Adenocarcinoma of the stomach in patients age 35 years and younger: no impact of early diagnosis on survival outcome

CDH1 germline mutations in a Chinese cohort with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer

PURPOSE

Germline mutations in CDH1 are associated with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) and have been identified in multiple ethnicities. However, CDH1 germline mutations have seldom been documented in Chinese patients with HDGC, and their frequency remains unclear. Here, we aimed to examine the frequency of CDH1 germline mutations in Chinese patients with HDGC. In total, 285 patients who met the International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium 2015 testing criteria of HDGC for CDH1 germline mutations were recruited.

METHODS

All 16 CDH1 exons, including neighboring intronic sequences, were amplified using polymerase chain reaction and screened using Sanger sequencing. Variants were analyzed using Mutation Surveyor V4.0, SIFT, and PolyPhen-2 software.

RESULTS

Three nonsense and nine missense CDH1 germline mutations were identified in 21 of 285 index cases (7.4%). Two CDH1 germline mutations, N405Y (Asn405Tyr) and W409X (Trp409Ter), were identified as new variants. In addition, up to 28.6% of CDH1 mutations in the 21 indicated patients were identified as c.1775G>C (E551Q). The frequency of CDH1 mutations was 6.5% (7/108) in HDGC and 7.9% (14/177) in early onset diffuse gastric cancer (EODGC). The mutation detection rates of CDH1 in males and females were 6.7% (4/60) and 8.5% (10/117) in EODGC and 4.6% (3/65) and 9.3% (4/43) in HDGC, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These data reveal, for the first time, the type and frequency of CDH1 germline mutations in Chinese HDGC and demonstrate that germline CDH1 mutations are a noteworthy contributor to the high frequency of HDGC in Chinese.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Delays in referral from primary care are associated with a worse survival in patients with esophagogastric cancer

NICE referral guidelines for suspected cancer were introduced to improve prognosis by reducing referral delays. However, over 20% of patients with esophagogastric cancer experience three or more consultations before referral. In this retrospective cohort study, we hypothesize that such a delay is associated with a worse survival compared with patients referred earlier. By utilizing Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a national primary care linked database, the first presentation, referral date, a number of consultations before referral and stage for esophagogastric cancer patients were determined. The risk of a referral after one or two consultations compared with three or more consultations was calculated for age and the presence of symptom fulfilling the NICE criteria. The risk of death according to the number of consultations before referral was determined, while accounting for stage and surgical management. 1307 patients were included. Patients referred after one (HR 0.80 95% CI 0.68-0.93 p = 0.005) or two consultations (HR 0.81 95% CI 0.67-0.98 p = 0.034) demonstrated significantly improved prognosis compared with those referred later. The risk of death was also lower for patients who underwent a resection, were younger or had an earlier stage at diagnosis. Those presenting with a symptom fulfilling the NICE criteria (OR 0.27 95% CI 0.21-0.35 p < 0.0001) were more likely to be referred earlier. This is the first study to demonstrate an association between a delay in referral and worse prognosis in esophagogastric patients. These findings should prompt further research to reduce primary care delays.

Safety of prolonged wait time for gastrectomy in clinical stage I gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with stage I gastric cancer tend to wait for surgery. Although the cancer may progress during such a delay, effects of wait time for surgery on survival remain inconsistent. Here, we evaluated the safety of surgical wait time on survival of patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer.

METHODS

The outcomes of 556 patients who underwent gastrectomy for clinical stage I gastric cancer between January 2007 and December 2011 were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were stratified into three groups based on wait time: short- (<61 days, n = 185), intermediate- (61-90 days, n = 218), and long-wait (91-180 days, n = 153) groups. Clinicopathological findings and survival were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

The median wait time was 72 days. Age and comorbidities differed among the groups, but clinical and pathological cancer stages did not. Overall survival was comparable; the 5-year overall survival was 90.2%, 93.6%, and 88.8% in the short-, intermediate-, and long-wait groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that wait time was not an independent prognostic factor for overall survival. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.69 (p = 0.262) and 1.03 (p = 0.926) in the intermediate- and long-wait groups, respectively, with short wait time as the reference. Relapse-free survival was comparable among the groups (intermediate-wait HR = 0.80, p = 0.476; long-wait HR = 1.10, p = 0.740).

CONCLUSION

A half-year wait time for surgery was not independently associated with survival of patients with clinical stage I gastric cancer and may therefore be acceptable.

Gastrointestinal tract carcinoma in pediatric and adolescent age: The Italian TREP project experience

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) carcinomas are very rare in the pediatric and adolescent age range. We report the clinical features, treatment, and outcome of a series of children and adolescents with GI carcinoma prospectively registered in the Italian Tumori Rari in Età Pediatrica (TREP) project.

METHODS

The TREP project developed diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines based on recommendations currently in use for adults. Clinical data were centrally registered and reviewed.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were registered over the years 2000-2016. Most of the tumors were colorectal carcinomas (12 cases). All but one patient had advanced-stage disease (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages III-IV), and the majority of patients had aggressive histological subtypes, i.e. poorly differentiated (G3) (five patients), mucinous (four patients), and signet ring (two patients) adenocarcinomas. Surgery was performed in 13 of 15 patients, and was radical in nine of 13 patients. Only one patient received postoperative radiotherapy. All patients received chemotherapy, with the addition of bevacizumab in two cases. Nine patients were still alive at the time of the present report, but two of them had only just completed their treatment program and one patient is still on treatment. Six patients died due to disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective report on pediatric GI tract carcinomas confirms the rarity and biological aggressiveness of these diseases in pediatric and adolescent age. Further prospective studies are needed to explore the distinct biology of tumor in this age group in order to find new therapeutic targeted agents.

Is increased time to diagnosis and treatment in symptomatic cancer associated with poorer outcomes? Systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether more timely cancer diagnosis brings favourable outcomes, with much of the previous evidence, in some cancers, being equivocal. We set out to determine whether there is an association between time to diagnosis, treatment and clinical outcomes, across all cancers for symptomatic presentations.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We included 177 articles reporting 209 studies. These studies varied in study design, the time intervals assessed and the outcomes reported. Study quality was variable, with a small number of higher-quality studies. Heterogeneity precluded definitive findings. The cancers with more reports of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes were breast, colorectal, head and neck, testicular and melanoma.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first review encompassing many cancer types, and we have demonstrated those cancers in which more evidence of an association between shorter times to diagnosis and more favourable outcomes exists, and where it is lacking. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier-stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although these benefits vary between cancers.

Identification and characterization of CDH1 germline variants in sporadic gastric cancer patients and in individuals at risk of gastric cancer

Objective

To screen and characterize germline variants for E-cadherin (CDH1) in non-hereditary gastric cancer (GC) patients and in subjects at risk of GC.

Methods

59 GCs, 59 first degree relatives (FDRs) of GC, 20 autoimmune metaplastic atrophic gastritis (AMAGs) and 52 blood donors (BDs) were analyzed for CDH1 by direct sequencing, structural modelling and bioinformatics. Functional impact on splicing was assessed for intronic mutations. E-cadherin/β-catenin immunohistochemical staining and E-cadherin mRNA quantification using RT-PCR were performed.

Results

In GCs, 4 missense variants (p.G274S; p.A298T; p.T470I; p.A592T), 1 mutation in the 5′UTR (−71C>G) and 1 mutation in the intronic IVS12 (c.1937-13T>C) region were found. First pathogenic effect of p.A298T mutation was predicted by protein 3D modelling. The novel p.G274S mutation showed a no clear functional significance. Moreover, first, intronic IVS12 (c.1937-13T>C) mutation was demonstrated to lead to an aberrant CDH1 transcript with exon 11 deletion. This mutation was found in 2 GCs and in 1 BD. In FDRs, we identified 4 variants: the polymorphic (p.A592T) and 3 mutations in untranslated regions with unidentified functional role except for the 5′UTR (−54G>C) that had been found to decrease CDH1 transcription. In AMAGs, we detected 2 alterations: 1 missense (p.A592T) and 1 novel variant (IVS1 (c.48+7C>T)) without effect on CDH1 splicing. Several silent and polymorphic substitutions were found in all the groups studied.

Conclusions

Overall our study improves upon the current characterization of CDH1 mutations and their functional role in GC and in individuals at risk of GC. Mutations found in untranslated regions and data on splicing effects deserve a particular attention like associated with a reduced E-cadherin amount. The utility of CDH1 screening, in addition to the identification of other risk factors, could be useful for the early detection of GC in subjects at risk (i.e. FDRs and AMAGs), and warrants further study.

E-cadherin genetic screening and clinico-pathologic characteristics of early onset gastric cancer

AIM

CDH1 germline alterations occur in about 40% of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) families. CDH1 germline mutations are also documented in few early onset diffuse gastric cancer patients (EODGC) without family history, but the real frequency in this setting in unknown. In these patients, the advanced stage at the time of diagnosis remains a clinical burden due to the poor long term survival.

METHODS

The entire coding region and exon flanking sequences of the CDH1 gene was analysed by direct sequencing in 21 EODGC patients aged ≤50 years. The potential deleterious nature for a new CDH1 missense variant was assessed by cell-cell aggregation and invasion assays. Somatic CDH1 mutation, loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and promoter hypermethylation was explored in the tumour from one CDH1 germline mutation carrier.

RESULTS

Two novel CDH1 germline variants were identified in 21 EODGC cases, c.670C>T and -63C>A. Functional analysis of the c.670C>T missense variant classified this mutation as non-pathogenic. The analysis of CDH1 somatic second hits failed to demonstrate E-cadherin structural and epigenetic alterations in the tumour sample.

CONCLUSION

Data from the present work and a systematic review of the literature revealed that CDH1 germline mutations occurred in 7.2% of EOGC patients invariably with diffuse of mixed histology. From these, proved CDH1 mutation pathogenicity has been assigned only to 2.3% of the cases who were recurrently diagnosed before 35 years old. Germline CDH1 mutation remain the only germline genetic defect described in this type of patients and CDH1 mutation screening should be recommended for patients with these characteristics.

Clinical presentation and waiting time targets do not affect prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

The prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer remains poor despite recent advances in treatment. It is not known whether delays in referring, diagnosing and treating these patients and the way they present can affect their survival.

AIMS

In our study we investigated the impact of clinical presentation (jaundice, abdominal pain, weight loss) and delays in management of these patients on their treatment and survival.

METHODS

Data on all patients with pancreatic cancer referred to the Pancreatic Unit (1997-2002) were collected prospectively and analysed using SPSS 16((R).) The delay in diagnosis and treatment for each patient was measured by estimating the time from the beginning of symptoms to the date of the referral letter (T1), the time from the referral date to the date of first review at the Unit (T2) and the time from date of review to the date of diagnosis/treatment (T3). Treatments were defined as 1) pancreatic resections, 2) gastric and biliary bypass and 3) biliary stents. The term 'operability' was used to describe patients thought to have a potentially removable tumour and had an operation and 'resectability' applied to the patients whose tumour was actually removed at the operation. Follow-up time and survival were recorded by reviewing the patient's notes, hospital electronic databases and by contacting patients General Practitioners.

RESULTS

There were a total of 355 patients with pancreatic cancer. Median age at diagnosis was 64 (i.q.r. 56-71) years and median follow-up was 8 (i.q.r. 4-14) months. The overall 1, 3 and 5 years patient's survival was 26%, 5% and 4% respectively. 1, 3 and 5 years survival of inoperable patients was 24%, 2% and 0% and for operable patients was 35%, 13% and 9% respectively. The median survival time for those patients that underwent operation was significantly higher than those that did not (12 vs 6 months, p < 0.001). The overall median time from initial symptoms to diagnosis/treatment (T1 + T2 + T3) was 102 (i.q.r. 56-182) days, T1 was 65 (i.q.r. 31-143), T2 17 (i.q.r. 8-28) and T3 11 (i.q.r. 6-21) days. The time delay from symptoms to referral (T1) had minimal clinical relevance to survival, with a hazard ratio of only 1.001 (95% CI 0.001-0.002, p = 0.043) per day. Of all 355 patients, 305 (86%) were reviewed and treated within 62 days from the GP referral (T2 + T3). There was no significant difference in operability, resectability and survival of patients that were diagnosed/treated before or after 62 days from referral (T2 + T3) (median months 6.5 and 7.9 respectively, p = 0.134). Patients presenting with jaundice were referred (T1, median 56 vs 103) and diagnosed/treated (T2 + T3, median 96 vs 130) days (p < 0.001) sooner, had a higher operability rate (33% vs 21%, p = 0.035) but not a significantly higher resectability rate of (37% vs 29%) (p = 0.608). Isolated or combined mode of clinical presentation had no significant effect on survival (p = 0.965). On multivariate regression analysis, prognostic factors of survival were a resectable tumour and the time from the beginning of symptoms to referral.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that pre-hospital delays in referring patients to a specialist unit, but not hospital related 62 days target, had an no impact on operability, resectability and survival. Clinical presentation also had no impact on the survival. We confirmed that pancreatic resection is the most important factor in determining the length of survival in patients with pancreatic cancer. Our study implies that the successful implementation of the 62 days National Cancer Waits Target across the UK is unlikely to have an impact on prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer. Focusing on early referral to specialist Pancreatic Units might be more effective.

Role of symptoms in diagnosis and outcome of gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers and the second most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Apart from Japan, where screening programmes have resulted in early diagnosis in asymptomatic patients, in most countries the diagnosis of gastric cancers is invariably made on account on dyspeptic and alarm symptoms, which may also be of prognostic significance when reported by the patient at diagnosis. However, their use as selection criteria for endoscopy seems to be inconsistent since alarm symptoms are not sufficiently sensitive to detect malignancies. In fact, the overall prevalence of these symptoms in dyspeptic patients is high, while the prevalence of gastro-intestinal cancer is very low. Moreover, symptoms of early stage cancer may be indistinguishable from those of benign dyspepsia, while the presence of alarm symptoms may imply an advanced and often inoperable disease. The features of dyspeptic and alarm symptoms may reflect the pathology of the tumour and be of prognostic value in suggesting site, stage and aggressiveness of cancer. Alarm symptoms in gastric cancer are independently related to survival and an increased number, as well as specific alarm symptoms, are closely correlated to the risk of death.Dysphagia, weight loss and a palpable abdominal mass appear to be major independent prognostic factors in gastric cancer, while gastro-intestinal bleeding, vomiting and also duration of symptoms, do not seem to have a relevant prognostic impact on survival in gastric cancer.

Clinicopathological profile and long-term outcome in young adults with gastric cancer: multicenter evaluation of 214 patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric cancer (GC) is usually diagnosed in the sixth and seventh decade of life, although it may also be found in younger patients. The aim of this study was to analyse the potential differences in demographic and clinicopathological factors between the younger (40 years of age and less) and older (above 40 years) population of GC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic database covering all gastric cancer patients treated between 1977 and 1998 at eight university surgical centres was reviewed.

RESULTS

Of 3,431 patients treated, 214 (6.2%) were 40 years of age or younger. No differences in tumour staging or location could be identified, but the diffuse type lesions were more common in the younger patients (52.6 vs 29.8%). No differences were found in morbidity and mortality rates, except a higher incidence of cardiopulmonary complications in older patients undergoing stomach resection (6.6 vs 12.3%). Median survival of patients after gastrectomy was 24.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.7-26.6) and was insignificantly longer in younger (30.8 months, 95%CI 21.0-40.5) than older (24.1 months, 95%CI 22.1-26.1) patients (P = 0.056). Median survival for unresectable cases was 5.4 months (95%CI 5.1-5.7) and was comparable in the younger (median 5.5 months, 95%CI 5.2-5.8) and older (median 4.4 months, 95%CI 3.7-5.1) groups.

CONCLUSION

GC in young adults demonstrates only minor deviations from the general population with a similar long-term outcome.

Treatment issues in pediatric gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma is a rare diagnosis in children. Modern treatment includes chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery and has evolved over the past decade. The authors report a case of an 8-year-old girl with gastric adenocarcinoma. The case will be followed by a brief discussion of the presentation, current management guidelines, and prognosis of this rare pediatric entity.