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

Adjuvant Therapy after Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Who Needs It?: Multi-institution Worldwide Observational Study

Objective

Based on current practice guidelines, we hypothesized that most patients with esophageal cancer, particularly those with locally advanced cancer, would benefit from adjuvant therapy after esophagectomy versus esophagectomy alone. We sought to obtain a granular estimate of patient-level risk-adjusted survival for each therapeutic option by cancer histopathology and stage.

Background

Although esophagectomy alone is now an uncommon therapy for treating locally advanced esophageal cancer, the value of adjuvant therapy after esophagectomy is unknown.

Methods

From 1970 to 2014, 22,123 consecutive patients from 33 centers on 6 continents (Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration) were diagnosed with biopsy-proven adenocarcinoma (n = 7526) or squamous cell carcinoma (n = 5625), of whom 10,873 received esophagectomy alone and 2278 additional adjuvant therapy. Random forests for survival and virtual-twin analyses were performed for all-cause mortality.

Results

For adenocarcinoma, adjuvant therapy was beneficial only in pT4NanyM0 cancers (6-8 month survival benefit) and in pTanyN3M0 cancers (4-8 month benefit); a survival decrement was observed in pT1-3N0M0 cancers, with no effect on TanyN1-2M0 cancers. In squamous cell carcinoma, there was a 4 to 21 month survival benefit for pT3-4N0M0 cancers and a 4 to 15 month survival benefit for pT2-4N1-3M0 cancers.

Conclusions

Adjuvant therapy after esophagectomy appears to benefit most patients with node-positive squamous cell carcinoma, but for adenocarcinoma, its value is limited to deep cancers and to those with substantial nodal burden. Future studies of the role of adjuvant therapies should treat these 2 cancers differently, with guidelines reflecting the histopathologic-appropriate survival value of adjuvant therapy.

Surgery alone versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in patients with stage T2N0M0 esophageal cancer

To compare the survival outcomes of patients with stage T2N0M0 esophageal cancer treated with surgery alone versus those treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Patients with stage T2N0M0 esophageal cancer, who either underwent surgery alone or received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database covering the period from 2000 to 2020. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) between the two treatment groups were compared. A total of 583 patients were included: 267 (45.8%) received surgery alone, while 316 (54.2%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Prior to propensity score matching, no significant differences were observed between the surgery alone and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy groups in terms of 5-year CSS (60.86% vs. 59.02%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-1.29; P = 0.916) and OS (50.64% vs. 49.81%; HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75-1.12; P = 0.375). After propensity score matching, the 5-year CSS (66.43% vs. 56.67%; HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.89-1.64; P = 0.225) and OS (56.49% vs. 47.37%; HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.85-1.40; P = 0.481) remained statistically similar between the two groups. Subgroup analyses of patients with squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma revealed no significant differences in survival outcomes between the treatment modalities for either histological subtype. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery does not confer a survival advantage over surgery alone in patients with stage T2N0M0 esophageal cancer, irrespective of histological subtype.

Insights from explainable AI in oesophageal cancer team decisions

BACKGROUND

Clinician-led quality control into oncological decision-making is crucial for optimising patient care. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques provide data-driven approaches to unravel how clinical variables influence this decision-making. We applied global XAI techniques to examine the impact of key clinical decision-drivers when mapped by a machine learning (ML) model, on the likelihood of receiving different oesophageal cancer (OC) treatment modalities by the multidisciplinary team (MDT).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 893 OC patients managed between 2010 and 2022 at our tertiary unit, used a random forests (RF) classifier to predict four possible treatment pathways as determined by the MDT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACT + S), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (NACRT + S), surgery-alone, and palliative management. Variable importance and partial dependence (PD) analyses then examined the influence of targeted high-ranking clinical variables within the ML model on treatment decisions as a surrogate model of the MDT decision-making dynamic.

RESULTS

Amongst guideline-variables known to determine treatments, such as Tumour-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging, age also proved highly important to the RF model (16.1 % of total importance) on variable importance analysis. PD subsequently revealed that predicted probabilities for all treatment modalities change significantly after 75 years (p < 0.001). Likelihood of surgery-alone and palliative therapies increased for patients aged 75-85yrs but lowered for NACT/NACRT. Performance status divided patients into two clusters which influenced all predicted outcomes in conjunction with age.

CONCLUSION

XAI techniques delineate the relationship between clinical factors and OC treatment decisions. These techniques identify advanced age as heavily influencing decisions based on our model with a greater role in patients with specific tumour characteristics. This study methodology provides the means for exploring conscious/subconscious bias and interrogating inconsistencies in team-based decision-making within the era of AI-driven decision support.

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.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).

METHODS

This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022.

RESULTS

EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Tumor Differentiation as a Prognostic Marker in Clinically Staged T1bN0 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Current guidelines recommend that clinically staged T1N0 esophageal cancers are to be referred to surgery or endoscopic resection. Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 733 individuals with clinically staged T1N0 esophageal carcinoma, who underwent upfront surgery and did not receive any prior treatment. We assessed upstaging, which was defined as ≥ T2 disease or positive lymph nodes. Poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas were associated with upstaging, whereas squamous cell carcinomas were not. Specifically, the percentage of upstaging among individuals with clinically staged T1b and poorly differentiated tumor was 33.8%. Therefore, clinically staged T1bN0 poorly differentiated esophageal adenocarcinomas are at high risk for upstaging following surgery.

Adjuvant Therapy After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Who Needs It?

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that, on average, patients do not benefit from additional adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer, although subsets of patients might. Therefore, we sought to identify profiles of patients predicted to receive the most survival benefit or greatest detriment from adding adjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND

Although neoadjuvant therapy has become the treatment of choice for locally advanced esophageal cancer, the value of adding adjuvant therapy is unknown.

METHODS

From 1970 to 2014, 22,123 patients were treated for esophageal cancer at 33 centers on 6 continents (Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration), of whom 7731 with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma received neoadjuvant therapy; 1348 received additional adjuvant therapy. Random forests for survival and virtual-twin analyses were performed for all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Patients received a small survival benefit from adjuvant therapy (3.2±10 months over the subsequent 10 years for adenocarcinoma, 1.8±11 for squamous cell carcinoma). Consistent benefit occurred in ypT3-4 patients without nodal involvement and those with ypN2-3 disease. The small subset of patients receiving most benefit had high nodal burden, ypT4, and positive margins. Patients with ypT1-2N0 cancers had either no benefit or a detriment in survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy has value primarily for patients with more advanced esophageal cancer. Because the benefit is often small, patients considering adjuvant therapy should be counseled on benefits versus morbidity. In addition, given that the overall benefit was meaningful in a small number of patients, emerging modalities such as immunotherapy may hold more promise in the adjuvant setting.

Histological prognosticators in neoadjuvant naive oesophageal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Prognosis of oesophageal cancer is primarily based upon the TNM stage of the disease. However, even in those with similar TNM staging, survival can be varied. Additional histopathological factors including venous invasion (VI), lymphatic invasion (LI) and perineural invasion (PNI) have been identified as prognostic markers yet are not part of TNM classification. The aim of this study is to determine the prognostic importance of these factors and overall survival in patients with oesophageal or junctional cancer who underwent transthoracic oesophagectomy as the unimodality treatment.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent transthoracic oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma without neoadjuvant treatment were reviewed. Patients were treated with radical resection, with a curative intent using a transthoracic Ivor Lewis or three staged McKeown approach.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included. Survival was poorer when VI, LI and PNI were present (p<0.001), with the estimated survival being significantly worse (p<0.001) when patients were stratified according to the number of factors present. Univariable analysis of factors revealed VI, LI and PNI were all associated with survival. Presence of LI was independently predictive of incorrect staging/upstaging in multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 12.9 95% CI 3.6-46.6, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Histological factors of VI, LI and PNI are markers of aggressive disease and may have a role in prognostication and decision-making prior to treatment. The presence of LI as an independent marker of upstaging could be a potential indication for the use of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with early clinical disease.

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.

Detecting Interval Distant Metastases With 18F-FDG PET/CT After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with esophageal cancer can develop distant metastases between the start of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and planned surgery (ie, interval distant metastases). 18F-FDG PET/CT restaging after nCRT detects interval distant metastases in ~8% of patients. This study aimed to identify patients for whom 18F-FDG PET/CT restaging after nCRT could be omitted using an existing prediction model predicting for interval distant metastases or by using clinical stage groups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who underwent baseline and restaging 18F-FDG PET/CT, nCRT, and were planned for esophagectomy between 2017 and 2021 were eligible for inclusion in this retrospective study. The primary outcome was the existing model's external performance (ie, discrimination and calibration) for predicting interval distant metastases. The existing model predictors included tumor length, cN status, squamous cell carcinoma histology, and baseline SUVmax. The secondary outcome determined the clinical stage groups (AJCC/UICC eighth edition) for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma for which the incidence of interval distant metastases was <10%.

RESULTS

In total, 127 patients were included, of whom 17 patients developed interval distant metastases (13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-21%) and 9 patients were deemed to have false-positive lesions on 18F-FDG PET/CT (7%; 95% CI, 2%-11%). Applying the existing model to this cohort yielded a discriminatory c-statistic of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.40-0.72). The calibration of the existing model was poor (ie, mostly underestimating the actual risk). The incidence of true-positive versus false-positive interval distant metastases for patients with clinical stage II disease was 5% versus 0%; clinical stage III, 14% versus 8%; and clinical stage IVa, 22% versus 9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing prediction model cannot reliably identify patients at risk for developing interval distant metastases after nCRT for esophageal cancer. Omission of 18F-FDG PET/CT restaging after nCRT could be considered in patients with clinical stage II esophageal cancer.

Neoadjuvant Therapy Versus Upfront Surgery for Patients With Clinical Stage 2 or 3 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery (NT) is the standard of care for esophageal cancer in Western countries, upfront surgery (US) followed by adjuvant therapy (when indicated) still is commonly used in Asia to minimize overtreatment. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of NT versus US for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of ESCC between 2010 and 2015 were divided into NT or US according to the intention to treat. Two propensity score-matched groups of patients with clinical stage 2 (135 pairs) or stage 3 (194 pairs) disease were identified and compared in terms of overall survival (OS) and direct costs incurred within 3 years after diagnosis.

RESULTS

The esophagectomy rates after NT were 82% for stage 2 and 88% for stage 3 disease. Compared with US, surgery after NT was associated with higher R0 resection rates, a lower number of dissected lymph nodes, and similar postoperative mortality. On an intention-to-treat analysis, stage 3 patients who received NT had a significantly better 3-year OS rate (45%) than those treated with US (37%) (p = 0.029) without significant cost increases (p = 0.89). However, NT for clinical stage 2 disease neither increased costs nor improved 3-year OS rates (47% vs 47%; p = 0.88). At a willingness-to-pay level of US$50,000 per life-year, the probability of NT being cost-effective was 92% for stage 3 versus 59% for stage 2 ESCC.

CONCLUSION

Because of its higher cost-effectiveness, NT is preferable to US for patients with clinical stage 3 ESCC, but US remains a viable option for stage 2 disease.

Value of Lymphadenectomy in Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect on survival of extent of lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy for patients undergoing multimodality (neoadjuvant) therapy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction using Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration data.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Previous worldwide data demonstrated that optimum lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy alone for esophageal cancer provides accurate staging and maximum survival. However, for patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced adenocarcinoma, its value is unclear, leading to wide practice variability.

METHODS

A total of 3859 patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction received neoadjuvant therapy. The endpoint was all-cause mortality, reported as gain or loss of lifetime within 10 years. Lifetime predicted for each regional lymph node resected used quantile survival random forest methodology.

RESULTS

Across all post-neoadjuvant ypTNM cancer categories, some degree of lymphadenectomy was associated with longer lifetime, but in a nonlinear fashion. For patients with ypN0 cancers, there was a modest gain in lifetime up to 25 lymph nodes resected and an incremental loss in lifetime as >25 were resected. For patients with ypN+ cancers, there was a robust gain in lifetime up to 30 lymph nodes resected and then an incremental loss in lifetime.

CONCLUSIONS

Worldwide data for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction demonstrate that lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy is a valuable component of neoadjuvant therapy. Survival is maximized when an optimum range of nodes is resected.

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.

Trimodality Approach for Esophageal Malignancies

Trimodality therapy, or the use of concurrent chemoradiation followed by surgery, is the cornerstone of contemporary management of esophageal cancer. This article discusses the landmark trials and most current data to understand the concepts, applications, and outcomes from trimodality therapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy for locoregional Siewert type II gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: A propensity scores matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nRT) on prognosis in patients with locoregional Siewert type II gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEA).

METHOD

All patients pathologically diagnosed as Siewert type II GEA between 2004 and 2015 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and Final Results (SEER) database. We analyzed the impact of different treatment regimens on the prognosis in each stage. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method. Multivariate Cox model and propensity score matching was further used to verify the results.

RESULTS

4,160 patients were included in this study. The efficacy of nRT was superior to that of adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) (p = 0.048), which was the same as that of surgery combined with chemotherapy (p = 0.836), but inferior to the overall survival (OS) of surgical treatment alone (p<0.001) in T1-2N0M0 patients. Patients receiving nRT had distinctly better survival than those receiving surgical treatment alone (p = 0.008), but had similar survival compared with patients treated with aRT (p = 0.989) or surgery combined with chemotherapy (p = 0.205) in the T3N0/T1-3N+M0 subgroup. The efficacy of nRT is clearly stronger than that of surgical therapy alone (p<0.001), surgery combined with chemotherapy (p<0.001), and aRT (p = 0.008) in patients with T4 stage. The survival analysis results were consistent before and after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

In these carefully selected patients, the present study made the following recommendations: nRT can improve the prognosis of patients with T3N0M0/T1-3N+M0 and T4 Siewert type II GEA, and it seems to be a better treatment for T4 patients. Surgery alone seems to be sufficient, and nRT is not conducive to prolonging the survival of Siewert II GEA patients with T1-2N0M0 stage. Of course, further prospective trials are needed to verify this conclusion.

The modern management of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia: role of pathology

Modern management of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia essentially focuses upon surveillance to detect early low-risk neoplastic lesions and offering organ-preserving advanced endoscopic therapies, while traditional surgical treatments of oesophagectomy and lymph node clearance with or without chemoradiation are preserved only for high-risk and advanced carcinomas. With this evolution towards figless invasive therapy, the choice of therapy hinges upon the pathological assessment for risk stratifying patients into those with low risk for nodal metastasis who can continue with less invasive endoscopic therapies and others with high risk for nodal metastasis for which surgery or other forms of treatment are indicated. Detection and confirmation of neoplasia in the first instance depends upon endoscopic and pathological assessment. Endoscopic examination and biopsy sampling should be performed according to the recommended protocols, and endoscopic biopsy interpretation should be performed applying standard criteria using appropriate ancillary studies by histopathologists experienced in the pathology of Barrett's disease. Endoscopic resections (ERs) are both diagnostic and curative and should be performed by clinicians who are skilled with advanced endoscopic techniques. Proper preparation and handling of ERs are essential to assess histological parameters that dictate the curative nature of the procedure. Those parameters are adequacy of resection and risk of lymph node metastasis. The risk of lymph node metastasis is determined by depth invasion and presence of poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion. Those adenocarcinomas with invasion up to muscularis mucosae (pT1a) and those with superficial submucosal invasion (pT1b) up to 500 µ with no poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion and negative margins may be considered cured by endoscopic resections.

Pretreatment Primary Tumor Stage is a Risk Factor for Recurrence in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Who Achieve Pathological Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Background

Although pathological complete response (pCR) after multimodal treatment for esophageal cancer is associated to the best prognosis, recurrence may occur in 20–40% of cases. The present study investigated the recurrence pattern and predictive factors of recurrence after pCR in patients with esophageal cancer.

Methods

In this study, 427 patients received preoperative treatment for either esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma at Verona University Hospital between 2000 and 2018. Of these, 145 patients (34%) achieved a pCR. Long-term prognosis, recurrence pattern, and risk factors for relapse in pCR patients were analysed.

Results

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 37 relapses (25.5%) occurred, mostly at distant level (n = 28). Nearly all locoregional relapses (8/9) were detected in SCC cases. The 5-year overall survival and cancer-related survival were 71.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62.6–78.9%) and 77.5% (95% CI 68.5–84.2%) respectively. Male sex, higher body mass index, and cT4 were significant risk factors for recurrence at univariate analysis. The multivariate analysis confirmed the role of cT4 as predictor of recurrence only in SCCs.

Conclusions

Esophageal cancer recurs in about one-fourth of pCR cases. A fair number of local recurrences occurs in SCCs, but the main problem is the systemic disease control. According to our analysis, SCCs patients with cT4 stage have an increased risk to recur, so they should be managed differently by a personalized approach in terms of adjuvant treatment and follow-up.

[Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer?]

BACKGROUND

According to international guidelines neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The treatment approach depends on the tumor entity (adenocarcinoma vs. squamous cell carcinoma).

OBJECTIVE

What benefits do patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer have from neoadjuvant treatment? Is there information in the international literature on whether a particular neoadjuvant treatment is preferred? Does the type of neoadjuvant treatment depend on factors other than the tumor entity? Is there a standard in the drug composition of chemotherapy or a clearly defined chemoradiotherapy regimen?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature were carried out.

RESULTS

Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer benefit from a neoadjuvant treatment. The current data situation for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus demonstrates a better response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus can be treated with combined neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as well as by chemotherapy alone. Both lead to an improvement in the prognosis. There are often differences particularly among radiation treatment regimens in the different centers. Furthermore, the localization of the tumor can also be important for treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

A neoadjuvant treatment is clearly recommended for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Currently, chemoradiotherapy according to the CROSS protocol is preferred for squamous cell carcinoma. For adenocarcinoma both chemotherapy according to the FLOT protocol as well as chemoradiotherapy in a neoadjuvant treatment concept lead to an improvement in the prognosis.

Role of radiation therapy in node-negative esophageal cancer: A propensity-matched analysis

Background

This study investigated the prognostic impact of (neo‐)adjuvant radiation therapies in early stage esophageal cancer.

Methods

A retrospective analysis using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was conducted from 2004 to 2016. Patients with pathologically staged T1‐4N0M0 esophageal cancer were divided into two treatment groups: (i) neoadjuvant radiotherapy followed by surgery; and (ii) upfront esophagectomy followed by adjuvant radiotherapy. Propensity scored match and Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify covariates associated with overall survival and cancer‐specific survival.

Results

There were 821 patients selected, of whom 588 (71.6%) received neoadjuvant radiotherapy and 233 (28.4%) received adjuvant radiotherapy. For the entire cohort, neoadjuvant radiotherapy was associated with a significantly benefit in five‐year survival outcomes compared with adjuvant radiotherapy (P < 0.01). After matching, the survival outcomes were still better for neoadjuvant radiotherapy than that of adjuvant treatment. Stratifying based on pathologic tumor status, neoadjuvant radiation was associated with improved CSS (five‐year survival 73.7% vs. 42.1%; P = 0.014) for localized (pT3‐4N0) disease. The Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed that the addition of neoadjuvant radiation for pT3‐4N0 diseases with tumor length ≥ 5 cm and squamous cell carcinoma, was a powerful prognostic factor for improved cancer‐specific survival (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Compared with adjuvant radiotherapy, the addition of neoadjuvant radiation for pT3‐4N0 diseases has been associated with improved cancer‐specific survival in high‐risk patients. Studies on preoperative neoadjuvant therapies would be plausible in high‐risk esophageal cancer patients.

Patterns of Use of Induction Therapy for T2N0 Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Induction therapy for patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer is controversial. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the National Cancer Database to examine the patterns of use of induction therapy for this population.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy (2004-2015). Patients were stratified by upfront surgery or induction therapy. Overall survival was analyzed and a multivariable logistic regression performed to identify factors associated with receipt of induction therapy.

RESULTS

Overall 2540 patients met study criteria: 1177 (46%) received upfront esophagectomy and 1363 (53%) received induction therapy. Patients receiving induction therapy were more likely to be younger, male, without comorbidities, privately insured, and treated at a nonacademic center. These patients were also less likely to be treated in highest volume surgery centers. In multivariable regression, factors independently associated with receipt of induction therapy included later year of diagnosis, increasing tumor size, and increasing tumor grade. Factors associated with upfront esophagectomy included advancing age, comorbidities, lack of insurance, geographic location, and highest volume centers. The receipt of induction chemotherapy was not associated with a survival benefit compared with no induction therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Several patient-, treatment center-, and tumor-related factors are associated with receipt of induction therapy for cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer, although induction therapy is not associated with a survival benefit. Further inquiry into these differences and the potential benefit or lack thereof of induction therapy should be conducted to provide more equitable and appropriate care for patients with esophageal cancer.

Role of Perioperative Chemotherapy in Lymph Node-negative Esophageal Cancer After Resection: A Population-based Study With Propensity Score-matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimodality treatment is increasingly accepted and becoming the standard care for local advanced esophageal cancer (EC) patients. However, for early stage lymph node-negative EC patients, surgery alone is still the primary treatment approach, and the role of perioperative chemotherapy remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients with lymph node-negative EC were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2013. Survival was compared by the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to identify covariates associated with overall survival (OS). Propensity score-matched analysis was also performed to control for confounding.

RESULTS

A total of 3071 patients (T1-4N0M0) were identified, 1363 (44.4%) of which received perioperative chemotherapy. The effect of chemotherapy on OS was remarkably dependent on the T stage. For stage T1 patients, chemotherapy was inversely associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR]=1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.86), and no impact of chemotherapy on OS was found for T2 patients (HR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.712-1.18), whereas a significant improvement in OS was observed with the addition of chemotherapy for patients with stages T3 (HR=0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.62) and T4 (HR=0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.98) disease. Multivariable analysis with demonstrated that chemotherapy usage, age, sex, tumor grade, and T stage (P<0.05) were significantly associated with OS in T3-T4 patients. The results were similar in subgroup analyses stratified by confounding covariates, and the propensity score-matched analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study indicates perioperative chemotherapy is associated with improved survival in stage T3-4N0M0 patients with EC, which needs to be further validated by randomized trials.

Current status of esophageal cancer treatment

Esophageal cancer (EC) remains one of the most common and aggressive diseases worldwide. This review discusses some debates in the modern management of the disease. Endoscopic procedures for early cancer (T1a−b) are now embedded in routine care and the challenge will be to more accurately select patients for endoscopic resection with or without adjuvant therapy. Perioperative multimodal therapies are associated with improved survival compared to surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, there is no global consensus on the optimal regimen. Furthermore, histological subtype (adenocarcinomavs. squamous cell cancer) plays a role in the choice for treatment. New studies are underway to resolve some issues. The extent of the lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The ideal operation balances between limiting surgical trauma and optimizing survival. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and enhanced recovery pathways are associated with decreased morbidity and faster recovery albeit there is no consensus yet what approach should be used. Finally, immune checkpoint inhibitors present promising preliminary results in the novel treatment of advanced or metastatic EC but their widespread application in clinical practice is still awaited.

Precision Surgical Therapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction

INTRODUCTION

To facilitate the initial clinical decision regarding whether to use esophagectomy alone or neoadjuvant therapy in surgical care for individual patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction-information not available from randomized trials-a machine-learning analysis was performed using worldwide real-world data on patients undergoing different therapies for this rare adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Using random forest technology in a sequential analysis, we (1) identified eligibility for each of four therapies among 13,365 patients: esophagectomy alone (n = 6649), neoadjuvant therapy (n = 4706), esophagectomy and adjuvant therapy (n = 998), and neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy (n = 1022); (2) performed survival analyses incorporating interactions of patient and cancer characteristics with therapy; (3) determined optimal therapy as that predicted to maximize lifetime within 10 years (restricted mean survival time; RMST) for each patient; and (4) compared lifetime gained from optimal versus actual therapies.

RESULTS

Actual therapy was optimal in 61% of those receiving esophagectomy alone; neoadjuvant therapy was optimal for 36% receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Many patients were predicted to benefit from postoperative adjuvant therapy. Total RMST for actual therapy received was 58,825 years. Had patients received optimal therapy, total RMST was predicted to be 62,982 years, a 7% gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Average treatment effect for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus yields only crude evidence-based therapy guidelines. However, patient response to therapy is widely variable, and survival after data-driven predicted optimal therapy often differs from actual therapy received. Therapy must address an individual patient's cancer and clinical characteristics to provide precision surgical therapy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction.

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.

Management of clinical T2N0 esophageal cancer: a review

While management of locally advanced esophageal cancer has mostly involved multimodality therapy, management of clinical T2N0 patients has been more controversial, primarily as a result of inaccurate clinical staging with existing modalities. This review article examines current literature on this topic and provides recommendations for management of individual patients.

Radiation With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Does Not Improve Outcomes in Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant treatment improves survival for patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Recent evidence suggests that neoadjuvant chemoradiation offers no advantage over chemotherapy alone before surgical resection for adenocarcinoma histology. We sought to examine if this applies to patients with squamous cell histology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus from 2004 to 2012. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before esophagectomy were compared with those undergoing chemotherapy and radiation before surgical resection. Associations between potential covariates and treatment were analyzed using the Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. Univariate and multivariate proportional hazards modeling results were used to assess the effect of treatment on overall survival. Relative prognosis was summarized using estimates and 95% confidence limits for the hazard ratio. Unadjusted differences in overall survival and disease-specific survival between the treatment are shown using Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

A total of 902 patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy before surgical resection during the study period, with 827 receiving chemotherapy and radiation, and 75 receiving chemotherapy alone preoperatively. The 30- and 90-d mortality for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation followed by surgery were 5.4% and 10.4% compared to 5.5% and 11.1% for patients who received chemotherapy alone preoperatively (P = 0.963 and P = 0.856), respectively. Median overall survival for patients receiving chemotherapy and radiation was 36.0 mo versus 40.8 mo for chemotherapy alone. The 5-y survival was 39% for the chemotherapy and radiation group and 43% for the chemotherapy group (logrank P = 0.7212).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment before planned surgical resection of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus, the addition of radiation to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not improve long-term survival and did not appear to impact short-term outcomes postoperatively. Further study with a randomized phase III trial is needed.

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.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Versus Upfront Esophagectomy in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) compared to upfront esophagectomy (UE) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is controversial. Our purpose was to determine whether clinical stages based on the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system could guide treatment decision.

METHODS

Data from 2503 patients with clinical stages II and III ESCC diagnosed between 2008 and 2014 were obtained from a nationwide database. Propensity score matching was used to identify well-balanced pairs of patients. Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank test were used in the survival analysis. The outcomes of patients receiving "NCRT followed by surgery" or "UE" strategies were compared.

RESULTS

The treatment modality (UE or NCRT) was not a prognostic factor in clinical stage II ESCC (HR: 0.97; p = 0.778). In contrast, the UE group demonstrated a significantly worse outcome compared with the NCRT group in clinical stage III ESCC (HR: 1.39; p < 0.001). After matching, patients who underwent UE for clinical stage II ESCC had median survival/3-year overall survival (OS) rates of 27.8 months/39.2% compared with 32.7 months/49.8% in the NCRT group (p = 0.508). The patients who underwent UE for clinical stage III ESCC had median survival/3-year OS rates of 17.9 months/28.2% in the UE group compared with 24.0 months/41.8% in the NCRT group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that NCRT strategy improved survival compared with UE in clinical stage III ESCC but not in clinical stage II tumors.

A rationale multidisciplinary approach for treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: Accurate review of management and perspectives

Cancer of the esophagus and of gastroesophageal junction can be cured, even if with lacking cure rate. Different approaches have been developed, mostly when carcinoma has loco-regional pattern. Multimodality therapy showed a survival rate superior than 10% if compared to a single approach. This is a systematic review, carried to assess the following matters: Which therapeutic opportunities are available? Who could benefit of them? Which adverse reactions could possibly verify? How can physicians definitely choose the proper strategy? Which is the role of surgery? We mean to give either General Practitioner or specialists clear and efficient updates about current treatment of this tumour, starting from physical examination. Four eminent guidelines were consulted for our study: Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care, NCCN, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre and Esmo.

Induction therapy for clinical stage T2N0M0 esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

It is still controversial whether patients with clinical T2N0M0 (cT2N0M0) esophageal cancer are treated with induction therapy. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of induction therapy on cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Medline databases from inception up to May 1, 2017. This meta-analysis was performed to compare odds ratios (OR) for 5-year overall survival (OS), pathologically understaged and overstaged after esophagectomy.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective studies of 2646 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Data showed that no statistically significant difference in 5-year over survival was observed between induction therapy group and direct operation group. The pooled OR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for 5-year OS were 0.92 (95% CI = 0.72-1.18; P = .52). Whereas, compared with induction therapy group, direct operation group had more pathologically understaged and less overstaged after esophagectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Currentclinical staging for T2N0M0 esophageal carcinoma remains inaccurate. In this study, we found that direct operation group had more pathologically understaged and less overstaged after esophagectomy compared with induction therapy group. Induction therapy could degrade the tumor staging but not improve the patient's survival.

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.

Prognostic factors in esophageal cancer treated with curative intent

The overall prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer has improved in recent decades due to surgical and medical progress, but overall survival remains poor. Better patient selection and tailored treatment are needed. Different prognostic factors linked with the patient, tumoral characteristics and treatment with curative intent have been identified and are the purpose of this review. Tumor detection at an earlier stage, the advent of new molecules and therapeutic combinations, and the centralization of management in high-volume centers should help to improve the prognosis of esophageal cancer. Improved imaging techniques and a better prediction strategy should guide future treatments.

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.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Determining Clinical T Category for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Data From 1434 Surgical Cases

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for determining T category is variable for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We aimed to assess the efficacy of EUS in accurately identifying T category for ESCC based on the 8th AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using a prospectively collected ESCC database from January 2003 to December 2015, in which all patients underwent EUS examination followed by esophagectomy. The efficacy of EUS was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared with pathological T category as gold standard. Overall survival of different EUS-T (uT) categories was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 1434 patients were included, of whom 58.2% were correctly classified by EUS, with 17.9% being overstaged and 23.9% being understaged. The sensitivity and accuracy of EUS for Tis, T1a, T1b, T2, T3, and T4a categories were 15.8 and 98.8%, 16.3 and 95.7%, 33.1 and 89.3%, 56.8 and 65.0%, 65.8 and 70.0%, and 27.3 and 97.5%, respectively. The survival difference between uT1a and uT1b was not statistically significant (p = 0.90), nor was that between uT4a and uT4b (p = 0.34). However, when uT category was integrated as uTis, uT1, uT2, uT3, and uT4, overall survival was clearly distinguished between the categories (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS is in general feasible for classifying clinical T category for ESCC. However, EUS should be used with caution for discriminating between Tis, T1a, and T1b disease, as well as T4 disease.

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.

Role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer: A population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this population-based cohort study was to determine whether the addition of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) to surgery is associated with improved pathologic outcomes and survival in patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent nCRT followed by surgery or surgery alone for cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer were identified from The Netherlands Cancer Registry database (2005-2014). Accuracy of clinical staging was assessed using the resection specimen as gold standard. After propensity score matching, influences of both treatment strategies on radical resection (R0) rates and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

In total 533 patients were included; 353 underwent nCRT followed by surgery and 180 underwent surgery alone. In the nCRT group 32% of patients achieved a pathologic complete response. Clinical understaging was observed in 62% of the patients in the surgery alone group based on pT-stage (n = 30, 27%), pN-stage (n = 26, 23%), or both (n = 55, 50%). Propensity score matching resulted in 78 patients who underwent nCRT plus surgery versus 78 who underwent surgery alone. In the nCRT group radical resections were more frequently observed (99% vs. 89% p = 0.031) and resulted in improved 5-year overall survival (46% vs. 33%, p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

In this population-based study, clinical staging of cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer was highly inaccurate. Compared to surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was associated with higher radical resection rates and improved overall survival.

Management of Patients With Adenocarcinoma or Squamous Cancer of the Esophagus

Esophageal cancer is characterized by early and frequent metastasis. Surgery is the primary treatment for early-stage disease, whereas patients with patients with locally advanced disease receive perioperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Squamous cancers can be treated with primary chemoradiotherapy without surgery, depending on their response to therapy and patient tolerance for subsequent surgery. Chemotherapy with a fluorinated pyrimidine and a platinum agent, followed by later treatment with taxanes and irinotecan, provides some benefit. Agents that inhibit the erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2 or HER2), or vascular endothelial growth factor, including trastuzumab, ramucirumab, and apatinib, increase response and survival times. Esophageal adenocarcinomas have mutations in tumor protein p53 and mutations that activate receptor-associated tyrosine kinase, vascular endothelial growth factor, and cell cycle pathways, whereas esophageal squamous tumors have a distinct set of mutations. Esophageal cancers develop systems to evade anti-tumor immune responses, but studies are needed to determine how immune checkpoint modification contributes to esophageal tumor development.

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.