Individual patient data meta-analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus upfront surgery for carcinoma of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy vs Chemotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

The prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone.

Objective

To assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes.

Data Sources

Literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023.

Study Selection

Two blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality.

Results

The analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.

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.

Developing sarcopenia during neoadjuvant therapy is associated with worse survival in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia in cancer patients has been associated with mixed postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the development of sarcopenia during the neoadjuvant period is predictive of postoperative mortality in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients.

METHODS

We queried a prospective database to retrieve the sarcopenic status of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent cross-sectional imaging of the third lumbar vertebra at diagnosis and within 2 months of undergoing an esophagogastrectomy between 2014 and 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 71 patients included in the study, 36 (50.7%) presented with sarcopenia at diagnosis. Of the 35 non-sarcopenic patients, 14 (40%) developed sarcopenia during the neo-adjuvant period. Patients who were not sarcopenic at diagnosis but developed sarcopenia preoperatively had significantly worse overall survival than patients sarcopenic at diagnosis and not sarcopenic preoperatively and patients experiencing no change in sarcopenic status (median 18 vs 47 vs 31 months; P = .02). Diagnostic and preoperative sarcopenic status alone were not significantly associated with overall survival (P = .48 and P = .56, respectively). Although 37 (52.1%) patients died, the cause of death was often not cancer-related (54.1%) and included acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and cardiac arrest. No significant survival difference was observed when stratified by >10% weight loss (P = .9) or large loss in body mass index (P = .8).

CONCLUSION

Developing sarcopenia during the neo-adjuvant period may be associated with worse overall survival in patients requiring esophagogastrectomy.

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.

Treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma: A rapidly evolving landscape

Gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma represent frequent and severe diseases whose management has radically changed over the last 10 years. With the advent of second- and third-line standard therapies for metastatic GC patients in the 2010s, the molecular dismemberment of the disease and positive trials with immunotherapy and targeted agents will mark the 2020s. New treatment options have emerged in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic setting. In addition to improved multimodal treatment in operable patients, new subgroups have emerged depending on molecular alterations (HER2, Microsatellite instability) or expression of specific proteins in the tumour (PDL1, Claudin 18.2) making immunohistochemistry central in profiling the tumour for an optimal individualised management. The aim of this review is to describe the current standards of management of early and late stage GC and the molecular markers needed today to optimally manage our patients together with future perspectives on this disease.

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma

PURPOSE

The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158).

RESULTS

IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.

What has the past taught us about the future in esophageal cancer? Personal reflections

Since the first successful esophagectomy for cancer in 1913 spectacular advancements have been made in diagnosis, staging, and therapy. Refinement of imaging, surgery, perioperative management together with multidisciplinary collaboration are the cornerstones. Today therapy with curative option is offered to more patients than ever. Further innovations in imaging, molecular biology, genetics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, nanotechnology will have an increasing impact. The end result being a unique therapeutic plan shaped on each patient's individual profile.

Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for Resectable Proximal Gastric, Gastroesophageal Junction and Distal Esophageal Cancer

Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for resectable proximal gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and distal esophageal cancer have evolved over several decades. Treatment recommendations differ based on histologic type-squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) versus adenocarcinoma (AC)-as well as the exact location of the tumor. Recent and older clinical trials in this area were critically reviewed. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with concurrent taxane- or fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has an established role for both AC and SCC of the distal esophagus and GEJ. The use of perioperative chemotherapy for gastric AC is based on the FLOT4 and MAGIC trials; however, the utility of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in this setting requires further evaluation. Additional clinical trials evaluating chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and radiation that are currently in process are highlighted, given the need for further disease control.

A Study on Risk Factors Associated with Reflux Esophagitis in Patients Undergoing Esophageal Cancer Surgery

Objective

To investigate the risk factors associated with reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery and to provide reference for the prevention and treatment of reflux esophagitis.

Methods

In the manner retrospective study, the data of 300 patients with esophageal cancer who received the surgical treatment in our hospital (January 2018-December 2020) were retrospectively reviewed. The 300 patients were divided into the occurrence group (n = 45) and nonoccurrence group (n = 255) depending on whether they had reflux esophagitis after surgery. The social demographic data and clinical data of the patients in the two groups were collected. These data were classified into the personal factors and surgical factors. The single-factor analysis method was adopted to analyze the effects of the personal and surgical factors on reflux esophagitis. The factors with statistically significant differences in the single-factor analysis were analyzed by logistic regression to verify the factors were the risk factors associated with reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery.

Results

The differences in the bodyweight, body mass index (BMI), length of the resected esophagus, surgical approach, intraoperative blood loss, gastrointestinal decompression volume, and surgery time between the two groups were of statistical significance (P < 0.05). After being tested by the logistics multivariate analysis, length of the resected esophagus, whole stomach reconstruction, intraoperative blood loss, and surgery time were identified as the risk factors associated with reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery.

Conclusion

The length of the resected esophagus, whole stomach reconstruction, intraoperative blood loss, and surgery time were the risk factors associated with reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery. It is necessary to choose the appropriate surgical approach according to the patients' conditions in practice and to strengthen the prevention and treatment of reflux esophagitis.