Prospective cohort comparison of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer

Long-Term Postsurgical Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation (CROSS) Versus Chemotherapy (FLOT) for Multimodal Treatment of Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and the Esophagogastric Junction

BACKGROUND

The question of the ideal neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma has not been answered to date. Multimodal treatment has become a standard treatment for these adenocarcinomas. Currently, perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CROSS) is recommended.

METHODS

A monocentric retrospective analysis compared long-term survival after CROSS versus FLOT. The study enrolled patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (EAC) or the esophagogastric junction type I or II undergoing oncologic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy between January 2012 and December 2019. The primary objective was to determine the long-term outcome in terms of overall survival. The secondary objectives were to determine differences regarding the histopathologic categories after neoadjuvant treatment and the histomorphologic regression.

RESULTS

The findings showed no survival advantage for one or the other treatment in this highly standardized cohort. All the patients underwent open (CROSS: 9.4% vs. FLOT: 22%), hybrid (CROSS: 82% vs. FLOT: 72%), or minimally invasive (CROSS: 8.9% vs. FLOT: 5.6%) thoracoabdominal esophagectomy. The median post-surgical follow-up period was 57.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.2-109.7 months), and the median survival was longer for the CROSS patients (54 months) than for the FLOT patients (37.2 months) (p = 0.053). The overall 5-years survival was 47% for the entire cohort (48% for the CROSS and 43% for the FLOT patients). The CROSS patients showed a better pathologic response and fewer advanced tumor stages.

CONCLUSION

The improved pathologic response after CROSS cannot be translated into longer overall survival. To date, the choice of which neoadjuvant treatment to use can be made only on the basis of clinical parameters and the patient's performance status.

Validity of Using Pathological Response as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Neoadjuvant Studies for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathological response is a critical factor in predicting long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer after preoperative therapy. However, the validity of using pathological response as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for esophageal cancer has not yet been established. In this study, a literature-based meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate pathological response as a proxy endpoint for survival in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Three databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies investigating neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. The correlation between pathological complete response (pCR) and OS were assessed using a weighted multiple regression analysis at the trial level, and the coefficient of determination (R2) was calculated. The research design and histological subtypes were considered in the performance of subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 40 trials, comprising 43 comparisons and 55,344 patients were qualified. The surrogacy between pCR and OS was moderate (R2 = 0.238 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.500 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.541 in log settings). pCR could not serve as an ideal surrogate endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (R2 = 0.511 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.460 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.523 in log settings). A strong correlation was observed in studies comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (R2 = 0.595 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.840 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.800 in log settings).

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of surrogacy of pathological response for long-term survival at trial level is established in this study. Hence, caution should be exercised when using pCR as the primary endpoint in neoadjuvant studies for esophageal cancer.

A Comparison Between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Treating Esophageal Carcinoma: A Study at a Tertiary Care Cancer Center in Suburban India

Background and objective

Esophageal carcinoma remains a disease associated with high mortality rates among patients even after receiving treatment. Management with surgery alone offers a five-year survival of only 20%. Hence adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies were instituted to treat this condition along with surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by surgery is currently the standard of care. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is also recommended by some authors as a method of adequate care. There is a scarcity of studies in the literature comparing NACRT with NACT. In light of this, we employed the criteria of pathological response as a primary endpoint to compare the effectiveness of NACT and NACRT in treating esophageal carcinoma.

Materials and methods

A total of 50 patients with esophageal cancer having Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores 0-2 with cancer stages cT2-T4a, cN0-N1, and cM0 were enrolled. The patients were further classified into two groups of 25 each. While one group received chemotherapy using inj. paclitaxel and carboplatin (NACT group), the other was managed with inj paclitaxel and carboplatin as well as 42 Gy of fractionated irradiation (NACRT group). Six weeks after the last dose of radiation or three weeks after chemotherapy, they were evaluated and offered transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE).

Results

Squamous cell carcinoma was found in 39 (78%) cases and 11 (22%) cases had adenocarcinoma. Pathologically complete or near-complete responses were seen in 42% of patients in the NACRT group and 22% in the NACT group.

Conclusion

While NACT and NACRT are both effective therapies for esophageal cancers, NACRT offers better tumor regression compared to NACT. Given the higher rates of complete or near-complete response in the NACRT group, NACRT is likely to offer higher overall survival rates than NACT.

Survival and complications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Objectives: To identify the effective approach between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) and chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) by comparing patient survival and complications. Methods: A systematic literature search of articles published between January 1980 and October 2020 was conducted. Data were extracted and analyzed with STATA 12.0. Results: Five randomized trials and 15 retrospective studies, including 4529 patients (NCT: 2035; NCRT: 2494), were enrolled. Compared with NCT, NCRT provided a higher 3-year survival benefit, higher R0 resection and pathological complete response rates and lower local recurrence and distant metastasis rates, but no increase in 5-year survival. Perioperative mortality and cardiovascular complications were more common in patients with adenocarcinoma. Conclusions: Further studies should concentrate on identifying the optimal neoadjuvant approach and suitable beneficiaries.

IDO1 Expression Increased After Neoadjuvant Therapy Predicts Poor Pathologic Response and Prognosis in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO1) plays an important role in tumor immune evasion. In this study, we investigated the changes of tumor IDO1 expression and CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) status in tumor microenvironment (TME) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), respectively. Moreover, the potential predictive value of the changes of tumor IDO1 expression and CD8+TILs status on pathologic response and clinical outcome was further evaluated. By matching propensity scores in 295 patients, a total of 85 ESCC patients with neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery were recruited, including 17 patients with NCRT and 68 patients with NCT. Tumor IDO1 expression and CD8+TILs within TME in paired specimens were evaluated by immunohistochemistry, and the changes of tumor IDO1 expression and CD8+TILs between the paired specimens were estimated. Tumor IDO1 expression significantly increased from baseline to postoperative tumor tissue after NCT (p = 0.002), whereas no significant difference was detected after NCRT (p = 0.44). The density of CD8+TILs in the tumor-invasive margin increased significantly after neoadjuvant therapy, and there was no significant difference in density changes of CD8+TILs between the NCRT and NCT groups (p = 0.118). Upregulation of tumor IDO1 expression after neoadjuvant therapy was associated with poor pathologic response (p = 0.002). Lastly, multivariate Cox analysis showed that IDO1-rise patients after neoadjuvant therapy were related to poor prognosis (p = 0.047). These results indicated that chemotherapy could promote tumor IDO1 expression, and the increased tumor IDO1 expression after neoadjuvant therapy predicted poor pathologic response and prognosis in ESCC.

Comparison of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Aim: To compare the clinical efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for esophageal cancer. Methods: Randomized controlled trials reporting on the comparison of nCRT and nCT for esophageal cancer were identified. Results: Three eligible randomized controlled trials were identified and included with a total of 375 patients (189 nCRT, 186 nCT). Outcomes showed that compared with nCT group, R0 resection and pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were significantly increased in nCRT group. However, no significant difference was seen in 3- and 5-year progression-free survival or 3- and 5-year overall survival. Conclusion: The addition of radiotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy results in higher R0 resection rate and pCR rate, without significantly impacting survival.

Advances in radiotherapy for esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is a common type of malignancy worldwide and usually requires multidisciplinary care. Radiotherapy plays an important part in management of the disease. During the past few years, researchers have made much progress about radiotherapy for esophageal cancer, which was revealed in every aspect of clinical practice. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy remains the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer, whereas neoadjuvant chemotherapy appears to show less toxicities and non-inferior prognosis. What's more, definitive chemoradiotherapy could be an option for non-surgical candidates and good responders to chemoradiotherapy. Advances in radiation techniques result in higher conformity, homogeneity, more normal tissue sparing and less treatment time. Promising prognoses and less toxicities were also seen in advanced techniques. As radiation dose higher than 50 Gy obtains better local control and survival, simultaneously integrated boost is designed to increase primary tumor dosage and keep prophylactic dose to subclinical areas. Elective nodal irradiation brings about better local control but do not show advantages in survival compared with involved field irradiation (IFI). As a trend, more tolerable chemoradiotherapy regimen would be taken into account in dealing with elderly patients.

A comparative study of cisplatin-based definitive chemo-radiation in non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

Introduction

Esophageal cancer is the seventh most frequent malignancy in Iranian men and the fourth most common cancer in Iranian women. It is also among the 10 most frequent cancers in the world. Definitive chemo-radiation using cisplatin with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is known as the standard of care among various chemotherapy regimens used with esophageal cancer patients who are not eligible for surgery. Cisplatin with paclitaxel and cisplatin with irinotecan also have been used often during the past five years. The aim of this research was to compare overall survival (OS) and hematological toxicity rates between these regimens.

Methods

This single-institutional study included 55 patients who were treated with definitive chemo-radiation in the radiation-oncology ward at Shohada-e-Tajrish Hospital in Tehran, Iran, between 2006 and 2013. They received one of four regimens, i.e., cisplatin, cisplatin with 5-FU (old chemotherapy regimens), cisplatin with paclitaxel, or cisplatin with irinotecan (new chemotherapy regimens) as part of their definitive chemo-radiation with curative intent. The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to estimate the overall survival times, which were compared by using the Breslow test.

Results

The follow-up period was between 26–109 months, with a median of 72 months. OS was not different between the old and new chemotherapy regimen groups (p = 0.18). Hematological toxicity (leucopenia) in the old chemotherapy regimen groups (10%) was significantly lower than in the new chemotherapy regimen groups (43%, p = 0.012). But OS in cisplatin or cisplatin with 5-FU scheme was statistically better than with the cisplatin with paclitaxel scheme (p = 0.026, p = 0.028, respectively).

Conclusion

This study showed that OS are similar in both the old and new chemotherapy treatment regimens in esophageal cancer patients who were treated with definitive chemo-radiation. The new chemotherapy treatment regimens should be used with caution as an alternative treatment of cisplatin with 5-FU for further evaluation.

RUNX3 reverses cisplatin resistance in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma via suppression of the protein kinase B pathway

Background

Preoperative chemoradiation combined with surgery has been of focus recently in order to improve prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. Finding biological markers that may assist in predicting the therapeutic effect of chemoradiation may benefit the treatment effect. In this study, the role of RUNX3 in the formation of cisplatin resistance in ESCC was examined.

Methods

The study enrolled 103 stage IIa–IIIb ESCC patients who had undergone esophagectomy. RUNX3 expression in ESCC tissue was detected.

Results

A higher expression of RUNX3 in ESCC patients correlated with a more sensitive response to cisplatin‐based chemotherapy. A consistently lower expression of RUNX3 was found in the ESCC tissues of patients who agreed to perioperative chemotherapy compared with patients who had undergone no preoperative treatment. A lower RUNX3 expression in cisplatin‐resistant ESCC cell lines, Eca109 and TE‐1, was observed compared with parental cell lines. Heterologous RUNX3 expression significantly suppressed cisplatin resistance in Eca109 and TE‐1, both in vitro and vivo. Meanwhile, heterologous RUNX3 expression could inhibit growth and induce apoptosis in cisplatin resistant Eca109 and TE‐1 cell lines in vitro. Remarkable inhibition of the Akt pathway was observed in heterologous RUNX3 expression in Eca109 and TE‐1. Silencing Akt1 could reverse cisplatin resistance in Eca109 and TE‐1.

Conclusion

Our results confirmed that a loss of RUNX3 in ESCC may contribute to cisplatin‐resistance. RUNX3 could reverse cisplatin resistance via suppression of the Akt pathway in ESCC patients.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of surgery alone for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) is still unsatisfactory. Presently, induction therapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment. Preoperative chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiation (CRT) are proven effective induction therapies; however, few sample studies have addressed these treatments, thus, their superiority remains uncertain. We performed a systemic review and meta analysis to test the hypothesis that induction CRT prior to surgery could improve survival compared with induction CT alone.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed and the Ovid database for relevant studies comparing EC patients undergoing resection after treatment with induction CT alone or induction CRT was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were extracted from these studies to provide pooled estimates of the effect of induction therapy on overall survival.

RESULTS

Five studies met the criteria for analysis. Statistical analysis demonstrated a survival benefit of induction CRT compared with induction CT alone (HR0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = 0.002). Further analysis showed that induction CRT perioperative mortality and complication rates were higher than for induction CT alone (HR 2.96, 95% CI 1.38-6.37; HR1.6, 95% CI 1.30-1.98; P = 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Published evidence comparing the different efficacies of induction CT and induction CRT is sparse, with few samples of adenocarcinoma. This analysis supports the view that, compared with induction CT, induction CRT could achieve a long-term survival benefit in EC patients.

Propensity score analysis of oesophageal cancer treatment with surgery or definitive chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

The role of treatments involving surgery versus definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for oesophageal cancer remains controversial.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with oesophageal cancer were studied. Those whose treatment involved surgery alone or who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy were compared with those receiving dCRT. Multiple regression models, including propensity scores, were developed to assess confounding factors associated with undergoing surgery or dCRT, and the risk-adjusted association between treatment and survival.

RESULTS

From a total of 727 patients, regression adjustment to control for bias created a cohort of 521 patients available for comparison (277 in the surgery group and 244 in the dCRT group). Local and distant recurrence rates were 10·1 and 22·0 per cent respectively after surgery, compared with 26·2 and 11·9 per cent following dCRT (P < 0·001). Median survival, and 2- and 5-year survival rates after surgery were 27 months, 53·8 and 31·0 per cent respectively, compared with 28 months, 54·2 and 31·9 per cent after dCRT (P = 0·918). On multivariable analysis, disease-free survival was related to endosonographic tumour category (hazard ratio (HR) 0·76, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·10 to 6·04 for T1; HR 1·57, 0·21 to 11·58 for T2; HR 2·12, 0·29 to 15·49 for T3; HR 3·07, 0·41 to 23·16 for T4; P = 0·003, in relation to T0 as reference), lymph node metastasis count (HR 1·10, 1·04 to 1·15; P < 0·001) and total disease length (HR 0·96, 0·93 to 1·00; P = 0·041).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in survival after oesophageal cancer treatment involving surgery or dCRT.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery compared with surgery alone in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

CONTEXT

Despite progress in recent years in methods of diagnosis and surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, there is still controversy about the benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To analise the survival of patients submitted to esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHOD

A retrospective, non-randomized study conducted using the medical charts of patients operated for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus at the School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil between 1979 and 2006. The Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survival curves and the log-rank test to compare data in each group. The significance level was settled as 5%.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were evaluated in this study, divided into three groups: I-26 (21.2%) patients submitted to esophagectomy alone; II-81 (65.8%) patients submitted to neoadjuvant radiotherapy plus esophagectomy and III-16 (13%) patients submitted to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus esophagectomy. A statistically significant survival was recorded between the groups (log rank=6.007; P=0.05), survival being greatest in the group submitted to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, followed by the group submitted to neoadjuvant radiotherapy compared to the group submitted to esophagectomy alone as the initial treatment of choice.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy and chemotherapy neoadjuvants in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus offers benefits and increases survival.

Prognostic significance of circumferential resection margin involvement following oesophagectomy for cancer and the predictive role of endoluminal ultrasonography

Background:

The optimum multimodal treatment for oesophageal cancer, and the prognostic significance of histopathological tumour involvement of the circumferential resection margin (CRM+) are uncertain. The aims of this study were to determine the prognostic significance of CRM+ after oesophagectomy and to identify endosonographic (endoluminal ultrasonography (EUS)) features that predict a threatened CRM+.

Methods:

Two hundred and sixty-nine consecutive patients underwent potentially curative oesophagectomy (103 surgery alone, 124 neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CS) and 42 chemoradiotherapy (CRTS)). Primary outcome measures were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results:

CRM+ was reported in 98 (38.0%) of all, and in 90 (62.5%) of pT3 patients. Multivariate analysis of pathological factors revealed: lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.087, 95% CI 1.396–3.122, P<0.0001), CRM+ (HR 1.762, 95% CI 1.201–2.586, P=0.004) and lymph node metastasis count (HR 1.563, 95% CI 1.018–2.400, P=0.041) to be independently and significantly associated with DFS. Lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.160, 95% CI 1.432–3.259, P<0.001) and CRM+ (HR 1.514, 95% CI 1.000–2.292, P=0.050) were also independently and significantly associated with OS. Multivariate analysis revealed EUS T stage (T3 or T4, OR 24.313, 95% CI 7.438–79.476, P<0.0001) and use or not of CRTS (OR 0.116, 95% CI 0.035–0.382, P<0.0001) were independently and significantly associated with CRM+.

Conclusion:

A positive CRM was a better predictor of DFS and OS than standard pTNM stage.

Prognostic significance of total disease length in esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

This study tested the hypothesis that endoluminal ultrasound (EUS) defined total length of disease (including both the primary tumor and the position and number of proximal and distal lymph nodes-ELoD) and the associated EUS lymph node metastasis count (ELNMC) are better predictors of outcome than endoscopic esophageal cancer (OC) length and radiological tumor node metastasis stage in patients who undergo potentially curative treatment with surgery or definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT).

METHODS

A total of 645 consecutive patients diagnosed with OC and managed by a multidisciplinary team were staged by CT and EUS. The primary outcome measure was survival from date of diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 323 patients received surgery (208 neoadjuvant chemotherapy), and 322 who were deemed unsuitable for surgery received dCRT. Univariable analysis revealed that survival was related to EUS T (p < 0.0001), N (p < 0.0001), EUS primary tumor length (p = 0.037), ELoD (p = 0.011), ELNMC (p < 0.0001), and treatment type (p = 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed two factors: ELoD (hazard ratio (HR), 0.961; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.925-0.998; p = 0.041) and ELNMC (HR, 1.08; 95 % CI, 1.015-1.15; p = 0.016) were independently associated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

ELoD and ELNMC should become part of routine OC radiological staging to optimize stage-directed therapeutic outcomes.

Stage for stage comparison of recurrence patterns after definitive chemoradiotherapy or surgery for oesophageal carcinoma

AIMS

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) has been advocated as an alternative treatment for oesophageal carcinoma, but received criticism for perceived poorer locoregional disease control when compared with surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the relative incidence and pattern of oesophageal carcinoma recurrence after dCRT and surgery in patients receiving stage-directed therapy with curative intent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 623 consecutive patients with oesophageal carcinoma (207 squamous cell carcinoma, 416 adenocarcinoma) were studied. The primary outcome measure was disease-free survival, adjusted for baseline differences in gender, age and histological cell type.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eleven patients deemed unsuitable for surgery on the grounds of performance status (n = 137), bulky local disease (n = 121) or personal choice (n = 53) received dCRT and 312 surgery (200 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy). Oesophageal carcinoma recurrence was diagnosed in 44.1% of patients after dCRT compared with 40.7% after surgery (P = 0.222). Locoregional recurrence was more common after dCRT than after surgery (24.1% versus 9.3%, P < 0.0001). In contrast, distant metastases were more common after surgery than after dCRT (22.8% versus 12.9%, P = 0.001). The median time to recurrence in patients receiving dCRT and surgery were 15 and 17 months, respectively (P = 0.052). Stage-related disease-free 2 year survival for dCRT versus surgery was: stage I (68.6 versus 85.6%, P = 0.069), stage II (36.9 versus 47.4%, P = 0.011), stage III (31.0 versus 28.6, P = 0.878), stage IVa (21.4 versus 26.3%, P = 0.710).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide further support for a randomised trial of dCRT versus surgery in both oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma.

Prognostic significance of the endoscopic ultrasound defined lymph node metastasis count in esophageal cancer

The key prognostic factor which predicts outcome after esophagectomy for cancer is the number of malignant lymph node metastases, but data regarding the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in determining and predicting the metastatic lymph node count preoperatively are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic significance of EUS defined lymph node metastasis count (eLNMC) in patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Two hundred and sixty-seven consecutive patients (median age 63 years, 187 months) underwent specialist EUS followed by stage directed multidisciplinary treatment (183 esophagectomy [64 neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 19 neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy], 79 definitive chemoradiotherapy, and 5 palliative therapy). The eLNMC was subdivided into four groups (0, 1, 2 to 4, >4) and the primary measure of outcome was survival. Survival was related to EUS tumor (T) stage (P < 0.0001), EUS node (N) stage (P < 0.0001), EUS tumor length (p < 0.0001), and eLNMC (P < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis revealed EUS tumor length (hazard ratio [HR] 1.071, 95% CI 1.008-1.138, P= 0.027) and eLNMC (HR 1.302, 95% CI 1.133-1.496, P= 0.0001) to be significantly and independently associated with survival. Median and 2-year survival for patients with 0, 1, 2-4, and >4 lymph node metastases were: 44 months and 71%, 36 months and 59%, 24 months and 50%, and 17 months and 32%, respectively. The total number of EUS defined lymph node metastases was an important and significant prognostic indicator.

Prevalence and outcome of esophagogastric anastomotic leak after esophagectomy in a UK regional cancer network

The aim of this study was to determine the contemporary prevalence, outcome, and survival after esophagogastric anastomotic leakage (EGAL) following esophagectomy by a regional upper gastrointestinal cancer network and to investigate etiological factors. Two hundred forty consecutive patients underwent esophagectomy over a 10-year period (median age 61 [31-79] years, 147 transthoracic and 93 transhiatal esophagectomy, 105 neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 49 chemoradiotherapy). The primary outcome measures were the development of EGAL and survival. Twenty patients developed EGAL (8.3%, 15 managed conservatively, 5 reoperation). Overall operative mortality was 2% (5 patients in total, 1 after EGAL). Median, 1 and 2-year survival was 22 months, 73% and 50%, in patients after EGAL, compared with 31 months, 80% and 56%, in patients who did not suffer EGAL (P= 0.314). On multivariate analysis, low body mass indices (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.79, P= 0.016), individual surgeon (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.43, P= 0.02), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 3.28, 95% CI 1.16-9.22, P= 0.024) were significantly associated with the development of EGAL. EGAL following esophagectomy remained common, but associated mortality was less common than reported in earlier Western series and long-term survival was unaffected.

Stage-for-stage comparison of definitive chemoradiotherapy, surgery alone and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for oesophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) has been proposed as an alternative therapy for selected patients with oesophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of dCRT, surgery alone, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS) in patients with oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

Consecutive patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and managed by a multidisciplinary team were staged by computed tomography and endoluminal ultrasonography. Those deemed unsuitable for surgery on the grounds of performance status, bulky local disease or personal choice received dCRT. The primary outcome measure was overall survival measured from date of diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of 417 patients, 173 received dCRT, 126 underwent surgery alone and 118 received CS. The incidence of grade III/IV toxicity after dCRT and CS was 39.3 and 60.2 per cent respectively. Operative morbidity rates were 42.9 and 44.4 per cent after surgery alone and CS respectively. Thirty-day mortality rates were zero, 7.9 and 0.8 per cent after dCRT, surgery alone and CS respectively. Overall 2-year survival rates were 44.3, 56.2 and 42.4 per cent (P = 0.422).

CONCLUSION

These findings support the need for a randomized trial of dCRT versus CS for resectable oesophageal cancer.

Prognostic significance of endoscopic ultrasound-defined pleural, pericardial or peritoneal fluid in oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is known to detect smaller effusion volumes than computerised tomography (CT), yet the outcomes for patients diagnosed with oesophageal carcinoma and EUS-defined pleural, pericardial or ascitic fluid effusions (EDFE) are unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of multidisciplinary stage directed treatment for such patients.

METHODS

Forty-nine (9.2%) out of a consecutive 527 patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer from a single regional upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer network were found to have evidence of EDFE undetected by CT. Thirty-nine (79.6%) patients had pleural effusions, eight (16.3%) pericardial effusions, and two (4.1%) ascites.

RESULTS

Twelve (24.4%) underwent surgery, 3 (6.1%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy without subsequent surgery, 12 (24.5%) received definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), and 22 (44.9%) received palliative treatment. Survival in patients with EDFE was significantly shorter (median and 2-year survival 15.6 months and 24%, respectively) when compared with patients without EDFE (26.7 months and 40%, respectively, p = 0.001), and was unrelated to EDFE type (p = 0.192). Two-year survival after oesophagectomy with or without neoadjuvant therapy was 45% in patients with EDFE compared with 42% in patients without EDFE (p = 0.668).

CONCLUSIONS

EDFE was an important adverse prognostic indicator, but patients deemed to have operable tumours should still be treated with radical intent.

Prognostic significance of failure to cross esophageal tumors by endoluminal ultrasound

Failure to intubate and cross esophageal tumors by endosonography is reported in as many as 30% of cases and is thought to be associated with an especially poor prognosis. The aim of this study was to audit the above in a large consecutive case series of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) examinations for esophageal cancer performed in a regional specialist cancer network with particular reference to outcome. A consecutive series of 411 patients underwent EUS examination by a specialist radiologist over a period of 9 years. Forty (10%) of patients required dilation, and there was total failure to cross the tumor in 12 patients (2.9%). Failure to traverse the primary tumor was associated with a diagnosis of squamous cell cancer (8 of 12 patients, 66%, rho = -0.182, P = 0.011). Limited staging information was obtained in 7 of these patients, which altered the computed tomography stage in 5 patients (71%, 3 upstaged, 2 downstaged). Six patients received definitive chemoradiotherapy, two patients surgery and four patients palliative chemotherapy. The median and 5-year survival in patients whose tumors were not crossed was 10 months and 28%, respectively, compared with 24 months and 24%, respectively in patients whose tumors were fully assessed. Failure to cross esophageal tumors in practice was far less common than the literature suggests, and esophageal tumor luminal stenosis should no longer be considered a limitation of endosonography.