Outcomes and survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the esophagus: Inverse propensity score weighted analysis

Considerations to forgo systemic treatment in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer: A real-world evidence study

The majority of patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer do not start palliative systemic treatment. To gain insight into the considerations underlying the decision not to start systemic treatment, we analyzed characteristics of patients starting and not starting systemic treatment, reasons for not starting systemic treatment, and receipt of local palliative treatments on a nationwide scale. Patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2021 were included (n = 10,948). Survival was compared using propensity score matching on patient and disease characteristics. Most patients did not start systemic treatment (esophageal cancer 59%; gastric cancer 64%). These patients were generally older, more often female, had more comorbidities and a worse performance status. The main reason for not starting systemic treatment was patient or family preference (35%). Among patients who did not start systemic treatment, 47% (esophageal) and 19% (gastric), received local palliative treatment, most commonly radiotherapy. Patients who did not start systemic treatment had worse median overall survival compared to patients who did start (esophageal cancer 2.9 months vs. 8.9 months; gastric cancer 2.2 vs. 8.2 months). These findings indicate that patient condition and disease burden are important aspects in systemic treatment decisions. However, patient or family preference was the main reason for not starting systemic treatment, highlighting that their priorities also strongly influence the decision. Systemic treatment did show to be associated with improved overall survival in matched patients, and therefore adequately weighing treatment risks and benefits based on real world data against patient preferences is of utmost importance.

The prognosis prediction value of CD69+ CD8+ tissue-resident memory T cell as a novel indicator of pathologic complete response heterogeneity following different neoadjuvant therapy regimen in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Improving pathological complete response (pCR) rate is currently the main goal of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (LA-ESCC). However, improved pCR rates do not consistently translate into better prognosis, likely due to regimen-specific pCR heterogeneity. We investigated this heterogeneity and potential biomarkers between two common neoadjuvant regimens.

METHODS

We included 445 LA-ESCC patients from four centers, with 228 receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and 217 undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy (nICT). Propensity score matching ensured group comparability. We assessed pCR rates and their associations with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence patterns. Immune-related biomarkers were investigated through RNA sequencing and immune infiltration analysis, then validated via multiplex immunofluorescence staining.

RESULTS

Overall, pCR was associated with significantly higher DFS (HR = 0.3 [0.18-0.5], P < 0.01) and OS (HR = 0.19 [0.08-0.41], P < 0.01) compared to non-pCR. The nICT group had a lower pCR rate than the nCRT group (27.2% vs. 42.9%) but demonstrated comparable prognosis and reduced distant metastasis. Among pCR patients, DFS was significantly better in the nICT group (HR = 0.2 [0.05-0.86], P = 0.031), with a trend toward improved OS. Immune analysis revealed increased CD8 + T cell infiltration, particularly CD69 + CD8 + tissue-resident memory T cells (TRM), in the nICT pCR group. The proportion of CD69 + CD8 + TRM cells was significantly linked to improved DFS (P = 0.016) and OS (P = 0.015), suggesting they may be superior prognostic markers compared to pCR rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The pCR obtained from different neoadjuvant treatments has distinct prognostic outcomes. The CD69 + CD8 + TRM, as a potential prognostic predictor, warrants further investigation.

Does neoadjuvant therapy contribute to increased risk in anastomotic leakage of esophageal cancer? A network meta-analysis

AIM

Conflicting results have been reported about the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy. We aimed to unravel the potential effect of neoadjuvant therapy on AL after esophagectomy through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed by retrieving relevant literature from PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies (RS) comparing the following treatment modalities were included: neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nR), neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT), and surgery alone (SA). Subgroup analyses by radiation dose, examined lymph nodes (ELN), route of reconstruction, site of anastomosis, and surgical approach were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies with 12,746 patients were included for the present study, among which 17 were RCTs. There were no significantly statistical differences observed among the five treatment modalities in AL for both RCTs (nCRT-nICT: risk ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 0.52-4.4; nCT-nICT: 1.71, 0.56-5.08; nICT-nR: 0.79, 0.12-8.02; nICT-SA: 0.59, 0.2-1.84) and RS (nCRT-nICT: odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.84; nCT-nICT: 1.56, 0.87-2.88; nICT-SA: 0.6, 0.31-1.12; nICT-nR: 1.08, 0.09-36.02). Subgroup analysis revealed that no significant difference in AL was observed among the five treatment modalities except for the impact of nCRT versus nCT (0.21, 0.05-0.73) on AL with a radiation dose ≥41.4 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant therapy do not significantly increase the incidence of AL after esophagectomy. Administration of irradiation with a moderate dose is not associated with elevated risk in AL. Clinicians can be less apprehensive about prescribing nCRT.

Risk Factors Associated With Anastomotic Stricture in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Experience From a High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer is a prevalent cancer, with a high incidence in low socioeconomic category countries. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly being used to treat this malignant condition. However, anastomotic stricture is a serious complication post esophagectomy. The study aims to enhance diagnostic consistency, improve treatment methods, guide patient management, stratify outcomes, and offer evidence-based preventive interventions.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 550 patients who had minimally invasive esophagus surgery was carried out at Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre in Lahore between 2015 and 2020. All patients were treated with radical resection. For tumors of the lower esophagus and gastroesophageal junction, transhiatal esophagectomy was used; for tumors of the middle and upper thoracic esophagus, right video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) was used in a three-stage procedure. Patients were routinely followed up two weeks after discharge, then every three, six, and 12 months.

RESULTS

The mean age and BMI were 46.7 years and 19.4 kg/m2, respectively. Anastomotic leaks were rare, with only 13 patients experiencing them. The grade of tumor differentiation was poor, moderate, and well-differentiated. The study found that older age, high Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and malignancies located in the upper and middle one-third of the esophagus had significant associations with anastomotic stricture. However, some variables, like sex, did not show significant associations in either analysis.

CONCLUSION

The study reveals that factors such as older patient age, high ECOG performance status, single comorbidity, and malignancies located in the upper and middle one-third of the esophagus significantly influence anastomotic stricture. The study suggests that measures against anastomotic stricture such as endoscopic procedures and minimally invasive esophagectomy should be implemented to minimize the complications.

Are polypharmacy side effects predicted by public data still valid in real-world data?

Background and Objective

Although interest in predicting drug-drug interactions is growing, many predictions are not verified by real-world data. This study aimed to confirm whether predicted polypharmacy side effects using public data also occur in data from actual patients.

Methods

We utilized a deep learning-based polypharmacy side effects prediction model to identify cefpodoxime-chlorpheniramine-lung edema combination with a high prediction score and a significant patient population. The retrospective study analyzed patients over 18 years old who were admitted to the Asan medical center between January 2000 and December 2020 and took cefpodoxime or chlorpheniramine orally. The three groups, cefpodoxime-treated, chlorpheniramine-treated, and cefpodoxime & chlorpheniramine-treated were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance them. Differences between the three groups were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The study population comprised 54,043 patients with a history of taking cefpodoxime, 203,897 patients with a history of taking chlorpheniramine, and 1,628 patients with a history of taking cefpodoxime and chlorpheniramine simultaneously. After adjustment, the 1-year cumulative incidence of lung edema in the patient group that took cefpodoxime and chlorpheniramine simultaneously was significantly higher than in the patient groups that took cefpodoxime or chlorpheniramine only (p=0.001). Patients taking cefpodoxime and chlorpheniramine together had an increased risk of lung edema compared to those taking cefpodoxime alone [hazard ratio (HR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.26-3.52, p<0.005] and those taking chlorpheniramine alone, which also increased the risk of lung edema (HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.99-2.69, p=0.05).

Conclusions

Validation of polypharmacy side effect predictions with real-world data can aid patient and clinician decision-making before conducting randomized controlled trials. Simultaneous use of cefpodoxime and chlorpheniramine was associated with a higher long-term risk of lung edema compared to the use of cefpodoxime or chlorpheniramine alone.

Application of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in curative surgery for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer (EC) treatment is still a subject of debate.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy and toxic side effects between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for locally advanced EC (LAEC).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted using multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database Article. Studies up to December 2022 comparing nCRT and nCT in patients with EC were selected.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed significant differences between nCRT and nCT in terms of disease-free survival. The results indicated that nCRT provided better outcomes in terms of the 3-year overall survival rate (OSR) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.95], complete response rate (OR = 3.15), and R0 clearance rate (CR) (OR = 2.25). However, nCT demonstrated a better 5-year OSR (OR = 1.02) than nCRT. Moreover, when compared to nCRT, nCT showed reduced risks of cardiac complications (OR = 1.15) and pulmonary complications (OR = 1.30).

CONCLUSION

Overall, both nCRT and nCT were effective in terms of survival outcomes for LAEC. However, nCT exhibited better performance in terms of postoperative complications.

Peri-operative chemotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in treatment of gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinomas: A 10-year cohort study

BACKGROUND

Gastro-oesophageal junctional (GOJ) cancers have been, more latterly, considered a distinct tumor entity with characteristic genetic profiles. The optimal multimodal therapy of advanced GOJ cancers remains debatable. In this comparative study, we analyzed the outcomes of peri-operative chemotherapy (CT) versus pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in treatment of advanced GOJ adenocarcinomas.

METHODS

This study included patients with locally advanced but resectable GOJ adenocarcinomas who underwent surgical resection after oncological therapy between 2010 till 2019 at our institution. Follow up to May 2021 was completed. The outcomes between CT and CRT groups were retrospectively analyzed. The long-term follow up data was obtained via direct contact with the patients during oncological clinics, cross-checked with hospital/national patients' electronic databases.

RESULTS

107 patients had GOJ cancers; 90 (84%) patients met our inclusion criteria. Perioperative chemotherapy was administrated in 65 (72%) patients. Overall median survival rate was 2.2 years in CRT-group compared to 2.4 years in CT-group (p-value 0.29), with comparable recurrence rates (48% vs 36% respectively). R0-resections were higher in CRT-group (84%) compared to CT-group (71%), yet insignificant p-value 0.197. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy achieved higher complete pathological response (28% vs 6%, p-value 0.009) and negative lymph nodes rates (64% vs 37%, p-value 0.014) compared to CT-group. Short-term outcomes (postoperative complications, morbidity rates and length of hospital stay) were similar across both groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with higher complete pathological response and negative lymph nodes rates for GOJ adenocarcinomas compared to peri-operative chemotherapy, without an increase in postoperative complications or morbidity rates. However, it wasn't associated with improved overall or disease-free survival rates.

Research Attitude and Interest among Cancer Survivors with or without Cognitive Impairment

BACKGROUND

We examined the research attitudes and willingness to participate in clinical research among cancer survivors with varying degrees of cognitive function.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of data collected through the University of California Irvine Consent-to-Contact registry. Cancer survivors completed the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI), the Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ), and willingness to participate (WTP) in certain research procedures. Perceived cognitive impairment (CI) was defined as the worst 20% CFI scores.

RESULTS

Here, 265 CI and 909 cognitively non-impaired (CNI) participants' data were analyzed. Mean age and sex distribution were similar, with fewer non-Hispanic Whites and education years among CI participants. More CI participants self-reported past diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment, stroke, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and alcohol abuse (all p < 0.05). CI participants were significantly more interested in studies investigating approved medications (92% vs. 87%, p = 0.030), lumbar puncture (47% vs. 38%, p = 0.027), and autopsy (78% vs. 69%, p = 0.022). After removing survivors with co-existing neuropsychiatric conditions, interest in autopsy studies remained statistically higher among CI (79% vs. 69%, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with cancer and CI are open to research procedures and interventions that are traditionally less utilized, which may facilitate the discovery of the pathogenesis and interventions for cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI).

Survival and complications after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal squamous cell cancer: A meta-analysis

Objectives

To compare the survival and complications of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM, and VIP databases from inception to November 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan (version 5.3) and Stata version 15.0.

Results

A total of 18 studies were included, which involved 3137 patients, The results of the metaanalysis showed that the pathological complete remission rate (odds ratio [OR] = 5.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.85–9.50, p<0.00001) and complete tumor resection rate (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.57–3.41, p<0.0001) in the NCRT group were significantly better than those in the NCT group. Our meta-analysis results showed that 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (1-year overall survival [OS]: OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.11–2.05, p = 0.009; 3-year OS: OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.36–2.21, p<0.0001; 5-year OS: OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.30–1.99, p<0.00001) in the NCRT group were significantly higher than those in the NCT group. NCRT can lead a significant survival benefit compared with NCT and there was no significant difference between the two neoadjuvant treatments in terms of postoperative complications.

Conclusion

The use of NCRT in the treatment of patients with ESCC patients showed significant advantages in terms of survival and safety relative to the use of NCT.

Better Prognosis and Survival in Esophageal Cancer Survivors After Comorbid Second Primary Malignancies: A SEER Database-Based Study

Background

With the development of surgical techniques and advances in systemic treatments, the survival time of esophageal cancer survivors has increased; however, the chance of developing a second primary malignancy (SPM) has also increased. These patients’ prognosis and treatment plans remain inconclusive.

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate and predict the survival of patients with esophageal cancer with second primary tumors, to provide insights and the latest data on whether to pursue more aggressive treatment.

Materials and Methods

We selected esophageal cancer cases from the latest available data from the SEER database on April 15, 2021. We performed life table analysis, Kaplan–Meier analysis, and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis to assess the patient data. We conducted multiple Cox regression equation analyses under multiple covariate adjustment models, and performed a stratified analysis of multiple Cox regression equation analysis based on different covariates. To describe our study population more simply and clearly, we defined the group of patients with esophageal cancer combined with a second primary malignant tumor (the first of two or more primaries) as the EC-SPM group.

Results

Our analysis of 73,456 patients with esophageal cancer found the median survival time of the EC-SPM group was 47.00 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 43.87–50.13), and the mean survival time was 74.67 months (95% CI, 72.12–77.22). Kaplan–Meier curves of different esophageal cancer survivors showed that the survival of the EC-SPM group was significantly better than that of the other groups (p < 0.01). Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that compared with only one malignancy only group, the hazard ratio (HR) of the EC-SPM group was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.99; p < 0.05). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis under different adjustment models, the EC-SPM group had a reduced risk of death compared with the one primary malignancy only group (HR < 1, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Survivors of esophageal cancer with a second primary malignant cancer have a better prognosis, but require more aggressive treatment. This study provided new evidence and new ideas for future research on the pathophysiological mechanism and treatment concepts of esophageal cancer combined with SPM.

Impact of postoperative chemotherapy on survival for oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma after preoperative chemotherapy and surgery

BACKGROUND

Perioperative chemotherapy is widely used in the treatment of oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (OGAC) with a substantial survival benefit over surgery alone. However, the postoperative part of these regimens is given in less than half of patients, reflecting uncertainty among clinicians about its benefit and poor postoperative patient fitness. This study estimated the effect of postoperative chemotherapy after surgery for OGAC using a large population-based data set.

METHODS

Patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus, gastro-oesophageal junction or stomach diagnosed between 2012 and 2018, who underwent preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery, were identified from a national-level audit in England and Wales. Postoperative therapy was defined as the receipt of systemic chemotherapy within 90 days of surgery. The effectiveness of postoperative chemotherapy compared with observation was estimated using inverse propensity treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Postoperative chemotherapy was given to 1593 of 4139 patients (38.5 per cent) included in the study. Almost all patients received platinum-based triplet regimens (4004 patients, 96.7 per cent), with FLOT used in 3.3 per cent. Patients who received postoperative chemotherapy were younger, with a lower ASA grade, and were less likely to have surgical complications, with similar tumour characteristics. After weighting, the median survival time after postoperative chemotherapy was 62.7 months compared with 50.4 months without chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.77 to 0.94; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that postoperative chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with OGAC treated with preoperative chemotherapy and surgery.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer: a population-based analysis

AIM

Currently, the optimal treatment strategy for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) remains controversial. We perform the present study to compare the outcomes of LAEC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neo-CT) or chemoradiotherapy (neo-CRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A population cohort with histologically diagnosed of esophageal cancer was identified from SEER database between 2004 and 2015. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox-regression proportional hazards model were used to assess the impact of neoadjuvant treatment regimens on the cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of LAEC. A propensity score model was utilized to balance baseline covariates.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a total of 1986 LAEC patients were included for analysis, 1,655 patients treated with neo-CRT and 331 with neo-CT, respectively. The survival outcomes of LAEC treated with neo-CRT were comparable to those treated with neo-CT in terms of 5-year OS (39% vs. 36%, p = 0.63) and CSS (51% vs. 51%, p = 0.77). In the multivariate Cox analyses, sex, histological grade, ypT stage, ypN( +), and number of LN examined were independent factors for predicting OS and CSS among LAEC treated with neoadjuvant treatment.

CONCLUSION

The present study based on large cohort demonstrated that no significant survival difference was observed between LAEC patients treated with neo-CRT versus neo-CT. However, the results needed to be confirmed in well-designed prospective trials.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy alone for oesophageal cancer: population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and chemotherapy (nCT) are used as neoadjuvant treatment for oesophageal cancer, it is unknown whether one provides a survival advantage over the other, particularly with respect to histological subtype. This study aimed to compare prognosis after nCRT and nCT in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).

METHODS

Data from the National Cancer Database (2006-2015) were used to identify patients with OAC and OSCC. Propensity score matching and Cox multivariable analyses were used to account for treatment selection biases.

RESULTS

The study included 11 167 patients with OAC (nCRT 9972, 89.3 per cent; nCT 1195, 10.7 per cent) and 2367 with OSCC (nCRT 2155, 91.0 per cent; nCT 212, 9.0 per cent). In the matched OAC cohort, nCRT provided higher rates of complete pathological response (35.1 versus 21.0 per cent; P < 0.001) and margin-negative resections (90.1 versus 85.9 per cent; P < 0.001). However, patients who had nCRT had similar survival to those who received nCT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95 per cent c.i. 0.95 to 1.14). Five-year survival rates for patients who had nCRT and nCT were 36 and 37 per cent respectively (P = 0.123). For OSCC, nCRT had higher rates of complete pathological response (50.9 versus 30.4 per cent; P < 0.001) and margin-negative resections (92.8 versus 82.4 per cent; P < 0.001). A statistically significant overall survival benefit was evident for nCRT (HR 0.78, 0.62 to 0.97). Five-year survival rates for patients who had nCRT and nCT were 45.0 and 38.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Despite pathological benefits, including primary tumour response to nCRT, there was no prognostic benefit of nCRT compared with nCT for OAC suggesting that these two modalities are equally acceptable. However, for OSCC, nCRT followed by surgery appears to remain the optimal treatment approach.

Thinking through the multimodal treatment of localized oesophageal cancer: the point of view of the surgeon

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines current developments and controversies in the multimodal management of oesophageal cancer, with an emphasis on surgical dilemmas and outcomes from the surgeon's perspective.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the advancement of oncological neoadjuvant treatments, there is still no consensus on what regimen is superior. The majority of patients may still fail to respond to neoadjuvant therapy and suffer potential harm without any survival advantage as a result. In patients who do not respond, adjuvant therapy is still often recommended after surgery despite any evidence for its benefit. We examine the implications of different regimens and treatment approaches for both squamous cell cancer and adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus.

SUMMARY

The efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment is highly variable and likely relates to variability of tumour biology. Ongoing work to identify responders, or optimize treatment on an individual patient, should increase the efficacy of multimodal therapy and improve patient outcomes.

RACE-trial: neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced, potentially resectable adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction - a randomized phase III joint study of the AIO, ARO and DGAV

Background

Despite obvious advances over the last decades, locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) still carry a dismal prognosis with overall 5-year survival rates of less than 50% even when using modern optimized treatment protocols such as perioperative chemotherapy based on the FLOT regimen or radiochemotherapy. Therefore the question remains whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy is eliciting the best results in patients with GEJ cancer. Hence, an adequately powered multicentre trial comparing both therapeutic strategies is clearly warranted.

Methods

The RACE trial is a an investigator initiated multicenter, prospective, randomized, stratified phase III clinical trial and seeks to investigate the role of preoperative induction chemotherapy (2 cycles of FLOT: 5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) with subsequent preoperative radiochemotherapy (oxaliplatin weekly, 5-FU plus concurrent fractioned radiotherapy to a dose of 45 Gy) compared to preoperative chemotherapy alone (4 cycles of FLOT), both followed by resection and postoperative completion of chemotherapy (4 cycles of FLOT), in the treatment of locally advanced, potentially resectable adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction. Patients with cT3–4, any N, M0 or cT2 N+, M0 adenocarcinoma of the GEJ are eligible for inclusion. The RACE trial aims to enrol 340 patients to be allocated to both treatment arms in a 1:1 ratio stratified by tumour site. The primary endpoint of the trial is progression-free survival assessed with follow-up of maximum 60 months. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, R0 resection rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, site of tumour relapse, perioperative morbidity and mortality, safety and toxicity and quality of life.

Discussion

The RACE trial compares induction chemotherapy with FLOT followed by preoperative oxaliplatin and 5-Fluorouracil-based chemoradiation versus preoperative chemotherapy with FLOT alone, both followed by surgery and postoperative completion of FLOT chemotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced, non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the GEJ. The trial aims to show superiority of the combined chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy treatment, assessed by progression-free survival, over perioperative chemotherapy alone.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04375605; Registered 4th May 2020;