Hospital volume and beyond first-line palliative systemic treatment in metastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma: A population-based study

Systemic anticancer treatment in the Netherlands: Few hospitals treat many patients, many hospitals treat few patients

INTRODUCTION

The correlation between patient volume and clinical outcomes is well known for various oncological treatments, especially in the surgical field. The current level of centralisation of systemic treatment of (hemato-)oncology indications in Dutch hospitals is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to gain insight in patient volumes per hospital of patients treated with systemic anticancer treatment in the Netherlands.

METHODS

National claims data (Vektis) of all 73 Dutch hospitals that provide systemic anticancer medication in the Netherlands for the time period 2019 were used. The distribution of volumes of patients treated with anticancer medication for 38 different haematological or oncological indications was analysed. Hospitals were categorized into academic/specialised, general, and top clinical. Two volume cut off points (10 and 30 patients) were used to identify hospitals treating relatively few patients with anticancer medication. Four indications were investigated in more detail.

RESULTS

A wide distribution in patient volumes within hospitals was observed. Top clinical hospitals generally treated the most patients per hospital, followed by general and academic/specialised oncology hospitals. The volume cut off points showed that in 19 indications (50%) the majority (>50%) of all hospitals treated less than 10 patients and in 25 indications (66%) the majority of all hospitals treated less than 30 patients with anticancer medication. Four case studies demonstrated that relatively few hospitals treat many patients while many hospitals treat few patients with anticancer medication.

CONCLUSION

In the majority of oncology indications, a large proportion of Dutch hospitals treat small numbers of unique patients with anticancer medication. The high level of fragmentation gives ground for further exploration and discussion on how the organisation of care can support optimization of the efficiency and quality of care. Professional groups, policy makers, patients, and healthcare insurers should consider per indication whether centralisation is warranted.

Comparing treatment and outcomes in advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinomas: a population-based study

Background:

Treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) follows the guidelines for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJC) and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC), but patients with EAC are often excluded from clinical studies of GEJC/GAC.

Objectives:

Here we describe treatment and survival of patients with advanced EAC, GEJC, and GAC to provide population-based evidence on distinctions and similarities between these populations.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study of patients with unresectable advanced (cT4b) or metastatic (cM1) EAC, GEJC, or GAC (2015–2020) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.

Methods:

Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan–Meier methods, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression.

Results:

In all, 7391 patients were included (EAC: n = 3346, GEJC: n = 1246, and GAC: n = 2798). Patients with EAC were more often males and more often had ⩾2 metastatic locations. First-line systemic therapy was received by 42%, 47%, and 36% of patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively. Median OS was 5.0, 5.1, and 4.0 months for all patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively (p < 0.001). Median OS from start of first-line therapy of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative adenocarcinomas was 7.6, 7.8, and 7.5 months (p = 0.12) and of patients with HER2-positive carcinoma receiving first-line trastuzumab-containing therapy was 11.0, 13.3, and 9.5 months (p = 0.37) in EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, no difference in OS for patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC was observed.

Conclusion:

Despite differences in clinical characteristics and treatment strategies, survival between patients with advanced EAC, GEJC, and GAC was similar. We advocate that EAC patients should not be excluded from clinical trials for patients with molecularly similar GEJC/GAC.

SOURCE beyond first-line: A survival prediction model for patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after failure of first-line palliative systemic therapy

Prior models have been developed to predict survival for patients with esophagogastric cancer undergoing curative treatment or first-line chemotherapy (SOURCE models). Comprehensive clinical prediction models for patients with esophagogastric cancer who will receive second-line chemotherapy or best supportive care are currently lacking. The aim of our study was to develop and internally validate a new clinical prediction model, called SOURCE beyond first-line, for survival of patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after failure of first-line palliative systemic therapy. Patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal or gastric adenocarcinoma (2015-2017) who received first-line systemic therapy (N = 1067) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics at primary diagnosis and at progression of disease were used to develop the model. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was developed through forward and backward selection using Akaike's Information Criterion. The model was internally validated through 10-fold cross-validations to assess performance. Model discrimination (C-index) and calibration (slope and intercept) were used to evaluate performance of the complete and cross-validated models. The final model consisted of 11 patient tumor and treatment characteristics. The C-index was 0.75 (0.73-0.78), calibration slope 1.01 (1.00-1.01) and calibration intercept 0.01 (0.01-0.02). Internal cross-validation of the model showed that the model performed adequately on unseen data: C-index was 0.79 (0.77-0.82), calibration slope 0.93 (0.85-1.01) and calibration intercept 0.02 (-0.01 to 0.06). The SOURCE beyond first-line model predicted survival with fair discriminatory ability and good calibration.

Variation in Treatment Patterns of Patients with Early-Onset Gastric Cancer

Background: Early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC), or gastric cancer in patients younger than 45 years old, is poorly understood and relatively uncommon. Similar to other gastrointestinal malignancies, the incidence of EOGC is rising in Western countries. It is unclear which populations experience a disproportionate burden of EOGC and what factors influence how patients with EOGC are treated. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, population-based study of patients diagnosed with gastric cancer from 2004 to 2018 using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). In addition to identifying unique demographic characteristics of patients with EOGC, we evaluated (using multivariable logistic regression controlling for year of diagnoses, primary site, and stage) how gender/sex, race/ethnicity, treatment facility type, payor status, and location of residence influenced the receipt of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Results: Compared to patients 45−70 and >70 years of age with gastric cancer, patients with EOGC were more likely to be female, Asian/Pacific Islander (PI), African American (AA), Hispanic, uninsured, and present with stage IV disease. On multivariable analysis, several differences among subsets of patients with EOGC were identified. Female patients with EOGC were less likely to receive surgery and chemotherapy than male patients with EOGC. Asian/Pacific Islander patients with EOGC were more likely to receive chemotherapy and less likely to receive radiation than Caucasian patients with EOGC. African American patients were more likely to receive chemotherapy than Caucasian patients with EOGC. Hispanic patients were more likely to receive surgery and chemotherapy and less likely to receive radiation than Caucasian patients with EOGC. Patients with EOGC treated at community cancer centers were more likely to receive surgery and less likely to receive chemotherapy than patients with EOGC treated at academic centers. Uninsured patients with EOGC were more likely to receive surgery and less likely to receive chemotherapy than privately insured patients with EOGC. Patients with EOGC living in locations not adjacent to metropolitan areas were less likely to receive surgery compared to patients with EOGC who resided in metropolitan areas, Conclusions: Patients with EOGC are a demographically distinct population. Treatment of these patients varies significantly based on several demographic factors. Additional analysis is needed to elucidate why particular groups are more affected by EOGC and how treatment decisions are made for, and by, these patients.

Improving survival prediction of oesophageal cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy for dysphagia

INTRODUCTION

The recent POLDER trial investigated the effects of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on dysphagia caused by incurable oesophageal cancer. An estimated life expectancy of minimally three months was required for inclusion. However, nearly one-third of the included patients died within three months. The aim of this study was to investigate if the use of prediction models could have improved the physician's estimation of the patient's survival.

METHODS

Data from the POLDER trial (N = 110) were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to retrieve patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics. Two published prediction models (the SOURCE model and Steyerberg model) were used to predict three-month survival for all patients included in the POLDER trial. Predicted survival probabilities were dichotomised and the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the predictive performance.

RESULTS

The SOURCE and Steyerberg model had an accuracy of 79% and 64%, and an AUC of 0.76 and 0.60 (p = .017), respectively. The SOURCE model had higher specificity across survival cut-off probabilities, the Steyerberg model had a higher sensitivity beyond the survival probability cut-off of 0.7. Using optimal cut-off probabilities, SOURCE would have wrongfully included 16/110 patients into the POLDER and Steyerberg 34/110.

CONCLUSION

The SOURCE model was found to be a more useful decision aid than the Steyerberg model. Results showed that the SOURCE model could be used for three-month survival predictions for patients that are considered for palliative treatment of dysphagia caused by oesophageal cancer in addition to clinicians' judgement.

A population-based study in synchronous versus metachronous metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma

Background:

Real-world data on treatment and outcomes in patients with synchronous metastatic disease compared with patients with metachronous metastatic disease in esophagogastric cancer have not been published before. The aim of our study was to explore treatment, overall survival (OS), and time to treatment fialure (TTF) in patients with synchronous and metachronous metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

Methods:

Patients with synchronous metastatic disease (2015–2017) and patients with metachronous metastatic disease initially treated with curative intent for nonmetastatic disease (2015–2016) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS and TTF were assessed from metastatic diagnosis for patients with synchronous, early metachronous (⩽6 months) or late metachronous (>6 months) metastatic disease using Kaplan–Meier curves with two-sided log-rank test.

Results:

Median OS was 4.2, 2.1, and 4.4 months in patients with synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving systemic treatment was 41.3%, 21.5%, and 32.5% for synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively (p = 0.001). Among patients receiving systemic treatment, median OS was 8.8, 4.5, and 9.1 months (p < 0.001) and median TTF was 6.1, 3.8, and 5.7 months (p < 0.001) in synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively.

Conclusion:

Patients with early metachronous metastatic disease have a worse survival compared with patients with synchronous or late metachronous metastatic disease. These patients less often receive systemic treatment, and even when treated, survival is worse compared with patients with synchronous or late metachronous metastatic disease, suggesting a more aggressive tumor behavior.

The association between effectiveness of first-line treatment and second-line treatment in gastro-oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Population-based predictive factors for the effectiveness of second-line palliative systemic therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer are not available. This study investigates the predictive value of effectiveness of first-line treatment for second-line treatment outcomes in gastro-oesophageal cancer in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer diagnosed in 2010-2017 who were treated with second-line therapy after disease progression on first-line therapy were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into four groups as per duration of time to treatment failure (TTF) of the first line (0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months), and the association with overall survival (OS) and second-line TTF was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and two-sided multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Median OS since the start of the second line of patients (n = 611) with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 4.0, 4.1, 5.5 and 7.1 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Median second-line TTF of patients with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 2.8, 2.4, 3.0 and 4.5 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with first-line TTF of >9 months showed a longer OS than patients with first-line TTF of 0-3 months (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.47), 3-6 months (adjusted HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.47-2.39) and 6-9 months (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.04-1.65). Results for second-line TTF were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows a positive correlation between effectiveness of first-line therapy and outcomes of second-line therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer. Physicians should take duration of the first line into account when considering second-line palliative systemic therapy.

Gender Differences in Treatment Allocation and Survival of Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: a Population-Based Study

Background

Biological sex and gender have been reported to affect incidence and overall survival (OS) of curatively treated gastroesophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare palliative treatment allocation and OS between women and men with advanced gastroesophageal cancer.

Methods

Patients with an unresectable or metastatic esophageal (including cardia) adenocarcinoma (EAC) or squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) or gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) diagnosed in 2015-2018 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment allocation was compared using χ² tests and multivariable logistic regression analyses, and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards analysis. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

Results

Of patients with EAC (n = 3077), ESCC (n = 794), and GAC (n = 1836), 18.0%, 39.4%, and 39.1% were women, respectively. Women less often received systemic treatment compared with men for EAC (42.7% vs 47.4%, P = .045) and GAC (33.8% vs 38.8%, P = .03) but not for ESCC (33.2% vs 39.5%, P = .07). Women had a lower probability of receiving systemic treatment for GAC in multivariable analyses (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 1.00) but not for EAC (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.06) and ESCC (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.14). Median OS was lower in women with EAC (4.4 vs 5.2 months, P = .04) but did not differ after adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics and systemic treatment administration.

Conclusions

We observed statistically significant and clinically relevant gender differences in systemic treatment administration and OS in advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Causes of these disparities may be sex based (ie, related to tumor biology) as well as gender based (eg, related to differences in treatment choices).