, and 33.9%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis of survival, splenectomy and level of Ca 19-9 >20 kU/L before the adjuvant treatment were identified as independent prognostic factors for lower DFS, DSS and OS. Age <60 years, higher number of involved lymph nodes and advanced disease stage were identified as independent prognostic factors for lower DSS and OS.

Conclusions.

In patients with GEJ adenocarcinoma who first underwent surgery, postoperative radiochemotherapy is feasible, but we must be aware of a high risk of acute toxic side effects.

Perioperative chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin and capecitabine (DCX) in gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a phase II study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO){dagger}

BACKGROUND

This prospective multicentre phase II trial assessed the feasibility and efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin and capecitabine (DCX) in patients with gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Patients with curatively resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, the gastro-oesophageal junction or the lower third of the oesophagus were enrolled. Patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) (day 1), followed by oral capecitabine 1875 mg/m(2) divided into two doses (days 1-14) every 3 weeks. There were three cycles preoperatively and three cycles postoperatively. The primary end point was the R0 resection rate.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were recruited and assessed for feasibility and efficacy. 94.1% of patients received all three planned cycles preoperatively, and 52.9% received three cycles postoperatively. The R0 resection rate was 90.2%. 13.7% of patients showed complete pathological remission (pCR). Toxicity was acceptably tolerable. Without prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration, neutropenic fever developed in 21.5% of patients preoperatively (grade 3 or 4) and in 11.1% of patients postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

DCX is a safe and feasible perioperative regimen in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma with a high percentage of cycles delivered pre- and postoperatively, compared with standard practice. The high efficacy in terms of R0 resection rate and pCR is very promising.

Bevacizumab with peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) in localised gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a safety report

BACKGROUND

Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard treatment of localised oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma; however, the outcomes remain poor.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

ST03 is a multicentre, randomised, phase II/III study comparing peri-operative ECX with or without bevacizumab (ECX-B). The primary outcome measure of phase II (n = 200) was safety, specifically gastrointestinal (GI) perforation rates and cardiotoxicity.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were randomised between October 2007 and April 2010. Ninety-one/101 (90%) ECX and 86/99 (87%) ECX-B patients completed pre-operative chemotherapy; 7 ECX and 9 ECX-B patients stopped due to toxicity. Gastrointestinal perforations (3 ECX, 1 ECX-B), cardiac events (1 ECX, 4 ECX-B) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs, 8 ECX, 7 ECX-B) were uncommon. Arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs, myocardial infarction (MI) or cerebrovascular accident) were more frequent with ECX-B (5 versus 1 with ECX). Delayed wound healing, anastomotic leaks and GI bleeding rates were similar. More asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) falls (≥15% and/or to <50%) occurred with ECX-B (21.2% versus 11.1% with ECX). Clinically significant falls (≥10% to below lower limit of normal, LLN) occurred in (15.3%) and (8.9%) respectively, with no associated cardiac failure (median 22 months follow-up).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of bevacizumab to peri-operative ECX chemotherapy is feasible with acceptable toxicity and no negative impact on surgical outcomes.

Palliative resection for advanced gastric and junctional adenocarcinoma: which patients will benefit from surgery?

BACKGROUND

Whereas palliative chemotherapy offers a median survival of approximately 10 months in advanced gastric and junctional adenocarcinoma (AGJA), the survival impact of primary tumor resection is controversial. Our purpose was to identify which AGJA patients benefit from palliative resection.

METHODS

In 3,202 AGJA patients scheduled for surgery in 21 French centers between 1997 and 2010, prognostic factors were identified in palliative group and the impact of each combination of these factors on survival was studied.

RESULTS

Surgery was defined as palliative due to solid organ metastasis (5.6 %), localized (4.6 %) or diffuse (2.3 %) peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC), or incomplete tumoral resection (12.8 %). Median survival of AGJA patients resected with a palliative intent (n = 677) was longer than in nonresected patients (n = 532; 11.9 vs. 8.5 months, P < 0.001). Multivariable analyses identified ASA score III-IV (P < 0.001) as a predictor of postoperative mortality and solid organ metastasis (P = 0.009), localized PC (P = 0.004), diffuse PC (P = 0.046), and signet ring cell histology (SRC; P = 0.02) as predictors of survival. Only ASA I-II patients with incomplete resection without metastasis or PC, one site solid organ metastasis without PC, or localized PC without SRC had a survival benefit after palliative surgery with median survivals from 12.0 to 18.3 months. Nonresected ASA I-II patients with same risk factors had median survivals from 3.5 to 8.8 months (P < 0.05 for each).

CONCLUSIONS

In AGJA, patient and tumor-related factors should be used to select candidates for palliative surgery in association with chemotherapy.

Prognostic relevance of gastric cancer staging by endoscopic ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Recent trials and guidelines have established the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable UICC stage II to IV gastric cancers. In this setting, preoperative staging is pivotal for correct patient selection. This cohort study was designed to assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and the ability to select correctly patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of survival outcome.

METHODS

Eighty-two consecutive Caucasian patients (46 male; median age 72 years) with gastric cancer underwent EUS staging and subsequent surgery without perioperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Patients were followed for a median of 800 days postoperatively. Pathology and EUS UICC and T stages were compared and evaluated as predictors of survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of EUS for UICC classification compared with pathology was 62 %, and the accuracy for delineation of UICC I was 89 %. For the therapeutically relevant differentiation of early gastric cancer (UICC stage I), EUS (mean survival, 2,298 days, R2 = 0.23) and pathology (2,461 days, R2 = 0.24) predicted survival equally well. Similar results were obtained for T staging by EUS (mean survival, 2,065 days for uT1/2, R2 = 0.24) or pathology (2,185 days, R2 = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS identifies the low risk subgroup (uUICC stage I or uT1/2) with similar performance as pUICC stage I or stage pT1/2 in gastric cancer and very similar survival characteristics. EUS thus may be the noninvasive method of choice for preoperative selection of patients for immediate resection versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The treatment of localized esophageal cancer has been debated controversially over the past decades. Neoadjuvant treatment was used empirically, but evidence was limited due to the lack of high-quality confirmatory studies. Meanwhile, data have become much clearer due to recently published well-conducted randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

METHODS

Neoadjuvant and perioperative platinum fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy has now an established role in the treatment of stage II and stage III esophageal adenocarcinoma and cancer of the esophago-gastric junction. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation is now the standard of care for treating stage II and stage III esophageal squamous cell cancer and can also be considered for treating esophageal adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

Patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation achieve comparable long-term survival compared with surgery. Short-term mortality is less with chemoradiation alone, but local tumor control is significantly better with surgery.

CONCLUSION

This expert review article outlines current data and literature and delineates recommendable treatment guidelines for localized esophageal cancer.

Gastric cancer: Classification, histology and application of molecular pathology

Gastric cancer remains one of the deadly diseases with poor prognosis. New classification of gastric cancers based on histologic features, genotypes and molecular phenotypes helps better understand the characteristics of each subtype, and improve early diagnosis, prevention and treatment. The objective of this article is to review the new classification of gastric cancers and the up-to-date guidance in the application of molecular testing.

Helicobacter pylori: gastric cancer and extragastric intestinal malignancies

The greatest challenge in Helicobacter pylori-related diseases continues to remain prevention of gastric cancer. New evidence supports the beneficial effect of H. pylori eradication not only on prevention of gastric cancer but also on the regression of preneoplastic conditions of the gastric mucosa. Concerning early detection of gastric cancer there are still no adequate means and there is urgent need to define appropriate markers, for example, by genome-wide research approaches. Currently, the best available method is the "serologic" biopsy based on pepsinogen I and the pepsinogen I/II ratio for identification of patients with severe gastric atrophy at increased risk for gastric cancer development. The treatment of early gastric cancer by endoscopic techniques can be performed safely and efficiently, but patients need meticulous follow-up for detection of metachronous lesions. In case of advanced disease, laparoscopically assisted surgical procedures are safe and favorable compared to open surgery. Two phase III trials support the role of adjuvant systemic treatment with different regimens. Unfortunately, there is still only slow progress in the development of palliative treatment regimens or modification of the existing therapy protocols. There is accumulating evidence for a role of H. pylori infection also in colorectal carcinogenesis. Seropositive individuals are at higher risk for the development of colorectal adenomas and consequently adenocarcinomas of this anatomical region. This phenomenon can partly be attributed to the increase of serum gastrin as response to atrophic changes of the gastric mucosa.

Role of repeat staging laparoscopy in locoregionally advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy

INTRODUCTION

Staging laparoscopy (SL) can identify occult, subradiographic metastatic (M1) disease in patients with gastric or gastroesophageal (G/GEJ) cancer who are unlikely to benefit from gastrectomy. The purpose of this study is to determine the yield of repeat SL following neoadjuvant therapy for G/GEJ adenocarcinoma after initial negative pretreatment SL.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospective database identified patients with locoregionally advanced (T3-4Nany or TanyN+) G/GEJ adenocarcinoma who underwent pretreatment SL. The yield of repeat SL following neoadjuvant therapy was determined.

RESULTS

From 1994 to 2010, 276 patients with locoregionally advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma were identified, of whom 244 proceeded to operation after neoadjuvant therapy, at a median time of 105 days. One hundred sixty-four patients (67 %) underwent repeat SL, and 80 patients (33 %) proceeded directly to laparotomy. Occult M1 disease was identified in 12 (7.3 %) and 6 (7.5 %) patients, respectively. In the repeat SL cohort, M1 disease was identified at laparoscopy in nine patients (5.5 %). M1 disease not identified by laparoscopy was discovered at laparotomy in three patients (1.8 %). The median follow-up for the study population was 31 months. For patients with M1 disease, median overall survival was 15 months, versus 41 months for patients resected without M1 disease (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Occult, subradiographic M1 disease develops in approximately 7 % of patients following neoadjuvant therapy for locoregionally advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. These patients have poor prognosis, and repeat SL can be a valuable tool in selecting patients with locoregionally advanced G/GEJ tumors for potentially curative resection after neoadjuvant therapy.

Angiogenesis-related agents in esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis. The majority of the patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and many with early stage disease will develop recurrent disease.

AREAS COVERED

Angiogenesis is essential to the progress and aggressiveness of solid malignancies. Success of anti-angiogenic therapy in colorectal, lung and breast cancers is a proof of principle. Thus far, evidence for benefit from anti-angiogenic therapy in esophageal cancer is lacking. Several Phase II trials with different agents have provided mixed results and the only Phase III trial in the esophageal and gastric cancer failed to show that these agents improve overall survival (OS). However, lack of observed benefit could be due to the challenges specific to the management of esophageal cancers as well as issues with the design of clinical trials for anti-angiogenic therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

An understanding of the biology of the esophageal cancer and its management is essential to the development of anti-angiogenic therapy in this disease. This article reviews the management of esophageal cancer and elaborates on the challenges in the development of anti-angiogenic therapy in esophageal cancer. At the end, strategies are proposed for successful development of anti-angiogenic therapy in esophageal cancer.

[Current S3 guidelines on surgical treatment of gastric carcinoma]

The current S3 guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of gastric carcinoma including those of the esophagogastric junction describe optimal clinical practice based on a high level of evidence and expert consensus from different medical disciplines. Endoscopy and performance of multiple biopsies is the standard approach to detect malignant tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Further diagnostic procedures are necessary to evaluate the tumor stage. With the exception of mucosal carcinomas, surgical therapy is the cornerstone of curative treatment in all potentially resectable stages. In locally advanced carcinomas perioperative chemotherapy should be carried out and in high-seated tumors preoperative radiochemotherapy might be an alternative option. Palliative surgical resection should be avoided in disseminated asymptomatic stages. In a palliative situation complications of the tumor should primarily be treated by interventional or conservative procedures.

Prospective phase II study of neoadjuvant therapy with cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and bevacizumab for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus bevacizumab as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective phase II study, 22 patients with adenocarcinoma and 6 with squamous cell carcinoma received 2 4-day cycles of bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg followed by cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) infusion on day 1 followed by 5-FU 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 96-h continuous infusion on days 1-4, separated by a 3-week interval.

RESULTS

The response rate was 39%, the R0 resection rate was 43%, and the median overall survival (OS) was 17 months. The regimen was well tolerated, with the most common severe toxicities being venous thromboembolism (10%), nausea, and gastrointestinal bleeding (7% each). In 37 patients previously treated with cisplatin and 5-FU alone at our institution and thus serving as historical controls, the response rate was 30%, the R0 resection rate was 44%, and the median OS was 23 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups of patients.

CONCLUSION

Adding bevacizumab to cisplatin and 5-FU neoadjuvant chemotherapy was active and well tolerated but did not seem to improve the resection rate or OS compared with prior regimens, including the historical controls at our institution.

Lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: a critical review

Gastric cancer is one of the most common neoplasms and an important cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Efforts to reduce its high mortality rates are currently focused on multidisciplinary management. However, surgery remains a cornerstone in the management of patients with resectable disease. There is still some controversy as to the extent of lymph node dissection for potentially curable stomach cancer. Surgeons in eastern countries favor more extensive lymph node dissection, whereas those in the West favor less extensive dissection. Thus, extent of lymph node dissection remains one of the most hotly discussed aspects of gastric surgery, particularly because most stomach cancers are now often comprehensively treated by adding some perioperative chemotherapy or chemo-radiation. We provide a critical review of lymph nodes dissection for gastric cancer with a particular focus on its benefits in a multimodal approach.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of patients with esophageal or esophagogastric-junction cancer is not well established. We compared chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in this patient population.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with resectable tumors to receive surgery alone or weekly administration of carboplatin (doses titrated to achieve an area under the curve of 2 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area) for 5 weeks and concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week), followed by surgery.

RESULTS

From March 2004 through December 2008, we enrolled 368 patients, 366 of whom were included in the analysis: 275 (75%) had adenocarcinoma, 84 (23%) had squamous-cell carcinoma, and 7 (2%) had large-cell undifferentiated carcinoma. Of the 366 patients, 178 were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, and 188 to surgery alone. The most common major hematologic toxic effects in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group were leukopenia (6%) and neutropenia (2%); the most common major nonhematologic toxic effects were anorexia (5%) and fatigue (3%). Complete resection with no tumor within 1 mm of the resection margins (R0) was achieved in 92% of patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group versus 69% in the surgery group (P<0.001). A pathological complete response was achieved in 47 of 161 patients (29%) who underwent resection after chemoradiotherapy. Postoperative complications were similar in the two treatment groups, and in-hospital mortality was 4% in both. Median overall survival was 49.4 months in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group versus 24.0 months in the surgery group. Overall survival was significantly better in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.657; 95% confidence interval, 0.495 to 0.871; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival among patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric-junction cancer. The regimen was associated with acceptable adverse-event rates. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Foundation [KWF Kankerbestrijding]; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR487.).

Clinical trials in gastric cancer and the future

Following the first successful gastric resection for gastric cancer by Theodor Billroth in 1881 surgery has made tremendous progress leading to improved surgical mortality and morbidity. However, while treatment of early gastric cancer is frequently curative, 5-year survival rates for advanced gastric cancer remain dismal despite the application of perioperative multimodal treatment concepts. In this article we will outline key clinical trials that have lead to an improvement in treatment of gastric cancer patients with specific emphasis on the last 20 years. We will then outline recent concepts and key clinical trials that are currently being conducted in the field. Finally we will outline open questions that remain to be elucidated in the future.

[Gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: principles of neoadjuvant therapy]

According to the current European and German S3 guidelines, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is now an integral part of the treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction. Neoadjuvant therapy seeks to achieve downsizing of the primary tumor, lowering of the T and N categories and eradication of micrometastases. As the indications for neoadjuvant treatment are based on pretherapeutic information alone, a sophisticated clinical staging plays a central role. Despite all progress made in the field of diagnostic work-up, clinical staging often fails. Despite this fact, controlled randomized trials showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy enhances the rate of curative (R0) resections and reduces the likelihood of systemic relapse. Overall, survival can be improved by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The current research is focused on the molecular prediction of response and early response monitoring with functional imaging. New targeted drugs are being integrated into the peri-operative treatment.

Current management and future strategies of gastric cancer

The overall prognosis of gastric cancer has gradually improved over the past decades with growing awareness of potential carcinogens, surveillance programs and early diagnosis, as well as advances in surgical techniques and multimodality treatments. Nevertheless, the outcome of advanced stage disease still remains poor with currently available treatments, and a worldwide consensus on the standard management thereof has not been established. To improve prognosis and quality of life in gastric cancer patients, both standardization and individualization of managements are imperative. Diagnostic tests and surgical procedures need to be further sophisticated and standardized based on more recent evidences from ongoing and future randomized controlled trials, while comprehensive management should be individualized to each patient. Future challenges lie with how to optimize personalized therapies by deciphering biological complexity of gastric cancer and incorporating molecular biomarkers in clinical practice to forecast prognosis and to guide targeted therapeutics in adjunct to current standards of care.

Gastric cancer eastern experience

Several guidelines are used for cancer therapy throughout the world. The Japan Gastric Cancer Association guideline, whereby standard surgery for T2 to T4 curable gastric cancer is defined as more than two-thirds gastrectomy with D2 dissection, are widely followed, with further data being gathered from either single institutions or nationwide registry. In the East, D2 dissection shows much better results than less extended surgery followed by adjuvant treatment. Adjuvant chemotherapy without radiotherapy shows significantly better survival results than surgery alone only when D2 dissection is applied. Without good local control, including regional lymph node metastasis, the cure rate cannot be high.

The impact of perioperative chemotherapy on survival in patients with gastric signet ring cell adenocarcinoma: a multicenter comparative study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the survival impact of perioperative chemotherapy (PCT) in patients with gastric signet ring cell (SRC) adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND

PCT is a standard treatment for advanced resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). SRC has a worse prognosis compared to non-SRC and the chemosensitivity of SRC is uncertain.

METHODS

Among 3010 patients registered in 19 French centers between January 1997 and January 2010, 1050 (34.9%) were diagnosed with SRC. Of those treated with curative intent (n = 924), 171 (18.5%) received PCT with surgery (PCT group), whereas 753 (81.5%) were treated with primary surgery (S group). PCT was based mainly on a fluorouracil-platinum doublet or triplet regimen.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, malnutrition, tumor location and cTNM stage. 60 patients did not undergo resection because of tumor progression (10) or metastases (50) found at operation. The R0 resection rates were 65.9% and 62.3% in the S and PCT groups, respectively (P = 0.308). Fewer patients received adjuvant chemotherapy in the S group than in the PCT group (35.2% vs. 66.5%, P < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 31.5 months, the median survival was shorter in the PCT group (12.8 vs. 14.0 months, P = 0.043). On multivariate analysis, PCT was found to be an independent predictor of poor survival (HR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, P = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

PCT provides no survival benefit in patients with gastric SRC. Clinical Trial.gov record: ADCI001, Clinical Trial.gov identifier NCT01249859.