Predictors of staging accuracy, pathologic nodal involvement, and overall survival for cT2N0 carcinoma of the esophagus

OBJECTIVE

Clinical T2N0 esophageal carcinoma is a heterogenous disease frequently complicated by inaccurate staging. Incorrect staging may lead to suboptimal treatment for patients with unidentified local-regionally advanced disease. Therapeutic options for these patients remain controversial. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with cT2N0 who underwent esophagectomy as either primary therapy or after neoadjuvant treatment.

METHODS

This was a multi-institutional collaboration of 26 high-volume esophageal centers. Patients with complete staging who underwent elective resection from 2002 to 2012 were included. Three treatment groups were identified; primary esophagectomy, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative chemoradiation (CXRT). Pretreatment variables were explored for independent predictors of long-term outcomes. The primary esophagectomy subgroup was evaluated for stage migration.

RESULTS

In total, 767 patients were evaluated; 35% (268) had preoperative therapy (195 CXRT, 73 chemotherapy). Staging accuracy was 14% (70/499), with pT < 2 identified in 45% (222) and pN > 0 in 39% (195). Preoperative treatment modality (none, CXRT, chemotherapy) was not identified as a predictor of outcome (median survival 63, 70, 71 months, respectively, P = .956). Longitudinal tumor length >3.25 cm was predictive of pN+ for the primary esophagectomy cohort as well as adenocarcinoma histology only (odds ratio 2.2 and 2.4, respectively, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Current treatment options for patients with cT2N0M0 do not reveal a comparative survival advantage to preoperative therapy. Pretreatment tumor length can identify a subgroup of patients at risk for understaging (pN+). The incidence of overstaging suggests that organ-sparing approaches (endoscopic resection) may play a future role in appropriately selected patients.

MUC1 Immunohistochemical Expression as a Prognostic Factor in Gastric Cancer: Meta-Analysis

MUC1, a member of the mucin family, is expressed in tumors of various human organs and may function as an antiadhesion molecule that inhibits cell-to-cell adhesion, inducing tumor metastasis, and served as a potential biomarker of tumor progression in early gastric cancer. However, its prognostic significance in gastric cancer is still in dispute. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between MUC1 expression and prognosis of gastric cancer. A total of ten eligible studies with 834 cases and 548 controls were included. MUC1 positive cases were highly positive in intestinal-type carcinomas (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.27-2.44, P = 0.0008 fixed-effect), higher rate of vascular invasion (OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.13-2.39, P = 0.009 fixed-effect), and lymph node metastasis (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.20-3.67, P = 0.01 random-effect), as well as lower 5-year survival rate (HR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.11-0.66, P = 0.004 random-effect). However, the presence of MUC1 was not associated with gender, tumor size, histologic differentiation, and clinical stage. In summary, MUC1 is a prognostic factor in gastric cancer, which acts as a marker of poor outcome in patients with gastric cancer. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm the role of MUC1 in clinical practice.

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma and prior diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus (BO) provides an opportunity to detect early stage oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC). We sought to determine the proportion of OAC patients with a prior diagnosis of BO on a population basis and to evaluate the influence of a prior diagnosis of BO on survival, taking into account lead and length time biases.

DESIGN

A retrospective population-based study of all OAC patients in Northern Ireland between 2003 and 2008. A prior BO diagnosis was determined by linkage to the Northern Ireland BO register. Stage distribution at diagnosis and histological grade were compared between patients with and without a prior BO diagnosis. Overall survival, using Cox models, was compared between patients with and without a prior BO diagnosis. The effect of adjusting the survival differences for histological grade and estimates of lead and length time bias was assessed.

RESULTS

There were 716 OAC cases, 52 (7.3%) of whom had a prior BO diagnosis. Patients with a prior BO diagnosis had significantly lower tumour stage (44.2% vs. 11.1% had stage 1 or 2 disease; p<0.001), a higher rate of surgical resection (50.0% vs. 25.5%; p<0.001) and had a higher proportion of low/intermediate grade tumours (46.2% vs. 26.5%; p=0.011). A prior BO diagnosis was associated with significantly better survival (HR for death 0.39; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.58), which was minimally influenced by adjustment for age, sex and tumour grade (adjusted HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64). Correction for lead time bias attenuated but did not abolish the survival benefit (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.95) and further adjustment for length time bias had little effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of OAC patients with a prior diagnosis of BO is low; however, prior identification of BO is associated with an improvement in survival in OAC patients.

Is preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery the appropriate treatment for signet ring cell containing adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction and stomach?

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest primary resection as the preferable approach in patients with signet ring cell gastric cancer (SRC). The aim of our retrospective exploratory study was to evaluate the influence of SRC on prognosis and response in esophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

A total of 723 locally advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinomas (cT3/4 N any) documented in a prospective database from two academic centers were classified according to the WHO definition for SRC (more than 50 % SRC) and analyzed for their association with response and prognosis after neoadjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 235 tumors (32.5 %) contained SRC. Median survival of SRC was 26.3 compared with 46.6 months (p < 0.001) for non-SRC. SRC were significantly associated with female gender, gastric localization, advanced ypT and R1/2 categories, and lower risk of surgical complications and anastomotic leakage (each p < 0.001). Clinical (21.1 vs. 33.7 %, p = 0.001) and histopathological response (less than 10 % residual tumor: 16.3 vs. 28.9 %, p < 0.001) were significantly less frequent in SRC. Clinical response (p = 0.003) and complete histopathological response (pCR) (3.4 %) (p = 0.003) were associated with improved prognosis in SRC. Clinical response, surgical complications, ypTN categories, but not SRC were independent prognostic factors in forward Cox regression analysis in R0 resected patients. Risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis was increased (p < 0.001), while local (p = 0.015) and distant metastases (p = 0.02) were less frequent than in non-SRC.

CONCLUSIONS

Prognosis of SRC is unfavorable. Although response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is rare in SRC, it is associated with improved outcome. Thus, chemotherapy might not generally be abandoned in SRC. A stratification based on SRC should be included in clinical trials.

A multifactorial histopathologic score for the prediction of prognosis of resected esophageal adenocarcinomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

For esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative staging classifications initially developed for non-pretreated tumors may not accurately predict prognosis. We tested whether a multifactorial TNM-based histopathologic prognostic score (PRSC), which additionally applies to tumor regression, may improve estimation of prognosis compared with the current Union for International Cancer Control/American Joint Committee on Cancer (UICC) staging system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We evaluated esophageal adenocarcinoma specimens following cis/oxaliplatin-based therapy from two separate centers (center 1: n = 280; and center 2: n = 80). For the PRSC, each factor was assigned a value from 1 to 2 (ypT0-2 = 1 point; ypT3-4 = 2 points; ypN0 = 1 point; ypN1-3 = 2 points; ≤ 50 % residual tumor/tumor bed = 1 point; >50 % residual tumor/tumor bed = 2 points). The three-tiered PRSC was based on the sum value of these factors (group A: 3; group B: 4-5; group C: 6) and was correlated with patients' overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The PRSC groups showed significant differences with respect to OS (p < 0.0001; hazard ratio [HR] 2.2 [95 % CI 1.7-2.8]), which could also be demonstrated in both cohorts separately (center 1 p < 0.0001; HR 2.48 [95 % CI 1.8-3.3] and center 2 p = 0.015; HR 1.7 [95 % CI 1.1-2.6]). Moreover, the PRSC showed a more accurate prognostic discrimination than the current UICC staging system (p < 0.0001; HR 1.15 [95 % CI 1.1-1.2]), and assessment of two goodness-of-fit criteria (Akaike Information Criterion and Schwarz Bayesian Information Criterion) clearly supported the superiority of PRSC over the UICC staging.

CONCLUSION

The proposed PRSC clearly identifies three subgroups with different outcomes and may be more helpful for guiding further therapeutic decisions than the UICC staging system.

Tailoring esophageal cancer surgery

Esophageal cancer is a significant source of major mortality worldwide and is increasing dramatically in incidence. Without treatment this disease leads rapidly to death, but intervention also carries significant risk, so a carefully tailored approach must be used to maximize oncological efficacy while minimizing the negative consequences of intervention. Careful patient selection based on histologic and anatomic staging, consideration of each patient's clinical variables, appropriately timing chemo- and radiation therapy, and minimizing the morbidity of surgical intervention may significantly improve a patient's chances of surviving this disease, but each must be carefully orchestrated with a tailored approach to treatment. This review will serve as a guide to tailoring surgery for esophageal cancer.

A specific expression profile of heat-shock proteins and glucose-regulated proteins is associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinomas

Background:

Oesophageal adenocarcinomas often show resistances to chemotherapy (CTX), therefore, it would be of high interest to better understand the mechanisms of resistance. We examined the expression of heat-shock proteins (HSPs) and glucose-regulated proteins (GRPs) in pretherapeutic biopsies of oesophageal adenocarcinomas to assess their potential role in CTX response.

Methods:

Ninety biopsies of locally advanced adenocarcinomas before platin/5-fluorouracil (FU)-based CTX were investigated by reverse phase protein arrays (RPPAs), immunohistochemistry (IHC) and quantitative RT–PCR.

Results:

CTX response strongly correlated with survival (P=0.001). Two groups of tumours with specific protein expression patterns were identified by RPPA: Group A was characterised by low expression of HSP90, HSP27 and p-HSP27^{(Ser15, Ser78, Ser82)} and high expression of GRP78, GRP94, HSP70 and HSP60; Group B exhibited the inverse pattern. Tumours of Group A were more likely to respond to CTX, resulting in histopathological tumour regression (P=0.041) and post-therapeutic down-categorisation from cT3 to ypT0–T2 (P=0.040). High HSP60 protein (IHC) and mRNA expression were also associated with tumour down-categorisation (P=0.016 and P=0.004).

Conclusion:

Our findings may enhance the understanding of CTX response mechanisms, might be helpful to predict CTX response and might have translational relevance as they highlight the role of potentially targetable cellular stress proteins in the context of CTX response.

Diagnosis and staging of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction

Esophageal/esophagogastric junction cancer staging in the 7th edition of the AJCC staging manual is data driven and harmonized with gastric staging. New definitions are Tis, T4, regional lymph node, N, and M. Nonanatomic characteristics (histopathologic cell type, histologic grade, cancer location) and TNM classifications determine stage groupings. Classifications before treatment define clinical stage (cTNM or ycTNM). Current best clinical staging modalities include endoscopic ultrasonography for T and N and CT/PET for M. Classifications at resection define pathologic stage (pTNM or ypTNM). Accurate pathologic stage requires communication/cooperation between surgeon and pathologist. Classifications are defined at retreatment (rTNM) and autopsy (aTNM).