Clinical T2-T3N0M0 esophageal cancer: the risk of node positive disease

Definition and Predictors of Early Recurrence in Neoadjuvantly Treated Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: a Dual-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

ABSTARCT

BACKGROUND: Early recurrence after esophagectomy is often used as a surrogate for aggressive tumor biology and treatment failure. However, there is no standardized definition of early recurrence, and predictors for early recurrence are unknown. Therefore, we aimed to define an evidence-based cutoff to discriminate early and late recurrence and assess the influence of neoadjuvant treatment modalities for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal-junction adenocarcinoma (EAC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This dual-center retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent esophagectomy for stage II-III EAC after neoadjuvant treatment with chemotherapy using 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) or radiochemotherapy according to the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer followed by Surgery Study (CROSS) protocol from 2012 to 2022. The optimal cutoff for early versus late recurrence was calculated by using the most significant difference in survival after recurrence (SAR). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with early recurrence.

RESULTS

Of 334 included patients, 160 (47.9%) were diagnosed with recurrence. Most patients had systemic (60.5%) or multiple sites of recurrence (21.1%), whereas local-only recurrence (9.2%) and carcinomatosis (9.2%) were rare. The optimal interval between surgery and recurrence for distinguishing early and late recurrence was 18 months (median SAR: 9.1 versus 17.8 months, p = 0.039) with only 24% of recurrences diagnosed after the calculated cutoff. Advanced pathologic tumor infiltration (ypT3-4, p = 0.006), nodal positivity (p = 0.013), poor treatment response (>10% residual tumor, p = 0.015), and no adjuvant treatment (p = 0.048) predicted early recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Early recurrence can be defined as recurrent disease within 18 months. Hallmarks for early recurrence are poor response to neoadjuvant therapy with persisting advanced disease. In those patients, adjuvant therapy and closer follow-up should be considered.

Comparison of long-term survival of neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery versus upfront surgery and the role of adjuvant therapy for T1b-2N0-1 esophageal cancer: a population study of the SEER database and Chinese cohort

BACKGROUND

For stage T1b-2N0-1 esophageal cancer, the impact of neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery (NS), surgery alone (SA), and surgery plus adjuvant therapy (ST) on cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) is uncertain.

METHODS

Stage T1b-2N0-1 esophageal cancer patients from the SEER database and two Chinese cancer centers were included in this study. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot survival curves, which were compared using the log-rank test. Propensity score matching was used to equalize differences between the groups. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to analyze prognostic factors. A nomogram for OS was developed after screening the variables using the Cox proportional hazards regression model and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. The performance of the nomogram was assessed by the Harrell concordance index (C-index), the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching analysis, the 3-year CSS and OS rates in the NS group compared to the SA group were 80.3% versus 62.1% ( P =0.016) and 75.8% versus 55.5% ( P =0.006), the 3-year CSS and OS rates in the NS group compared to the ST group were 71.3% versus 68.3% ( P =0.560) and 69.8% versus 62.9% ( P =0.330), the 3-year CSS and OS rates in the SA group compared to the ST group were 54.6% versus 66.7% ( P =0.220) and 50.2% versus 57.9% ( P =0.290), respectively. The predictive nomogram for OS in T1b-2N0-1 patients ultimately incorporated five clinicopathological variables: T stage, N stage, age, examined lymph nodes, and therapy modality. The nomogram C-index for predicting OS was 0.648, 0.663, and 0.666 in the training group, external validation group-1, and external validation group-2, respectively. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year predicted AUC values of the OS prediction model were 0.659, 0.639, and 0.612 for the training group, and 0.786, 0.758, and 0.692 for validation group-1, and 0.805, 0.760, and 0.693 for validation group-2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For patients with stage T1b-2N0-1 esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy significantly improves prognosis compared to surgery alone, those presenting with positive lymph nodes after upfront surgery can achieve survival benefits from adjuvant therapy.

Perioperative outcomes in patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy versus up-front surgery in patients with oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is the mainstay of curative treatment for oesophageal cancer. The role of neoadjuvant therapy has evolved over time as evidence for its survival benefit comes to hand. Clinician reluctance to offer patients neoadjuvant therapy may be based on the perception that patients receiving treatment before surgery may be exposed to a greater risk of perioperative complications. The aim of this study was to examine short-term outcomes in patients who undergo neoadjuvant therapy versus up-front surgery in patients with oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collated data from 2001 to 2020 of patients undergoing resection for oesophageal cancer. Patients who had neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy and up-front surgery were compared for perioperative morbidity (via the Clavien-Dindo classification), length of stay, unplanned readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality. Logistic regression was performed to predict perioperative morbidity following surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 284 patients underwent an oesophagectomy. Most patients received neoadjuvant treatment (41% received chemoradiotherapy (117/284), 33% received chemotherapy (93/284)), and 26% of patients received up-front surgery (74/284). Patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or up-front surgery were more likely to have a complication (57%, 67/117 and 57%, 43/74) than patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy only (38%, 35/93, P = 0.009). The 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 1.4% (n = 4) and 2.8% (n = 8), respectively, with no difference between the use of neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSION

In this series, we found that patients who received neoadjuvant treatment could undergo oesophagectomy with curative intent with acceptable postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Does Not Improve Survival in cT2N0M0 Gastric Adenocarcinoma Patients: A Multicenter Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

According to current international guidelines, stage cT2N0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma warrants preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery. However, upfront surgery is often preferred in clinical practice, depending on patient clinical status and local treatment preferences.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of cT2N0M0 patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed among 32 centers, including gastric adenocarcinoma patients operated between January 2007 and December 2017. Patients with cT2N0M0 stage were divided into upfront surgery (S) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS) groups. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to compensate for baseline differences between the groups.

RESULTS

Among the 202 patients diagnosed with cT2N0M0 stage, 68 (33.7%) were in the CS group and 134 (66.3%) were in the S group. CS patients were younger (mean age 62.7 ± 12.8 vs. 69.8 ± 12.1 years for S patients; p < 0.001) and had a better health status (World Health Organization performance status = 0 in 60.3% of CS patients vs. 34.5% of S patients; p = 0.006). During follow-up, recurrence occurred in 27.2% and 19.6% of CS and S patients, respectively, after IPTW (p = 0.32). Five-year OS was similar between CS and S patients (78.9% vs. 68.3%; p = 0.42), as was 5-year DFS (70.4% vs. 68.5%; p = 0.96). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with neither OS nor DFS in multivariable analysis after IPTW.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cT2N0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma did not present a survival or recurrence benefit if treated with perioperative chemotherapy followed by surgery as opposed to surgery alone.

The Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Esophagectomy for cT2N0M0 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

For cT2N0M0 esophageal adenocarcinomas, the effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NT) on surgical outcomes and the oncological benefits to the patients are debatable. In this study, we investigated the optimal management for cT2N0M0 adenocarcinoma (1) assessing the perioperative impact of NT on esophagectomy and (2) evaluating the oncologic effect of NT in a homogeneous group of patients with clinical stage IIA. We hypothesized that NT does not negatively affect perioperative outcomes and provides an oncologic benefit to selected patients with cT2N0M0 disease.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried (2010-2019) for patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing esophagectomy. After propensity-matching to adjust for differences in patient and tumor characteristics, we compared postoperative outcomes (logistic regression) and survival (Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression) among those who underwent NT vs upfront surgery (S).

RESULTS

This study included 3413 patients, of whom 2359 (69%) received NT, and 1054 (31%) S. In contrast to those who underwent S, in the matched cohort, patients treated with NT had comparable conversion rates (8% vs11.1%, p = 0.06), length of stay (9 vs 10 days, p = 0.078), unplanned readmission (5.4% vs 8.8%, p = 0.109), and 30- (3.9% vs 3.7%, p = 0.90) and 90-day mortality (5.7% vs 4.7%, p = 0.599). In addition, NT associated with improved survival in patients with cT2N0M0 tumors > 5 cm (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

NT does not appear to increase technical complexity or to adversely affect postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy. Furthermore, minimally invasive esophagectomy is feasible following NT, with comparable conversion rates to those who had upfront surgery. Lastly, NT was selectively associated with improved survival in patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer.

Age-dependent benefit of neoadjuvant treatment in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: a multicenter retrospective observational study of young versus old patients

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to provide evidence for age-dependent use of neoadjuvant treatment by clinical comparisons of young (lower quartile, <56.6 years) versus old (upper quartile, >71.3 years) patients with esophageal and esophagogastric-junction adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant treatment is the standard of care for locally advanced and node-positive EAC. However, the effect of age on oncological outcomes is disputable as they are underrepresented in treatment defining randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Patients with EAC undergoing esophagectomy between 2001 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed from three centers. Patients having distant metastases or clinical UICC-stage I were excluded. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify the variables associated with survival benefit.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant treatment was administered to 185/248 (74.2%) young and 151 out of 248 (60.9%) elderly patients ( P =0.001). Young age was associated with a significant overall survival (OS) benefit (median OS: 85.6 vs. 29.9 months, hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.92) after neoadjuvant treatment versus surgery alone. In contrast, elderly patients did only experience a survival benefit equaling the length of neoadjuvant treatment itself (median OS: neoadjuvant 32.8 vs. surgery alone 29.3 months, hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI: 0.63-1.27). Despite the clear difference in median OS benefit, histopathological regression was similar ((Mandard-TRG-1/2: young 30.7 vs. old 36.4%, P= 0.286). More elderly patients had a dose reduction or termination of neoadjuvant treatment (12.4 vs. 40.4%, P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Old patients benefit less from neoadjuvant treatment compared to younger patients in terms of gain in OS. Since they also experience more side effects requiring dose reduction, upfront surgery should be considered as the primary treatment option in elderly patients.

A multicenter randomized, controlled clinical trial of adjuvant sintilimab for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

No adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk of recurrence and incidental pathologic lymph node metastasis for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In this open-label, multicenter, phase III, randomized controlled trial, ESCC patients who did not achieve pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery and clinical T1-2 N0 patients with incidental pathologic lymph node metastasis following initial surgery were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to receive either a sintilimab regimen or observational management (NCT05495152). The primary end point was disease-free survival for all randomized patients. The results of this randomized controlled trial addressed controversy regarding the survival benefits of adjuvant sintilimab treatment for patients with resected locally advanced ESCC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05495152 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Dissecting the inflammatory tumor microenvironment of esophageal adenocarcinoma: mast cells and natural killer cells are favorable prognostic factors and associated with less extensive disease

PURPOSE

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) remains a challenging and lethal cancer entity. A promising target for new therapeutic approaches, as demonstrated by the success of immune checkpoint inhibitors, are tumor-associated immune cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME). However, the understanding of the TME in esophageal cancer remains limited and requires further investigation.

METHODS

Over 900 EAC samples were included, including patients treated with primary surgery and neoadjuvant (radio-)chemotherapy. The immune cell infiltrates of mast cells (MC), natural killer cells (NK cells), plasma cells (PC), and eosinophilic cells (EC) were assessed semi-quantitatively and correlated with histopathological parameters and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A high presence of all four immune cell types significantly correlated with a less extensive tumor stage and a lower frequency of lymph node metastasis, and, in case of NK cells, with less distant metastasis. The presence of MC and NK cells was favorably associated with a prolonged OS in the total cohort (MC: p < 0.001; NK cells: p = 0.004) and patients without neoadjuvant treatment (MC: p < 0.001; NK cells: p = 0.01). NK cells were a favorable prognostic factor in the total cohort (p = 0.007) and in the treatment-naïve subgroup (p = 0.04). Additionally, MC were a favorable prognostic factor in patients with lymph node metastasis (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate a complex and important role of mast cells, NK cells, and the other assessed immune cells in the tumor microenvironment of EAC. Therefore, they are one further step to a better understanding of the immune cell environment and the potential therapeutic implications in this cancer entity.

Clinical T2N0M0 Esophageal Cancer-Is Treatment Pathway Associated With Overall Survival?

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal cancer therapy is commonly multimodal. The CROSS trial demonstrated a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus surgery alone in T1N1 or T2-3N0-1 patients. Theoretically, chemoradiation should be most beneficial to patients with advanced disease. Treating the intermediary stage, T2N0M0, is challenging as national guidelines offer multiple options. This study aims to compare survival outcomes and associated factors in clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer via treatment modality and compare clinical to pathological stage. The authors conclude that neoadjuvant therapy use has increased; however, there is no associated survival benefit, which may be due to over- or under-staging.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed using the National Cancer Database (2006-2016). Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (NCRT + ESOPH) were compared to patients who underwent esophagectomy first (ESOPH). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with treatment pathway. Overall survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests at 1-, 3-, and 5-y post-treatment. Additionally, a multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with adjuvant therapy in ESOPH patients.

RESULTS

There were 1662 patients (NCRT + ESOPH: 904 [54.4%], ESOPH: 758 [45.6%]). There was no difference in 5-y survival between NCRT + ESOPH and ESOPH patients. Despite this, NCRT + ESOPH treatment rates rose from 33% to 74% between 2006 and 2016. Patients who received NCRT + ESOPH were younger and more commonly had no Charlson-Deyo comorbidities. Notably, 41% of patients were over-staged (T1 or lower), and 32.8% were under-staged (N ≥ 1).

CONCLUSIONS

T2N0M0 remains difficult to characterize, and pathological staging corresponds poorly to clinical staging. Neoadjuvant therapy use has increased; however, the lack of a significant survival benefit to correlate with such may be secondary to over- or under-staging.

Influence of adverse effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on the prognosis of patients with early-stage esophageal cancer (cT1b-cT2N0M0) based on the SEER database

Objective

To analyze the prognostic impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) on early-stage (cT1b-cT2N0M0) esophageal cancer (ESCA) and construct a prognostic nomogram for these patients.

Methods

We extracted the clinical data about patients diagnosed with early-stage esophageal cancer from the 2004-2015 period of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We applied the independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients with early-stage esophageal cancer obtained after screening by univariate and multifactorial COX regression analyses to establish the nomogram and performed model calibration using bootstrapping resamples. The optimal cut-off point for continuous variables is determined by applying X-tile software. After balancing the confounding factors by propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, Kaplan-Meier(K-M) curve, and log-rank test were applied to evaluate the prognostic impact of NCRT on early-stage ESCA patients.

Results

Among patients who met the inclusion criteria, patients in the NCRT plus esophagectomy (ES) group had a poorer prognosis for overall survival (OS) and esophageal cancer-specific survival (ECSS) than patients in the ES alone group (p < 0.05), especially in patients who survived longer than 1 year. After PSM, patients in the NCRT + ES group had poorer ECSS than patients in the ES alone group, especially after 6 months, while OS was not significantly different between the two groups. IPTW analysis showed that, prior to 6 months patients in the NCRT + ES group had a better prognosis than patients in the ES group, regardless of OS or ECSS, whereas after 6 months, patients in the NCRT + ES group had a poorer prognosis. Based on multivariate COX analysis, we established a prognostic nomogram which showed areas under the ROC curve (AUC) for 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS 0.707, 0.712, and 0.706, respectively, with the calibration curves showing that the nomogram was well calibrated.

Conclusions

Patients with early-stage ESCA (cT1b-cT2) did not benefit from NCRT, and we established a prognostic nomogram to provide clinical decision aid for the treatment of patients with early-stage ESCA.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer (ECA) affects 1 in 125 men and 1 in 417 for women and accounts for 2.6% of all cancer related deaths in the United States. The associated survival rate depends on the stage of the cancer at the time of diagnosis, making adequate work up and staging imperative. The 5-year survival rate for localized disease is 46.4%, regional disease is 25.6%, and distant/metastatic disease is 5.2%. Additionally, treatment is stage-dependent, making staging all that much important. For nonmetastatic transmural tumors (T3) and/or those that have locoregional lymph node involvement (N), neoadjuvant therapy is recommended. Conversely, for those who have earlier tumors, upfront surgical resection is reasonable. While positron emission tomography/computed tomography and other cross sectional imaging modalities are exceptional for detecting distant disease, they are inaccurate in staging locoregional disease. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has played a key role in the locoregional (T and N) staging of newly diagnosed ECA and has an evolving role in restaging after neoadjuvant therapy. There is even data to support that the use of EUS facilitates proper triaging of patients and may ultimately save money by avoiding unnecessary or futile treatment. This manuscript will review the current role of EUS on staging and restaging of ECA.

Impact of Regional Lymph Node Irradiation on Reducing Lymph Node Recurrence in Esophageal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

To evaluate the preventive effects of regional lymph node irradiation on lymph node recurrence in esophageal cancer (EC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 289 patients who received definitive radiotherapy for EC. The regional lymph node area of group 1 was determined as the area with the highest probability of lymph node metastasis and group 2 was determined as the area with the next highest probability of lymph node metastasis depending on the primary site of EC.

RESULTS

The patients in whom group 2 was completely included in the irradiated field had a significantly lower rate of recurrence of regional lymph node metastasis than those in whom group 2 was not or insufficiently included (p=0.0337). There was no significant difference in overall survival (p=0.4627) or disease-specific survival (p=0.6174) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Regional lymph node irradiation did not have survival-prolonging effects but significantly reduced regional lymph node recurrence.

Accuracy of clinical staging for T2N0 oesophageal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Oesophageal cancer is the sixth commonest cause of overall cancer mortality. Clinical staging utilizes multiple imaging modalities to guide treatment and prognostication. T2N0 oesophageal cancer is a treatment threshold for neoadjuvant therapy. Data on accuracy of current clinical staging tests for this disease subgroup are conflicting. We performed a meta-analysis of all primary studies comparing clinical staging accuracy using multiple imaging modalities (index test) to histopathological staging following oesophagectomy (reference standard) in T2N0 oesophageal cancer. Patients that underwent neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library) were searched up to September 2019. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of combined T&N clinical staging. Publication date, first recruitment date, number of centers, sample size and geographical location main histological subtype were evaluated as potential sources of heterogeneity. The search strategy identified 1,199 studies. Twenty studies containing 5,213 patients met the inclusion criteria. Combined T&N staging accuracy was 19% (95% CI, 15-24); T staging accuracy was 29% (95% CI, 24-35); percentage of patients with T downstaging was 41% (95% CI, 33-50); percentage of patients with T upstaging was 28% (95% CI, 24-32) and percentage of patients with N upstaging was 34% (95% CI, 30-39). Significant sources of heterogeneity included the number of centers, sample size and study region. T2N0 oesophageal cancer staging remains inaccurate. A significant proportion of patients were downstaged (could have received endotherapy) or upstaged (should have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy). These findings were largely unchanged over the past two decades highlighting an urgent need for more accurate staging tests for this subgroup of patients.

Optimal Treatment of cT2N0 Esophageal Carcinoma: Is Upfront Surgery Really the Way?

BACKGROUND

Staging is inaccurate for cT2N0 esophageal cancer, and patients often are clinically mis-staged. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome after upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy, considering the impact of clinical "mis-staging."

METHODS

This study reviewed patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (ADK) of the esophagus who underwent upfront surgery (S group) or neoadjuvant treatment (chemoradiotherapy [CRT] group) for cT2N0 cancer. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), morbidity, and mortality were evaluated. Correctly staged (cTNM = pTNM), understaged (cTNM < pTNM), and overstaged (cTNM > pTNM) patients in the S group and the CRT group were analyzed. Risk factors for unexpected lymph-node involvement were identified in the S group and for cancer-related death in the whole study cohort.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 229 patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer. The 5-year OS rate was 34.2% in the S group versus 55.7% in the CRT group (p = 0.0088). The DFS also was significantly higher (p = 0.01). The morbidity and mortality rates were similar. In the S group, the cTNM was correctly staged for 21.4% and understaged for 63.4% of the patients, with 48.7% of the patients showing unexpected nodal involvement. A tumor length of 3 cm or more was an independent predictor of nodal metastases in SCC (p = 0.03), as was lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in ADK (p < 0.01). Cancer-related mortality was independently associated with lymph-node metastases (p = 0.03) and treatment by upfront surgery (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Given the high rate of understaged patients in this study (63.4%), the authors advocate for combining the induction therapy with surgery in cT2N0, achieving better survival with similar morbidity and mortality.

Inaccurate Clinical Stage Is Common for Gastric Adenocarcinoma and Is Associated with Undertreatment and Worse Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Accurate clinical staging (CS) of gastric cancer is critical for appropriate treatment selection and prognostication, but CS remains highly imprecise. Our study evaluates factors associated with inaccurate CS, the impact of inaccurate CS on outcomes, and utilization of adjuvant therapy in patients who are understaged.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of NCDB patients diagnosed with clinical early stage gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-2N0M0) between 2004 and 2016. Patients not undergoing upfront gastrectomy or with missing pathologic staging were excluded. Patients were classified as accurately staged, inaccurately staged with receipt of adjuvant therapy (IS+), and inaccurately staged with no receipt of adjuvant therapy (IS-). Logistic regression was utilized to assess the impact of factors on CS accuracy and receipt of adjuvant therapies. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Approximately 40% of patients were inaccurately staged (IS). cT2, moderately/poorly differentiated, and site-overlapping tumors were associated with increased likelihood of being IS. Treatment at an academic facility was associated with decreased likelihood of understaging. Only 54% of patients who were IS received adjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSION

Accurate CS of gastric cancer remains inadequate. Understaging is associated with detrimental effects on receiving guideline-concordant care and, possibly, patient outcomes. Targeted interventions reducing the proportion of understaged patients and ensuring receipt of appropriate therapy is needed to optimize outcomes. Patients with high-risk disease that are frequently understaged may benefit from selective neoadjuvant therapy. Centralization of gastric cancer care may also be a key strategy in improving receipt of guideline-concordant therapies.

Comparative Analysis of Blood and Bone Marrow for the Detection of Circulating and Disseminated Tumor Cells and Their Prognostic and Predictive Value in Esophageal Cancer Patients

Hematogenic tumor cell spread is a key event in metastasis. However, the clinical significance of circulating tumor cells (CTC) in the blood and disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in bone marrow is still not fully understood. Here, the presence of DTC and CTC in esophageal cancer (EC) patients and its correlation with clinical parameters was investigated to evaluate the CTC/DTC prognostic value in EC. This study included 77 EC patients with complete surgical tumor resection. CTC and DTC were analyzed in blood and bone marrow using nested CK20 reverse transcription-nested polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and findings were correlated with clinical data. Twenty-seven of 76 patients (36.5%) showed CK20 positivity in the blood, 19 of 61 patients (31.1%) in bone marrow, and 40 (51.9%) of 77 patients were positive in either blood or bone marrow or both. In multivariate analyses, only the DTC status emerged as independent predictor of overall and tumor specific survival. Our study revealed that, while the presence of CTC in blood is not associated with a worse prognosis, DTC detection in the bone marrow is a highly specific and independent prognostic marker in EC patients. Larger cohort studies could unravel how this finding can be translated into improved therapy management in EC.

Prediction of a positive circumferential resection margin at surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus

Background

A positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) has been associated with higher rates of locoregional recurrence and worse survival in oesophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to establish if clinicopathological and radiological variables might predict CRM positivity in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery for oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Methods

Multivariable analysis of clinicopathological and CT imaging characteristics considered potentially predictive of CRM was performed at initial staging and following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Prediction models were constructed. The area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (c.i.) from 1000 bootstrapping was assessed.

Results

A total of 223 patients were included in the study. Poor differentiation (odds ratio (OR) 2·84, 95 per cent c.i. 1·39 to 6·01) and advanced clinical tumour status (T3-4) (OR 2·93, 1·03 to 9·48) were independently associated with an increased CRM risk at diagnosis. CT-assessed lack of response (stable or progressive disease) following chemotherapy independently corresponded with an increased risk of CRM positivity (OR 3·38, 1·43 to 8·50). Additional CT evidence of local invasion and higher CT tumour volume (14 cm3) improved the performance of a prediction model, including all the above parameters, with an AUC (c-index) of 0·76 (0·67 to 0·83). Variables associated with significantly higher rates of locoregional recurrence were pN status (P = 0·020), lymphovascular invasion (P = 0·007) and poor response to chemotherapy (Mandard score 4-5) (P = 0·006). CRM positivity was associated with a higher locoregional recurrence rate, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0·092).

Conclusion

The presence of advanced cT status, poor tumour differentiation, and CT-assessed lack of response to chemotherapy, higher tumour volume and local invasion can be used to identify patients at risk of a positive CRM following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Reliability of clinical nodal status regarding response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with surgery alone and prognosis in esophageal cancer patients

Background: Clinical nodal (cN) staging is a key element in treatment decisions in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). The reliability of cN status regarding the effect on response and survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with esophagectomy was evaluated in determining the up- and downstaged pathological nodal (pN) status after surgery alone. Material and methods: From a prospective database, we included all 395 EC patients who had surgery with curative intent with or without nCRT between 2000 and 2015. All patients were staged by a standard pretreatment protocol: 16-64 mdCT, 18 F-FDG-PET or 18 F-FDG-PET/CT and EUS ± FNA. After propensity score matching on baseline clinical tumor and nodal (cT/N) stage and histopathology, a surgery-alone and nCRT group (each N = 135) were formed. Clinical and pathological N stage was scored as equal (cN = pN), downstaged (cN > pN) or upstaged (cN < pN). Prognostic impact on disease free survival (DFS) was assessed with multivariable Cox regression analysis (factors with p value <.1 on univariable analysis). Results: The surgery-alone and nCRT group did not differ in cT/N status. Pathologic examination revealed equal staging (32 vs. 27%), nodal up (43 vs. 16%) and downstaging (25 vs. 56%), respectively (p < .001). Nodal up-staging was common in cT3-4a tumors and adenocarcinomas in the surgery-alone group, while nodal downstaging was found in half of cT1-2 and cT3-4 regardless of tumortype after nCRT. Prognostic factors for DFS were pN (p = .002) and lymph-angioinvasion (p = .016) in surgery-alone, and upper abdominal cN metastases (p = .012) and lymph node ratio (p = .034) in the nCRT group. Conclusions: Despite modern staging methods, correct cN staging remains difficult in EC. Nodal overstaging (cN > pN) occurred more often than understaging impeding an adequate assessment of pathologic complete response and prognosis after nCRT.

Predicting lymph node metastases with endoscopic resection in cT2N0M0 oesophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Despite modern imaging modalities, staging of clinically staged T2N0M0 (cT2N0M0) oesophageal cancer is suboptimal, often leading to overtreatment. Endoscopic resection – the first-line therapy for early localised tumours – could be used to improve staging and to attain predictors of nodal upstaging enabling more stage-guided treatment decisions.

Objective

A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis were conducted to assess the prevalence and the pathological risk factors of lymph node metastases in cT2N0M0 oesophageal cancer.

Methods

Databases of PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched for literature. The primary outcome was lymph node metastases determined after primary surgical resection.

Results

Nine studies with a total of 1650 cT2N0M0 patients were included. The prevalence of lymph node metastases was 43% (95% confidence interval: 35–50%) with heterogeneity being high across studies (I² = 0.86, p < 0.001). Factors potentially attainable by endoscopic resection and having a significant association with lymph node metastases were invasion depth, differentiation grade, tumour size, depth of invasion in the muscularis propria and lymphovascular invasion.

Conclusions

Clinical lymph node staging is inaccurate in almost half of cT2N0M0 oesophageal cancer. Endoscopic resection is a promising diagnostic modality that might even be a valid alternative to surgery in selected patients without high-risk features, but further evidence is warranted.

Multidisciplinary Therapy of Esophageal Cancer

Multimodality therapy is the standard of care for locoregional esophageal cancers (greater than clinical T3 or Nþ), including Siewert type 1 and 2 gastroesophageal junction tumors. Induction regimen, chemotherapy only or chemoradiation, is an area of controversy and often institution-specific, as neither has shown to be superior. Response to induction therapy is an important prognostic marker. For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, it may be acceptable to observe clinical complete responders after chemoradiotherapy and perform salvage esophagectomy for recurrent disease. Clinical T2N0 esophageal cancer presents a unique challenge given its inaccuracy in clinical staging; management of this particular subset is controversial.

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.

Surgical approach and the impact of epidural analgesia on survival after esophagectomy for cancer: A population-based retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer carries high morbidity and mortality, particularly in older patients. Transthoracic esophagectomy allows formal lymphadenectomy, but leads to greater perioperative morbidity and pain than transhiatal esophagectomy. Epidural analgesia may attenuate the stress response and be less immunosuppressive than opioids, potentially affecting long-term outcomes. These potential benefits may be more pronounced for transthoracic esophagectomy due to its greater physiologic impact. We evaluated the impact of epidural analgesia on survival and recurrence after transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients aged ≥66 years with locoregional esophageal cancer diagnosed 1994-2009 who underwent esophagectomy were identified, with follow-up through December 31, 2013. Epidural receipt and surgical approach were identified from Medicare claims. Survival analyses adjusting for hospital esophagectomy volume, surgical approach, and epidural use were performed. A subgroup analysis restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma patients was performed.

RESULTS

Among 1,921 patients, 38% underwent transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 730) and 62% underwent transthoracic esophagectomy (n = 1,191). 61% (n = 1,169) received epidurals and 39% (n = 752) did not. Epidural analgesia was associated with transthoracic approach and higher volume hospitals. Patients with epidural analgesia had better 90-day survival. Five-year survival was higher with transhiatal esophagectomy (37.2%) than transthoracic esophagectomy (31.0%, p = 0.006). Among transthoracic esophagectomy patients, epidural analgesia was associated with improved 5-year survival (33.5% epidural versus 26.5% non-epidural, p = 0.012; hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.70, 0.93]). Among the subgroup of esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, epidural analgesia remained associated with improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.96]); this survival benefit persisted in sensitivity analyses adjusting for propensity to receive an epidural.

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, including a subgroup restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma, epidural analgesia was associated with improved survival even after adjusting for other factors.

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound staging for T2N0 esophageal cancer: a National Cancer Database analysis

Background

To determine accuracy of clinical staging of T2N0 esophageal cancer from the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

Methods

The NCDB was accessed to identify patients with T2N0M0 esophageal cancer (adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma) treated between 2004-2013 that underwent esophagectomy. Pathologic staging was compared to clinical stage. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed to identify factors related to pathologic upstaging using Cox proportional hazard ratio.

Results

We identified 1,840 patients with T2N0 esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy as first line therapy. The median age was 67 years. The vast majority of patients were male and had distal adenocarcinomas. Clinical staging in was accurate pathologically in 30.7% of patients. While there was a trend for worse accuracy with increasing year of diagnosis, there rate of pT0-2N0 was stable. Tumor length >3 cm was significantly associated with tumor upstaging, while poor differentiation was significantly associated with nodal upstaging. UVA and MVA identified younger age, tumor length >3 cm, and poor differentiation were significantly associated with overall upstaging. Gender, tumor location, and tumor histology were not prognostic.

Conclusions

Clinical staging for T2N0M0 esophageal cancer continues to remain highly inaccurate, however, rates of pT0-2N0 have steadily remained over 50%. Tumor length >3 cm and poor differentiation are strongly associated with pathologic upstaging.

Validity of upfront surgery for patients with unsuspected lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer: a propensity scoring matching study

Background

Although neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy is well-established as being superior to upfront esophagectomy when locoregional lymph node (LN) metastasis is present in esophageal cancer, upfront esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy may be performed in patients with LN metastasis due to unreliable preoperative evaluations. However, outcomes in this setting remain unclear. The purpose of the present study was to clarify whether upfront esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy in patients with unsuspected lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer is appropriate.

Methods

We included 215 squamous cell esophageal cancer patients who met the study criteria. Inclusion criteria included complete (R0) and curative surgery cases, intra-thoracic esophageal cancer, preoperative biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma, and cases without LN metastasis (WL, cN0 and pN0) or with unsuspected LN metastasis (UL, cN0 and pN1). Exclusion criteria were palliation or salvage cases, other uncured previous or current primary cancers, complete remission cases, and operative mortalities (defined as patients who died during hospitalization or within one month after surgery). We compared 5-year disease- free survival (DFS) between WL and UL. In addition, we investigated the influence of neoadjuvant therapy in UL. To overcome heterogeneity in baseline characteristics between the groups, a propensity matched-analysis based on propensity scores was then carried out to create a cohort of WL with clinical characteristics similar to those in UL.

Results

The incidence of UL among preoperative N0 patients was 25.6% and the incidence of UL cases who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy was 47.2%. All subjects were stratified into either WL (160 patients) or UL (55 patients). Twenty nine of 55 patients in UL received neoadjuvant therapy before esophagectomy and all patients with LN metastasis received adjuvant therapy after esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in DFS between WL and UL (p = 0.242). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in DFS between cases that received and did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.769).

Conclusions

Upfront surgery without neoadjuvant therapy in UL is appropriate for patients who can tolerate adjuvant therapy.

Management of pathologic node-positive disease following initial surgery for clinical T1-2 N0 esophageal cancer: patterns of care and outcomes from the national cancer data base

PURPOSE

Although clinical T1-2N0 esophageal cancer (EC) is often initially surgically resected (without neoadjuvant therapy), several studies have illustrated substantial rates of discovering pathologically node-positive disease. This study evaluated national practice patterns of adjuvant therapy for this population.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried (2004-2013) for patients with cT1-2N0M0 EC that received up-front surgery (esophagectomy/local techniques) with subsequent discovery of nodal metastasis. Patients receiving any neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression determined factors predictive of receiving adjuvant therapy. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated overall survival (OS), and Cox proportional hazards modeling determined variables associated with OS. Propensity score matching assessed groups in a balanced manner while reducing indication biases.

RESULTS

Altogether, 715 patients met inclusion criteria; 114 (16%) underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 183 (26%) chemoradiation, 16 (2%) radiotherapy alone, and 402 (56%) observation. Observation was more likely performed with advanced age (p = .002) and at nonacademic centers (p = .001). Median OS in the respective cohorts were 42.6, 35.1, 22.2, and 27.0 months. Both chemotherapy and chemoradiation were statistically similar (p = .462) but superior to observation (p < .05 for both). There was a survival benefit to any adjuvant treatment (median OS 38.5 vs. 27.0 months, p < .001), which persisted after propensity matching (median OS 35.1 vs. 24.3 months, p < .001). On multivariable analysis, any adjuvant treatment was independently associated with improved OS, along with treatment at an academic center (p < .05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest study to date evaluating patterns of care for pN + disease following resection of cT1-2N0 EC, a strikingly high proportion of patients were observed. Adjuvant treatment, ideally chemotherapy or chemoradiation, independently correlated with higher survival, and should be considered in able patients. Treatment at academic facilities also associated with higher survival, which has implications for patient counseling.

Neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis of T2N0 esophageal cancer treatment options

BACKGROUND

Esophageal carcinoma usually shows poor long-term survival rates, even when esophagectomy, the standard curative treatment is performed. As a result, there has been increasing interest in the neoadjuvant therapy, which could potentially downstage cancer, eliminate micrometastasis and ergo increase resectability and curative (R0) resection. Currently, for the earliest stage esophageal cancers, most guidelines point out to the role of endoscopic treatment, and for T1bN0 upfront surgery. For locally advanced cases, several studies have demonstrated the benefits of neoadjuvant therapy to increase resectability. For clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer, there is no consensus as to the optimal treatment strategy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare neoadjuvant therapy with surgery alone on clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer patients, concerning overall survival, recurrence, post-operative mortality, anastomotic leak, and R0 resection rate.

RESULTS

For overall survival at the mean follow-up point, the neoadjuvant therapy was not associated to a higher probability of survival than upfront surgery in cT2N0 patients (risk difference: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.09). There was no difference between neoadjuvant therapy and primary surgery concerning recurrence (risk difference: 0.21; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.45); perioperative mortality (risk difference: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.02, 0.01); and risk for anastomotic leak (risk difference: -0.08; 95% CI: -0.21, 0.05). Pooled data showed that neoadjuvant therapy was associated to a higher risk for positive margins after resection (risk difference: 0.04; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This review showed that neoadjuvant therapy is not associated to better results than surgery alone, for the management of clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer patients, concerning overall survival, recurrence rate, perioperative mortality, anastomotic leak, and seems to be associated to a higher risk for resection with positive margins.

Predictors of Nodal Metastases for Clinical T2N0 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Induction therapy has not been proven to be beneficial for patients with clinical T2N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. Surgery alone is associated with disappointing survival for patients found to have nodal disease on final pathologic examination. The aim of this study was to identify factors that predict pathologic nodal involvement in patients with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-proven T2N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with EUS-staged T2N0 (uT2N0) esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with surgery alone. Final pathologic staging was compared with clinical staging. Demographic and clinicopathologic variables were evaluated as putative risk factors for nodal metastases. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with nodal involvement. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare overall and recurrence-free survival between patients with (N+) and without (N-) nodal disease.

RESULTS

We identified 80 patients with uT2N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with surgery alone. Clinical staging with EUS was inaccurate for 73 patients (91%). Twenty-eight patients (35%) had pathologic N+ disease at resection. Five-year overall survival was 67% for N- patients and 41% for N+ patients (p = 0.006). Recurrence-free survival was 65% for N- patients and 32% for N+ patients (p = 0.0043). Univariable analysis identified vascular invasion and neural invasion as risk factors for nodal metastasis. Multivariable analysis identified vascular invasion as an independent predictor of pathologic nodal involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS is inaccurate for staging of T2N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma and often fails to identify nodal involvement. Identification of vascular invasion on preoperative biopsy should be explored as a prognostic marker to select patients for induction therapy.

Surveillance versus esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after induction chemoradiation

There currently exists an area of controversy in treatment of esophageal cancer for patients who have an apparent clinical complete response (cCR) after induction chemoradiation. A standard treatment is to offer these patients an esophagectomy, but increasingly there is interest from both the patient and provider for active surveillance with so-called "salvage" esophagectomies for local recurrence as an alternative treatment paradigm. In this article, we review the existing evidence that stakeholders should consider for clinical decision-making in this specific patient population, including: the accuracy of post-induction clinical restaging, the reliability of operative risk assessment, the feasibility and adherence to surveillance strategies, and the observed outcomes in these patients after salvage esophagectomy or continued active surveillance. We also briefly discuss quality of life and future directions for this field.

Comparative effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation in clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer: A decision analysis

OBJECTIVES

We compared the effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy for overall survival in patients with clinical T2N0 (cT2N0) esophageal cancer. We also assessed the influence of the diagnostic uncertainty of endoscopic ultrasound on the expected benefit of chemoradiation.

METHODS

We created a decision analysis model representing 2 treatment strategies for cT2N0 esophageal cancer: upfront esophagectomy that may be followed by adjuvant therapy for upstaged patients and induction chemoradiation for all patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer followed by esophagectomy. Parameter values within the model were obtained from published data, and median survival for pathologic subgroups was derived from the National Cancer Database. In sensitivity analyses, staging uncertainty of endoscopic ultrasound was introduced by varying the probability of pathologic upstaging.

RESULTS

The baseline model showed comparable median survival for both strategies: 48.3 months for upfront esophagectomy versus 45.9 months for induction chemoradiation and surgery. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated induction chemoradiation was beneficial, with probability of upstaging > 48.1%, which is within the published range of 32% to 65% probability of pathologic upstaging after cT2N0 diagnosis. The presence of any of 3 key variables (size larger than 3 cm, high grade, or lymphovascular invasion) was associated with > 48.1% risk of upstaging, thus conferring a survival advantage to induction chemoradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal treatment strategy for cT2N0 esophageal cancer depends on the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound staging. High-risk features that confer increased probability of upstaging can inform clinical decision making to recommend induction chemoradiation for select cT2N0 patients.

Survival Benefit of Neoadjuvant Treatment in Clinical T3N0M0 Esophageal Cancer: Results From a Retrospective Multicenter European Study

BACKGROUND

Based on current guidelines, clinical T3N0M0 esophageal tumors may or may not receive neoadjuvant treatment, according to their perception as locally advanced (cT3) or early-stage tumors (stage II). The study aim was to assess the impact of neoadjuvant treatment upon survival for cT3N0M0 esophageal cancer patients, with subgroup analyses by histological type (squamous cell carcinoma vs adenocarcinoma) and type of neoadjuvant treatment (chemotherapy vs radiochemotherapy).

METHODS

Data from patients operated on for esophageal cancer in 30 European centers were collected. Among the 382 of 2944 patients with clinical T3N0M0 stage at initial diagnosis (13.0%), we compared those treated with primary surgery (S, n = 193) versus with neoadjuvant treatment plus surgery (NS, n = 189).

RESULTS

The S and NS groups were similar regarding their demographic and surgical characteristics. In-hospital postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were comparable between groups. Patients were found to be pN+ in 64.2% versus 42.9% in the S and NS groups respectively (P < 0.001), pN2/N3 in 35.2% versus 21.2% (P < 0.001), stage 0 in 0% versus 16.4% (P < 0.001), and R0 in 81.3% versus 89.4% of cases (P = 0.026). Median overall and disease-free survivals were significantly better in the NS group, 38.4 versus 27.9 months (P = 0.007) and 31.6 versus 27.5 months (P = 0.040), respectively, and this difference remained for both histological types. Radiotherapy did not offer a benefit compared with chemotherapy alone (P = 0.687). In multivariable analysis, neoadjuvant treatment was an independent favorable prognostic factor (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant treatment offers a significant survival benefit for clinical T3N0M0 esophageal cancer.

Discrepancy Between Clinical and Pathologic Nodal Status of Esophageal Cancer and Impact on Prognosis and Therapeutic Strategy

BACKGROUND

The impact of discrepancies between clinical (c) and pathologic (p) stages of esophageal cancer remains a poorly understood issue. This study aimed to compare the prognosis of patient groups treated by primary surgery including clinical N0/pathologic N0 (cN0pN0), clinical N0/pathologic N+ (cN0pN+), clinical N+/pathologic N0 (cN+pN0), and clinical N+/pathologic N+ (cN+pN+).

METHODS

Data were collected from 30 European centers during the years 2000 to 2010. Among 2944 recruited patients, 1554 patients receiving primary surgery met the inclusion criteria including 613 cN0pN0, 403 cN0pN+, 220 cN+pN0, and 318 cN+pN+ patients. Analyses with adjustment of the propensity score were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Clinical T stages 3 and 4 were increased in cN+pN+ (73.0%), cN0pN+ (49.6%), and cN+pN0 (51.8%) compared with cN0pN0 (32.8%). Compared with cN0pN0, cN+pN+ and cN0pN+ showed an increase in the proportion of adenocarcinoma histologic subtype, poor tumor differentiation, pathologic T3 and T4 stages, and R1/2 resection margin. Adjusted 5-year overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.57-3.78; P < 0.001) and event-free survival (HR 2.87; 95% CI 2.39-3.45; P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in cN0pN+ compared with cN0pN0. No significant differences in 5-year overall survival or event-free survival between cN0pN+ and cN+pN+ were observed. Regression analysis identified an association of distal tumor location, advanced clinical T stage, and poor tumor differentiation with pN+ disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study showed that cN0pN+ has a prognosis similar to that of cN+pN+ and worse than that of cN0pN0. Patients with clinical N0 disease but risk factors for pathologic N+ disease may benefit from neoadjuvant therapy before surgery.

Siewert III adenocarcinoma: treatment update

Siewert III cancer, although representing around 40% of EGJ cancers and being the EGJ cancer with worst prognosis, does not have a homogenous treatment, has few dedicated studies, and is often not considered in study protocols. Although staged as an esophageal cancer by the TNM 7th ed., it is considered a gastric cancer by new TNM 8th ed. Our aim was to consolidate the current literature on the indications and treatment options for Siewert III adenocarcinoma. A review of the literature was performed to better delineate treatment indications (according to stage, surgical margins, type of lymphatic spread and lymphadenectomy) and treatment strategy. The treatment approach is strictly dependent on cancer site and nodal diffusion. T1m cancers have insignificant risk of nodal metastases and can be safely treated with endoscopic resections. The risk of nodal metastases increases markedly starting from T1sm cancers and requires surgery with lymphadenectomy. The site of this type of cancer and the nodal diffusion require a total gastrectomy and distal esophagectomy, with 5 cm of clear proximal and distal margins and a D2 abdominal and inferior mediastinal lymphadenectomy. Multimodal treatments are indicated in all locally advanced and node positive cancers. Siewert III cancers are gastric cancers with some peculiarities and require dedicated studies and deserve more consideration in the current literature, especially because their treatment is particularly challenging.

Extent of Lymphadenectomy Is Associated With Improved Overall Survival After Esophagectomy With or Without Induction Therapy

BACKGROUND

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend sampling 15 or more lymph nodes during esophagectomy. The proportion of patients meeting this guideline is unknown, as is its influence on overall survival (OS).

METHODS

Univariate analysis and logistic regression were performed to identify variables associated with sampling 15 or more lymph nodes among patients undergoing esophagectomy in the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). The NCCN guideline was evaluated in Cox proportional hazards modeling, along with alternative lymph node thresholds. Positive to examined node (PEN) ratios were calculated, and OS was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2012, only 6,961 of 18,777 (37.1%) patients undergoing esophagectomy had sampling of 15 or more lymph nodes. Variables associated with sampling 15 or more lymph nodes included income greater than or equal to $38,000, procedure performed in an academic facility, and increasing clinical T and N stages. Induction therapy was associated with a decreased likelihood of 15 or more lymph nodes being sampled. The largest decrease in mortality hazard in patients undergoing upfront esophagectomy was detected when 25 lymph nodes or more were sampled (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.89; p < 0.001), whereas for patients undergoing induction therapy, sampling of 10 or 15 or more lymph nodes was associated with optimal survival benefit (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.90; p < 0.001). PEN ratios of 0 to 0.10 were associated with maximum survival benefit among all patients undergoing esophagectomy. For patients with a PEN ratio of 0, increases in OS were detected with higher lymph node sampling (85.3 months for sampling of 20 or more lymph nodes versus 52.0 months for sampling 1-9 lymph nodes; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing upfront esophagectomy, there may be an increased survival benefit for examining 20 to 25 lymph nodes, which is higher than current recommendations. However, only a minority of patients are meeting current guidelines.

Current status of proteomics of esophageal carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal cancer (EC) is one of the most common causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Identifying suitable biomarkers for early diagnosis as well as predicting lymph node metastasis, prognosis and the therapeutic response of EC is essential for the effective and efficient management for EC. There is an urgent need to develop effective, novel approaches for patients who do not respond to conventional treatment. Areas covered: EC is characterized by the presence of two main histological types such as squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma, which differ in their response to treatments and prognosis. Thus, this review describes the latest research into biomarkers and novel treatment targets generated by cancer proteomics for the two main histological types. Finally, the main difficulties facing the translation of biomarkers and novel treatment targets into the clinical settings are discussed. Expert commentary: EC proteomics have provided useful results and, after their validation, novel clinical tools should be developed to improve the clinical outcomes for EC patients.

The Role of Induction Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

Survival of esophageal cancer generally is poor but has been improving. Induction chemoradiation is recommended before esophagectomy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma. Both induction chemotherapy and induction chemoradiation are found to be beneficial for locally advanced adenocarcinoma. Although a clear advantage of either strategy has not yet been demonstrated, consensus-based guidelines recommend induction chemoradiation for locally advanced adenocarcinoma.

Stage-directed individualized therapy in esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer worldwide, and the incidence of esophageal carcinoma is rapidly increasing. With the advent of new staging and treatment techniques, esophageal cancer can now be managed through various strategies. A good understanding of the advances and limitations of new staging techniques and how these can guide in individualizing treatment is important to improve outcomes for esophageal cancer patients. This paper outlines the recent progress in staging and treatment of esophageal cancer, with particularly attention to endoscopic techniques for early-stage esophageal cancer, multimodality treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer, assessment of response to neoadjuvant treatment, and the role of cervical lymph node dissection. Furthermore, advances in robot-assisted surgical techniques and postoperative recovery protocols that may further improve outcomes after esophagectomy are discussed.

Clinical T2N0 Esophageal Cancer: Identifying Pretreatment Characteristics Associated With Pathologic Upstaging and the Potential Role for Induction Therapy

BACKGROUND

Although studies have suggested standard therapy for clinical T2N0 esophageal cancer should be primary surgery, we hypothesize there is a subgroup for whom induction therapy may result in improved overall survival.

METHODS

Patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer receiving induction therapy or upfront esophagectomy (UE) were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. The UE patients were dichotomized as (1) pathologically upstaged, or (2) same-staged or downstaged. Logistic regression models identified variables associated with upstaging, and Kaplan-Meier analysis compared median overall survival.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2012, 932 cT2N0 patients (52.2%) received UE, and 853 (47.8%) received induction therapy first. In all, 326 of 713 UE patients (45.7%) were upstaged: 87 of 326 (26.7%) had T upstaging; 98 of 326 (30.1%) had N upstaging; and 141 of 326 (43.3%) had both. Patients upstaged after UE had a higher tumor grade (35.1% versus 57.1% grade 3), and a higher rate of lymphovascular invasion (57.1% versus 17.7%; both p < 0.001). Variables associated with upstaging included lymphovascular invasion (odds ratio 6.0, 95% confidence interval: 2.9 to 12.5, p < 0.001) and tumor grade 3 (odds ratio 9.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.8 to 48.4, p = 0.007). Of upstaged UE patients, only 144 (44.2%) received adjuvant therapy. The median overall survival for cT2N0 patients upstaged after UE was 27.5 ± 2.5 months versus 43.9 ± 2.9 months for induction therapy patients (any resultant pathologic stage, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of all cT2N0 patients were pathologically upstaged after UE, with worse survival compared with patients receiving induction therapy. Refining an upstaging model would help select patients for induction therapy and increase the rate of chemotherapy in patients at risk for systemic disease.

Role of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical T2N0M0 oesophageal cancer: results from a retrospective multi-center European study

AIMS

The aims of this study were to compare short- and long-term outcomes for clinical T2N0 oesophageal cancer with analysis of (i) primary surgery (S) versus neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery (NS), (ii) squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma subsets; and (iii) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

Data were collected from 30 European centres from 2000 to 2010. Among 2944 included patients, 355 patients (12.1%) had cT2N0 disease; 285 (S) and 70 (NS), were compared in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Propensity score matching analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the groups were shown in terms of in hospital morbidity and mortality. Nodal disease was observed in 50% of S-group at the time of surgery, with 20% pN2/N3. Utilisation of neoadjuvant therapy was associated with significant tumour downstaging as reflected by increases in pT0, pN0 and pTNM stage 0 disease, this effect was further enhanced with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. After adjustment on propensity score and confounding factors, for all patients and subset analysis of squamous cell and adenocarcinoma, neoadjuvant therapy had no significant effect upon survival or recurrence (overall, loco-regional, distant or mixed) compared to surgery alone. There were no significant differences between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in short- or long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that a surgery alone treatment approach should be recommended as the primary treatment approach for cT2N0 oesophageal cancer despite 50% of patients having nodal disease at the time of surgery.

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and American College of Radiology Imaging Network Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Neoadjuvant Preoperative Paclitaxel/Cisplatin/Radiation Therapy (RT) or Irinotecan/Cisplatin/RT in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Long-Term Outcome and Implications for Trial Design

PURPOSE

Toxicity, pathologic complete response, and long-term outcomes are reported for the neoadjuvant therapies assessed in a randomized phase 2 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial for operable esophageal adenocarcinoma, staged as II-IVa by endoscopy/ultrasonography (EUS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 86 eligible patients began treatment. For arm A, preoperative chemotherapy was cisplatin, 30 mg/m(2), and irinotecan, 50 mg/m(2), on day 1, 8, 22, 29 during 45 Gy radiation therapy (RT), 1.8 Gy per day over 5 weeks. Adjuvant therapy was cisplatin, 30 mg/m(2), and irinotecan, 65 mg/m(2) day 1, 8 every 21 days for 3 cycles. Arm B therapy was cisplatin, 30 mg/m(2), and paclitaxel, 50 mg/m(2), day 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 with RT, followed by adjuvant cisplatin, 75 mg/m(2), and paclitaxel, 175 mg/m(2), day 1 every 21 days for 3 cycles. Stratification included EUS stage and performance status.

RESULTS

In arm A, median overall survival was 35 months, and 5-, 6-, and 7-year survival rates were 46%, 39%, and 35%, respectively, whereas for arm B, they were 21 months and 27%, 27%, and 23%, respectively. Median progression- or recurrence-free survival (PFS) was 39.8 months with a 3-year PFS of 50% for arm A and 12.4 months (P=.046) with 3-year PFS of 28% for arm B. Eighty percent of the observed incidents of progression occurred within 19 months. Survival did not differ significantly by EUS and performance status strata.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival was similar for both arms and did not appear superior to results achieved with other standard regimens.

Induction chemoradiation therapy prior to esophagectomy is associated with superior long-term survival for esophageal cancer

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of induction chemoradiation in the treatment of potentially resectable locally advanced (T2-3N0 and T1-3N+) esophageal cancer utilizing a large national database. The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for all patients undergoing esophagectomy for clinical T2-3N0 and T1-3N+ esophageal cancer of the mid- or lower esophagus. Patients were stratified by the use of induction chemoradiation therapy versus surgery-first. Trends were assessed with the Cochran-Armitage test. Predictors of receiving induction therapy were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression. A propensity-matched analysis was conducted to compare outcomes between groups, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate long-term survival. Within the NCDB, 7921 patients were identified, of which 6103 (77.0%) were treated with chemoradiation prior to esophagectomy, while the remaining 1818 (23.0%) were managed with surgery-first. Use of induction therapy increased over time, with an absolute increase of 11.8% from 2003-2011 (P < 0.001). As revealed by the propensity model, induction therapy was associated with higher rates of negative margins and shorter hospital length of stay, but no differences in unplanned readmission and 30-day mortality rates. In unadjusted survival analysis, induction therapy was associated with better long-term survival compared to a strategy of surgery-first, with 5-year survival rates of 37.2% versus 28.6%, P < 0.001. Following propensity score matching analysis, the use of induction therapy maintained a significant survival advantage over surgery-first (5-year survival: 37.9% vs. 28.7%, P < 0.001). Treatment with induction chemoradiation therapy prior to surgical resection is associated with significant improvement in long-term survival, even after adjusting for confounders with a propensity model. Induction therapy should be considered in all medically appropriate patients with resectable cT2-3N0 and cT1-3N+ esophageal cancer, prior to esophagectomy.

Macrophage subtype predicts lymph node metastasis in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and promotes cancer cell invasion in vitro

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is a lack of ideal biomarkers for predicting nodal status in preoperative stage of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) to aid optimising therapeutic options. We studied the potential of applying subtype macrophages to predict lymph node metastasis and prognosis in EAC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-three EAC resection specimens were immunostained with CD68, CD40 (M1), and CD163 (M2). Lymphatic vessel density (LVD) was estimated with the staining of D2-40. Subsequently, we tested if M2d macrophage could promote EAC cell migration and invasion.

RESULTS

In EAC without neoadjuvant treatment, an increase in M2-like macrophage was associated with poor patient survival, independent of the locations of macrophages in tumour. The M2/M1 ratio that represented the balance between M2- and M1-like macrophages was significantly higher in nodal-positive EACs than that in nodal-negative EACs, and inversely correlated with patient overall survival. The M2/M1 ratio was not related to LVD. EAC cell polarised THP1 cell into M2d-like macrophage, which promoted EAC cell migration and invasion. Neoadjuvant therapy appeared to diminish the correlation between the M2/M1 ratio and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The ratio of M2/M1 macrophage may serve as a sensitive marker to predict lymph node metastasis and poor prognosis in EAC without neoadjuvant therapy. M2d macrophage may have important roles in EAC metastasis.