Nationwide comprehensive gastro-intestinal cancer cohorts: the 3P initiative

Nationwide implementation of the international multidisciplinary best-practice for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-4): study protocol

BACKGROUND

The introduction of (m)FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel has changed the perspective for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Consequently, in experienced centres 23% of patients with LAPC undergo a resection with 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of up to 25%. In the Netherlands, the nationwide resection rate for LAPC remains low at 8%. The PREOPANC-4 program aims for a nationwide implementation of the international multidisciplinary best-practice to improve patient outcome.

METHODS

Nationwide program implementing the international multidisciplinary best-practice for LAPC. In the training phase, multidisciplinary and surgical webinars are given by 4 international experts, leading to a clinical protocol, followed by surgical off-site and on-site proctoring sessions. In the implementation phase, the clinical protocol will be implemented in all centres, including a nationwide expert panel (2022-2024). Healthcare professionals will be trained in shared decision-making. Consecutive patients diagnosed with pathology-proven LAPC (i.e., arterial involvement > 90° and/or portomesenteric venous > 270° involvement or occlusion [DPCG criteria]) are eligible. Primary outcomes are median and 5-year OS from diagnosis, resection rate, in-hospital/30-day mortality and major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa), and radical resection (R0) rate. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, functioning, side effects, and patients' healthcare satisfaction in all included patients. Outcomes will be compared with patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in the PREOPANC-2 trial (EudraCT: 2017-002036-17) and a historical cohort of patients with LAPC from the PACAP registry (NCT03513705). The existing prospective LAPC Registry and PACAP PROMs (NCT03513705) will be used for data collection. In qualitative interviews, treatment preferences, values, and experiences of LAPC patients, their relatives, and healthcare professionals will be assessed for the development of shared decision-making supportive tools. It is hypothesized that the program will double the nationwide LAPC resection rate to 16% with major morbidity < 50% and mortality ≤ 5%, and OS following resection similar to that observed in patients with BRPC.

DISCUSSION

The PREOPANC-4 program aims to safely implement the international multidisciplinary best-practice for LAPC leading to benchmark outcomes for both short-term morbidity, mortality, and OS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PREOPANC-4 program was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05524090) on September 1, 2022.

Esophagectomy after definitive chemoradiation in esophageal cancer: a safe therapeutic strategy

The standard treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy. However, the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy damages the surrounding tissue, which potentially increases the risk of postoperative complications, including anastomotic leakage. The impact of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT, 50.4 Gy radiotherapy) compared to the standard neoadjuvant scheme (nCRT, 41.4 Gy radiotherapy) prior to surgery on the incidence of anastomotic leakage remains poorly understood. To study this, all patients who received dCRT between 2011 and 2021 followed by esophagectomy were included. For each patient, two patients who received nCRT were selected as matched controls. Outcomes included postoperative anastomotic leakage, pulmonary and other complications, anastomotic stenosis, pulmonary and other postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo Classification ≥1), and overall survival. One hundred and eight patients were included with a median follow-up of 28 months. The time between neoadjuvant treatment and surgery was longer in the dCRT group compared to the nCRT group (65 vs. 48 days, P < 0.001). Postoperatively, significantly more patients in the dCRT group suffered from anastomotic leakage (11% vs. 1%, P = 0.04) and anastomotic stenosis (42% vs. 17%, P < 0.01). No differences were found for other complications or overall survival between both groups. In conclusion, preoperative dCRT is associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leakage and stenosis. These complications, however, can be treated effectively. Therefore, esophagectomy after dCRT is considered to be an appropriate treatment strategy in a selected patient group.

Omentum preservation versus complete omentectomy in gastrectomy for gastric cancer (OMEGA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Potentially curative therapy for locally advanced gastric cancer consists of gastrectomy, usually in combination with perioperative chemotherapy. An oncological resection includes a radical (R0) gastrectomy and modified D2 lymphadenectomy; generally, a total omentectomy is also performed, to ensure the removal of possible microscopic disease. However, the omentum functions as a regulator of regional immune responses to prevent infections and prevents adhesions which could lead to bowel obstructions. Evidence supporting a survival benefit of routine complete omentectomy during gastrectomy is lacking.

METHODS

OMEGA is a randomized controlled, open, parallel, non-inferiority, multicenter trial. Eligible patients are operable (ASA < 4) and have resectable (≦ cT4aN3bM0) primary gastric cancer. Patients will be 1:1 randomized between (sub)total gastrectomy with omentum preservation distal of the gastroepiploic vessels versus complete omentectomy. For a power of 80%, the target sample size is 654 patients. The primary objective is to investigate whether omentum preservation in gastrectomy for cancer is non-inferior to complete omentectomy in terms of 3-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints include intra- and postoperative outcomes, such as blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, readmission rate, quality of life, disease-free survival, and cost-effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

The OMEGA trial investigates if omentum preservation during gastrectomy for gastric cancer is non-inferior to complete omentectomy in terms of 3-year overall survival, with non-inferiority being determined based on results from both the intention-to-treat and the per-protocol analyses. The OMEGA trial will elucidate whether routine complete omentectomy could be omitted, potentially reducing overtreatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05180864. Registered on 6th January 2022.

Gender differences in tumor characteristics, treatment allocation and survival in stage I-III pancreatic cancer: a nationwide study

INTRODUCTION

Sex and gender are modulators of health and disease and may have impact on treatment allocation and survival in patients with cancer. In this study, we analyzed the impact of sex and gender on treatment allocation and overall survival in patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer diagnosed between 2015 and 2020 were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Associations between sex and gender and the probability of receiving surgical and/or systemic treatment were examined with multivariable logistic regression analyses. Overall survival was assessed with log rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis.

RESULTS

Among 6855 patients, 51.2 % were female. Multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustment for known confounders (age, performance status, comorbidities, tumor location, tumor stage and previous malignancies) showed that females less often received systemic chemotherapy compared to males (OR 0.799, 95 %CI 0.703-0.909, p < .001). No difference was found in the probability for undergoing surgical resection. Furthermore, females had worse overall survival compared to males (median OS 8.5 and 9.2 months respectively, 95 %CI 8.669-9.731).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study found that female patients with stage I-III pancreatic cancer significantly less often received systemic treatment and had worse overall survival as compared to males. Disparities in pancreatic cancer care can be decreased by recognizing and resolving potential obstacles or biases in treatment decision-making.

Recurrent disease detection after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using a recurrence-focused surveillance strategy (RADAR-PANC): protocol of an international randomized controlled trial according to the Trials within Cohorts design

BACKGROUND

Disease recurrence remains one of the biggest concerns in patients after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy, most patients experience local and/or distant PDAC recurrence within 2 years. High-level evidence regarding the benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is missing, and the impact of early detection and treatment of recurrence on survival and quality of life is unknown. In most European countries, recurrence-focused follow-up after surgery for PDAC is currently lacking. Consequently, guidelines regarding postoperative surveillance are based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. The recent emergence of more potent local and systemic treatment options for PDAC recurrence has increased interest in early diagnosis. To determine whether early detection and treatment of recurrence can lead to improved survival and quality of life, we designed an international randomized trial.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial is nested within an existing prospective cohort in pancreatic cancer centers in the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) and the United Kingdom (UK) (Pancreas Cancer: Observations of Practice and survival; PACOPS) according to the "Trials within Cohorts" (TwiCs) design. All PACAP/PACOPS participants with a macroscopically radical resection (R0-R1) of histologically confirmed PDAC, who provided informed consent for TwiCs and participation in quality of life questionnaires, are included. Participants randomized to the intervention arm are offered recurrence-focused surveillance, existing of clinical evaluation, serum cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 testing, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of chest and abdomen every three months during the first 2 years after surgery. Participants in the control arm of the study will undergo non-standardized clinical follow-up, generally consisting of clinical follow-up with imaging and serum tumor marker testing only in case of onset of symptoms, according to local practice in the participating hospital. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include quality of life, patterns of recurrence, compliance to and costs of recurrence-focused follow-up, and the impact on recurrence-focused treatment.

DISCUSSION

The RADAR-PANC trial will be the first randomized controlled trial to generate high level evidence for the current clinical equipoise regarding the value of recurrence-focused postoperative surveillance with serial tumor marker testing and routine imaging in patients after PDAC resection. The Trials within Cohort design allows us to study the acceptability of recurrence-focused surveillance among cohort participants and increases the generalizability of findings to the general population. While it is strongly encouraged to offer all trial participants treatment at time of recurrence diagnosis, type and timing of treatment will be determined through shared decision-making. This might reduce the potential survival benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance, although insights into the impact on patients' quality of life will be obtained.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04875325 . Registered on May 6, 2021.

Implementation of Best Practices in Pancreatic Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal.

Objective

To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival.

Design, setting, and participants

This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients).

Intervention

The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score).

Results

Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

Randomised trials conducted using cohorts: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Cohort studies generate and collect longitudinal data for a variety of research purposes. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) increasingly use cohort studies as data infrastructures to help identify and recruit trial participants and assess outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, range and nature of research using cohorts for RCTs and describe the varied definitions and conceptual boundaries for RCTs using cohorts.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were undertaken in January 2021 in MEDLINE (Ovid) and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Methodology Registry (Final issue, third Quarter 2012).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Reports published between January 2007 and December 2021 of (a) cohorts used or planned to be used, to conduct RCTs, or (b) RCTs which use cohorts to recruit participants and/or collect trial outcomes, or (c) methodological studies discussing the use of cohorts for RCTs.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted on the condition being studied, age group, setting, country/continent, intervention(s) and comparators planned or received, unit of randomisation, timing of randomisation, approach to informed consent, study design and terminology.

RESULTS

A total of 175 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. We identified 61 protocols, 9 descriptions of stand-alone cohorts intended to be used for future RCTs, 39 RCTs using cohorts and 34 methodological papers.The use and scope of this approach is growing. The thematics of study are far-ranging, including population health, oncology, mental and behavioural disorders, and musculoskeletal conditions.Authors reported that this approach can lead to more efficient recruitment, more representative samples, and lessen disappointment bias and crossovers.

CONCLUSION

This review outlines the development of cohorts to conduct RCTs including the range of use and innovative changes and adaptations. Inconsistencies in the use of terminology and concepts are highlighted. Guidance now needs to be developed to support the design and reporting of RCTs conducted using cohorts.

Assessing real-world representativeness of prospective registry cohorts in oncology: insights from patients with esophagogastric cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the real-world representativeness of a prospective registry cohort with active accrual in oncology, applying a representativeness metric that is novel to health care.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used data from the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP) registry and from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We used Representativeness-indicators (R-indicators) and overall survival to investigate the degree to which the POCOP cohort and clinically relevant subgroups were a representative sample compared to the NCR database. Calibration using inverse propensity score weighting was applied to correct differences between POCOP and NCR.

RESULTS

The R-indicator of the entire POCOP registry was 0.72 95% confidence interval [0.71, 0.73]. Representativeness of palliative patients was higher than that of potentially curable patients (R-indicator 0.88 [0.85, 0.90] and 0.70 [0.68, 0.71], respectively). Stratification to clinically relevant subgroups based on treatment resulted in higher R-indicators of the respective subgroups. Both after stratification and calibration weighting survival estimates in the POCOP registry were more similar to that in the NCR population.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the assessment of real-world representativeness of patients who participated in a prospective registry cohort and showed that real-world representativeness improved when the variability in treatment was accounted for.

Gastrointestinal Symptoms After Resection of Esophagogastric Cancer: A Longitudinal Study on Their Incidence and Impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the first year after resection of esophageal or gastric cancer and its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, work productivity, and daily activities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2021, who underwent a resection, and completed ≥ 2 questionnaires from the time intervals prior to resection and 0-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months after resection were included. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to assess changes in gastrointestinal symptoms over time and the impact of the number of gastrointestinal symptoms on HRQoL, functioning, work productivity, and daily activities for patients who underwent an esophagectomy or gastrectomy separately.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 961 (78.8%) and 259 (21.2%) patients who underwent an esophagectomy and gastrectomy, respectively. For both groups, the majority of gastrointestinal symptoms changed significantly over time. Most clinically relevant differences were observed 0-3 after resection compared with prior to resection and included increased diarrhea, appetite loss, and eating restrictions, and specifically after esophagectomy dry mouth, trouble with coughing, and trouble talking. At 9-12 after resection one or more severe gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 38.9% after esophagectomy and 33.7% after gastrectomy. A higher number of gastrointestinal symptoms was associated with poorer functioning, lower HRQoL, higher impairment in daily activities, and lower work productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently observed and burdensome after esophagectomy or gastrectomy, highlighting the importance to address these sequelae for high quality survivorship.

Effect of a prediction tool and communication skills training on communication of treatment outcomes: a multicenter stepped wedge clinical trial (the SOURCE trial)

Background

For cancer patients to effectively engage in decision making, they require comprehensive and understandable information regarding treatment options and their associated outcomes. We developed an online prediction tool and supporting communication skills training to assist healthcare providers (HCPs) in this complex task. This study aims to assess the impact of this combined intervention (prediction tool and training) on the communication practices of HCPs when discussing treatment options.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter intervention trial using a pragmatic stepped wedge design (NCT04232735). Standardized Patient Assessments (simulated consultations) using cases of esophageal and gastric cancer patients, were performed before and after the combined intervention (March 2020 to July 2022). Audio recordings were analyzed using an observational coding scale, rating all utterances of treatment outcome information on the primary outcome-precision of provided outcome information-and on secondary outcomes-such as: personalization, tailoring and use of visualizations. Pre vs. post measurements were compared in order to assess the effect of the intervention.

Findings

31 HCPs of 11 different centers in the Netherlands participated. The tool and training significantly affected the precision of the overall communicated treatment outcome information (p = 0.001, median difference 6.93, IQR (-0.32 to 12.44)). In the curative setting, survival information was significantly more precise after the intervention (p = 0.029). In the palliative setting, information about side effects was more precise (p < 0.001).

Interpretation

A prediction tool and communication skills training for HCPs improves the precision of treatment information on outcomes in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such interventions on communication in clinical practice and on patient-reported outcomes.

Funding

Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society (UVA 2014-7000).

The association between hospital variation in curative treatment for esophagogastric cancer and health-related quality of life and survival

BACKGROUND

As previous studies showed significant hospital variation in curative treatment of esophagogastric cancer, this study assesses the association between this variation and overall, cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival, and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with potentially curable esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2018 as registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. Data on overall survival was available for all patients, data on cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival and HRQoL was available for subgroups. Patients were classified according to diagnosis in hospitals with low, medium or high probability of treatment with curative intent (LP, MP or HP). Multivariable models were used to assess the association between LP, MP and HP hospitals and HRQoL and survival.

RESULTS

This study includes 7,199 patients with esophageal, and 2,407 with gastric cancer. Overall and cancer-specific survival was better for patients diagnosed in HP versus LP hospitals for both esophageal (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.77-0.88 and HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.75-0.91, respectively), and gastric cancer (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.73-0.92 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI:0.64-0.87, respectively). These differences disappeared after adjustments for treatment. Recurrence-free survival was worse for gastric cancer patients diagnosed in HP hospitals (HR = 1.50, 95%CI:1.14-1.96), which disappeared after adjustment for radicality of surgery. Minor, but no clinically relevant, differences in HRQoL were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed in hospitals with a high probability of treatment with curative intent have a better overall and cancer-specific but not recurrence-free survival, while minor differences in HRQoL were observed.

Long-term health-related quality of life in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer receiving first-line systemic therapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of systemic therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer in daily clinical practice. This study assessed the HRQoL of patients with esophagogastric cancer during first-line systemic therapy, at disease progression, and after progression in a real-world context.

METHODS

Patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer (2014-2021) receiving first-line systemic therapy registered in the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Oesophageal-gastric cancer (POCOP) were included (n = 335). HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25. Outcomes of mixed-effects models were presented as adjusted mean changes.

RESULTS

Results of the mixed-effect models showed the largest significant improvements during systemic therapy for odynophagia (- 18.9, p < 0.001), anxiety (- 18.7, p < 0.001), and dysphagia (- 13.8, p < 0.001) compared to baseline. After progression, global health status (- 6.3, p = 0.002) and cognitive (- 6.2, p = 0.001) and social functioning (- 9.7, p < 0.001) significantly worsened. At and after progression, physical (- 9.0, p < 0.001 and - 8.8, p < 0.001) and role functioning (- 15.2, p = 0.003 and - 14.7, p < 0.001) worsened, respectively. Trouble with taste worsened during systemic therapy (11.5, p < 0.001), at progression (12.0, p = 0.004), and after progression (15.3, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In general, HRQoL outcomes in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer improved during first-line therapy. Deterioration in outcomes was mainly observed at and after progression.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Identification of HRQoL aspects is important in shared decision-making and to inform patients on the impact of systemic therapy on their HRQoL.

The Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design in oncology: experience and methodological reflections

A Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) study design is a trial design that uses the infrastructure of an observational cohort study to initiate a randomized trial. Upon cohort enrollment, the participants provide consent for being randomized in future studies without being informed. Once a new treatment is available, eligible cohort participants are randomly assigned to the treatment or standard of care. Patients randomized to the treatment arm are offered the new treatment, which they can choose to refuse. Patients who refuse will receive standard of care instead. Patients randomized to the standard of care arm receive no information about the trial and continue receiving standard of care as part of the cohort study. Standard cohort measures are used for outcome comparisons. The TwiCs study design aims to overcome some issues encountered in standard Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). An example of an issue in standard RCTs is the slow patient accrual. A TwiCs study aims to improve this by selecting patients using a cohort and only offering the intervention to patients in the intervention arm. In oncology, the TwiCs study design has gained increasing interest during the last decade. Despite its potential advantages over RCTs, the TwiCs study design has several methodological challenges that need careful consideration when planning a TwiCs study. In this article, we focus on these challenges and reflect on them using experiences from TwiCs studies initiated in oncology. Important methodological challenges that are discussed are the timing of randomization, the issue of non-compliance (refusal) after randomization in the intervention arm, and the definition of the intention-to-treat effect in a TwiCs study and how this effect is related to its counterpart in standard RCTs.

Cohort profile of PLUTO: a perioperative biobank focusing on prediction and early diagnosis of postoperative complications

PURPOSE

Although elective surgery is generally safe, some procedures remain associated with an increased risk of complications. Improved preoperative risk stratification and earlier recognition of these complications may ameliorate postoperative recovery and improve long-term outcomes. The perioperative longitudinal study of complications and long-term outcomes (PLUTO) cohort aims to establish a comprehensive biorepository that will facilitate research in this field. In this profile paper, we will discuss its design rationale and opportunities for future studies.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing elective intermediate to high-risk non-cardiac surgery are eligible for enrolment. For the first seven postoperative days, participants are subjected to daily bedside visits by dedicated observers, who adjudicate clinical events and perform non-invasive physiological measurements (including handheld spirometry and single-channel electroencephalography). Blood samples and microbiome specimens are collected at preselected time points. Primary study outcomes are the postoperative occurrence of nosocomial infections, major adverse cardiac events, pulmonary complications, acute kidney injury and delirium/acute encephalopathy. Secondary outcomes include mortality and quality of life, as well as the long-term occurrence of psychopathology, cognitive dysfunction and chronic pain.

FINDINGS TO DATE

Enrolment of the first participant occurred early 2020. During the inception phase of the project (first 2 years), 431 patients were eligible of whom 297 patients consented to participate (69%). Observed event rate was 42% overall, with the most frequent complication being infection.

FUTURE PLANS

The main purpose of the PLUTO biorepository is to provide a framework for research in the field of perioperative medicine and anaesthesiology, by storing high-quality clinical data and biomaterials for future studies. In addition, PLUTO aims to establish a logistical platform for conducting embedded clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05331118.

Feasibility and first results of the 'Trials-within-Cohorts' (TwiCs) design in patients undergoing radiotherapy for lung cancer

Background: 'Trials-within-Cohorts' (TwiCs), previously known as 'cohort multiple randomized controlled trials' is a pragmatic trial design, supporting an efficient and representative recruitment of patients for (future) trials. To our knowledge, the 'COhort for Lung cancer Outcome Reporting and trial inclusion' (COLOR) is the first TwiCs in lung cancer patients. In this study we aimed to assess the feasibility and first year results of COLOR.Material and Methods: All patients diagnosed with lung cancer referred to the Radiotherapy department were eligible to participate in the ongoing prospective COLOR study. At inclusion, written informed consent was requested for use of patient data, participation in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and willingness to participate in (future) trials. Feasibility was studied by assessing participation and comparing baseline PROs to EORTC reference values. First-year results of PROs at baseline and 3 months after inclusion were evaluated separately for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and conventional radiotherapy patients.Results: Of the 338 eligible patients between July 2020 and July 2021, 169 (50%) participated. Among these, 127 (75%) gave informed consent to PROs participation and 110 (65%) were willing to participate in (future) trials. The inclusion percentage dropped from 77% to 33% when the information procedure was switched from in-person to by phone (due to COVID-19 pandemic measures). Baseline PROs for physical and cognitive functioning were comparable in COLOR patients compared to the EORTC reference values. No significant changes in PROs were observed 3 months after inclusion, except for a slight increase in pain scores in the SBRT group (n = 97).Conclusions: The TwiCs-design appears feasible in lung cancer patients with fair participation rates (although negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic). With a planned expansion to other centers, the COLOR-study is expected to enable multiple (randomized) evaluations of experimental interventions with important advantages for recruitment, generalizability, and long-term outcome data collection.

Perception of prognosis and health-related quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: results of a multicentre observational study (eQuiPe)

PURPOSE

To assess perception of prognosis in patients with advanced cancer, its association with patient's characteristics and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

In a multicentre observational cohort study (eQuiPe), conducted on patients with advanced cancer, perceived prognosis, coping strategies, and HRQoL were assessed. Clinical data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with vs. without a perception of prognosis, patients who perceived their prognosis as limited (< 1 year) vs. longer (> 1 year), and patients who did not want to know their prognosis vs. those who did not know for other reasons were compared.

RESULTS

Of 1000 patients with advanced cancer, 29% perceived their prognosis as > 1 year, 13% < 1 year, and 4% non-life threatening. Thirty-six percent did not know their prognosis and another 15% did not want to know. Patients without a perception were older, lower educated, coped differently (less accepting, planning, active; more denial), and received treatment more often (p < 0.05). Global QoL was lower in patients with vs. without a perceived prognosis (66 (SD21) vs. 69 (SD19), p = 0.01), specifically in patients who perceived a limited rather than a longer prognosis (57 (SD22) vs. 70 (SD19), p < 0.01). Global QoL of patients who did not want to know their prognosis was comparable to patients who did not know for other reasons (71 (SD19) vs. 69 (SD19), p = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

More than half of the patients with advanced cancer have no perception of their prognosis. Patients with a perceived prognosis have lower HRQoL, but only in patients who perceived their prognosis as limited (< 1 year) and were probably closer to the end of life, which more likely determines their poorer HRQoL, rather than prognostic perception. Ignorance of prognosis is not associated with lower HRQoL, however, should not hamper appropriate palliative care.

Influence of postoperative complications following esophagectomy for cancer on quality of life: A European multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative complications following major surgery have been shown to be associated with reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL), and severe complications may have profound negative effects. This study aimed to examine whether long-term HRQL differs with the occurrence and severity of complications in a European multicenter prospective dataset of patients following esophagectomy for cancer.

METHODS

Disease-free patients following esophagectomy for cancer between 2010 and 2016 from the LASER study were included. Patients completed the LASER, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires >1 year following treatment. Long-term HRQL was compared between patients with and without postoperative complications, subgroup analysis was performed for severity of complications (no, minor [Clavien-Dindo I-II], severe [Clavien-Dindo ≥ III]), using univariable and multivariable regression.

RESULTS

645 patients were included: 283 patients with no, 207 with minor and 155 with severe complications. Significantly more dyspnea (QLQ-C30) was reported by patients with compared to patients without complications (differenceinmeans6.3). In subgroup analysis, patients with severe complications reported more dyspnea (difference in means 8.3) than patients with no complications. None of the differences were clinically relevant (difference in means ≥ 10 points). LASER-based low mood (OR2.3) was statistically different for minor versus severe complications.

CONCLUSION

Comparable HRQL was found in patients with and without postoperative complications following esophagectomy for cancer, after a mean follow-up of 4.4 years. Furthermore, patients with different levels of severity of complications had comparable HRQL. The level of HRQL in esophageal cancer patients are more likely explained by the impact of the complex procedure of the esophagectomy itself.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy or best supportive care in patients with localized pancreatic cancer not receiving chemotherapy and surgery (PANCOSAR): a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial according to a TwiCs design

BACKGROUND

Significant comorbidities, advanced age, and a poor performance status prevent surgery and systemic treatment for many patients with localized (non-metastatic) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). These patients are currently treated with 'best supportive care'. Therefore, it is desirable to find a treatment option which could improve both disease control and quality of life in these patients. A brief course of high-dose high-precision radiotherapy i.e. stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) may be feasible.

METHODS

A nationwide multicenter trial performed within a previously established large prospective cohort (the Dutch Pancreatic cancer project; PACAP) according to the 'Trial within cohorts' (TwiCs) design. Patients enrolled in the PACAP cohort routinely provide informed consent to answer quality of life questionnaires and to be randomized according to the TwiCs design when eligible for a study. Patients with localized PDAC who are unfit for chemotherapy and surgery or those who refrain from these treatments are eligible. Patients will be randomized between SABR (5 fractions of 8 Gy) with 'best supportive care' and 'best supportive care' only. The primary endpoint is overall survival from randomization. Secondary endpoints include preservation of quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30 and -PAN26), NRS pain score response and WHO performance scores at baseline, and, 3, 6 and 12 months. Acute and late toxicity will be scored using CTCAE criteria version 5.0: assessed at baseline, day of last fraction, at 3 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6 and 12 months following SABR.

DISCUSSION

The PANCOSAR trial studies the added value of SBRT as compared to 'best supportive care' in patients with localized PDAC who are medically unfit to receive chemotherapy and surgery, or refrain from these treatments. This study will assess whether SABR, in comparison to best supportive care, can relieve or delay tumor-related symptoms, enhance quality of life, and extend survival in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials, NCT05265663 , Registered March 3 2022, Retrospectively registered.

A nationwide randomized controlled trial on additional treatment for isolated local pancreatic cancer recurrence using stereotactic body radiation therapy (ARCADE)

BACKGROUND

Disease recurrence is the main cause of mortality after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In 20-30% of resected patients, isolated local PDAC recurrence occurs. Retrospective studies have suggested that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) might lead to improved local control in these patients, potentially having a beneficial effect on both survival and quality of life. The "nationwide randomized controlled trial on additional treatment for isolated local pancreatic cancer recurrence using stereotactic body radiation therapy" (ARCADE) will investigate the value of SBRT in addition to standard of care in patients with isolated local PDAC recurrence compared to standard of care alone, regarding both survival and quality of life outcomes.

METHODS

The ARCADE trial is nested within a prospective cohort (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) according to the 'Trials within Cohorts' design. All PACAP participants with isolated local PDAC recurrence after primary resection who provided informed consent for being randomized in future studies are eligible. Patients will be randomized for local therapy (5 fractions of 8 Gy SBRT) in addition to standard of care or standard of care alone. In total, 174 patients will be included. The main study endpoint is survival after recurrence. The most important secondary endpoint is quality of life.

DISCUSSION

It is hypothesized that additional SBRT, compared to standard of care alone, improves survival and quality of life in patients with isolated local recurrence after PDAC resection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04881487 . Registered on May 11, 2021.

The fear of cancer recurrence and progression in patients with pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

It is plausible that patients with pancreatic cancer experience fear of tumor recurrence or progression (FOP). The aim of this study was to compare FOP in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with surgical resection, palliative systemic treatment, or best supportive care (BSC) and analyze the association between quality of life (QoL) and FOP and the effect of FOP on overall survival (OS).

METHODS

This study included patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2015 and 2018, who participated in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP). The association between QoL and WOPS was assessed with logistic regression analyses. OS was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with the log-rank tests and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusted for clinical covariates and QoL.

RESULTS

Of 315 included patients, 111 patients underwent surgical resection, 138 received palliative systemic treatment, and 66 received BSC. Patients who underwent surgical resection had significantly lower WOPS scores (i.e., less FOP) at initial diagnosis compared to patients who received palliative systemic treatment or BSC only (P < 0.001). Better QoL was independently associated with the probability of having a low FOP in the BSC (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.98) but not in the surgical resection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.01) and palliative systemic treatment groups (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00). The baseline WOPS score was not independently associated with OS in any of the subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Given the distress that FOP evokes, FOP should be explicitly addressed by health care providers when guiding pancreatic cancer patients through their treatment trajectory, especially those receiving palliative treatment or BSC.

External Validity of the Multicenter Randomized PREOPANC Trial on Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer: Outcome of Eligible but Nonrandomized Patients

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the accrual proportion and patients' reasons for not participating in the PREOPANC trial on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and to compare these patients' outcomes with those of patients who had been randomized in the trial.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The external validity of multicenter randomized trials in cancer treatment has been criticized for suboptimal non-representative inclusion. In trials, it is unclear how outcomes compare between randomized and nonrandomized patients.

METHODS

At 8 of 16 participant centers, this multicenter observational study identified validation patients, who had been eligible but not randomized during recruitment for the PREOPANC trial. We assessed the accrual proportion, investigated their most common reasons for not participating in the trial, and compared resection rates, radical (R0) resection rates, and overall survival between the validation patients and PREOPANC patients, who had been randomized in the trial to immediate surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 455 patients had been eligible during the recruitment period, 151 of whom (33%) had been randomized. Fifty-five percent of the 304 validation patients had refused to participate. Median overall survival in the validation group was 15.2 months, against 15.5 months in the PREOPANC group (P = 1.00). The respective resection rates (76% vs 73%) and R0 resection rates (51% vs 46%) did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The PREOPANC trial included a reasonable percentage of 33% of eligible patients. In terms of the outcomes survival, resection rate, and R0 resection rate, this appeared to be a representative group.

The impact of cancer treatment on quality of life in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is unclear.

METHODS

This study merged data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with EORTC QLQ-C30 and -PAN26 questionnaires at baseline and three-months follow-up of pancreatic and periampullary cancer patients (2015-2018). Propensity score matching (1:3) of group without to group with treatment was performed. Linear mixed model regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between cancer treatment and HRQoL at follow-up.

RESULTS

After matching, 247 of 629 available patients remained (68 (27.5%) no treatment, 179 (72.5%) treatment). Treatment consisted of resection (n = 68 (27.5%)), chemotherapy only (n = 111 (44.9%)), or both (n = 40 (16.2%)). At follow-up, cancer treatment was associated with better global health status (Beta-coefficient 4.8, 95% confidence-interval 0.0-9.5) and less constipation (Beta-coefficient -7.6, 95% confidence-interval -13.8-1.4) compared to no cancer treatment. Median overall survival was longer for the cancer treatment group compared to the no treatment group (15.4 vs. 6.2 months, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer reported slight improvement in global HRQoL and less constipation at three months-follow up compared to patients without cancer treatment, while overall survival was also improved.

Measuring Clinical, Biological, and Behavioral Variables to Elucidate Trajectories of Patient (Reported) Outcomes: The PROFILES Registry

To take cancer survivorship research to the next level, it's important to gain insight in trajectories of changing patient (reported) outcomes and impaired recovery after cancer. This is needed as the number of survivors is increasing and a large proportion is confronted with changing health after treatment. Mechanistic research can facilitate the development of personalized risk-stratified follow-up care and tailored interventions to promote healthy cancer survivorship. We describe how these trajectories can be studied by taking the recently extended Dutch population-based PROFILES (Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship) registry as an example. PROFILES combines longitudinal assessment of patient-reported outcomes with novel, ambulatory and objective measures (e.g., activity trackers; blood draws; hair samples; online food diaries; online cognitive tests; weighing scales; online symptoms assessment), and cancer registry and pharmacy databases. Furthermore, we discuss methods to optimize the use of a multidomain data collection like return of individual results to participants which may not only improve patient empowerment but also long-term cohort retention. Also, advanced statistical methods are needed to handle high-dimensional longitudinal data (with missing values) and provide insight into trajectories of changing patient (reported) outcomes after cancer. Our coded data can be used by academic researchers around the world. Registries like PROFILES, that go beyond boundaries of disciplines and institutions, will contribute to better predictions of who will experience changes and why. This is needed to prevent and mitigate long-term and late effects of cancer (treatment) and to identify new interventions to promote health.

Prognostic value of patient-reported quality of life for survival in oesophagogastric cancer: analysis from the population-based POCOP study

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence of trials demonstrates that patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at diagnosis is prognostic for overall survival (OS) in oesophagogastric cancer. However, real-world data are lacking. Moreover, differences in disease stages and tumour-specific symptoms are usually not taken into consideration. The aim of this population-based study was to assess the prognostic value of HRQoL, including tumour-specific scales, on OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer.

METHODS

Data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the patient reported outcome registry (POCOP). Patients included in POCOP between 2016 and 2018 were stratified for potentially curable (cT1-4aNallM0) or advanced (cT4b or cM1) disease. HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the tumour-specific OG25 module. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the impact of HRQoL, sociodemographic and clinical factors (including treatment) on OS.

RESULTS

In total, 924 patients were included. Median OS was 38.9 months in potentially curable patients (n = 795) and 10.6 months in patients with advanced disease (n = 129). Global Health Status was independently associated with OS in potentially curable patients (HR 0.89, 99%CI 0.82-0.97), together with several other HRQoL items: appetite loss, dysphagia, eating restrictions, odynophagia, and body image. In advanced disease, the Summary Score was the strongest independent prognostic factor (HR 0.75, 99%CI 0.59-0.94), followed by fatigue, pain, insomnia and role functioning.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, HRQoL was prognostic for OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. Several HRQoL domains, including the Summary Score and several OG25 items, could be used to develop or update prognostic models.

Postoperative Complications and Long-Term Quality of Life After Multimodality Treatment for Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP)

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy has major effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). Postoperative complications might contribute to a decreased HR-QOL. This population-based study aimed to investigate the difference in HR-QoL between patients with and without complications after esophagectomy for cancer.

METHODS

A prospective comparative cohort study was performed with data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP). All patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer after esophagectomy in the period 2015-2018 were enrolled. The study investigated HR-QoL at baseline, then 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively, comparing patients with and without complications as well as with and without anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

The 486 enrolled patients comprised 270 patients with complications and 216 patients without complications. Significantly more patients with complications had comorbidities (69.6% vs 57.3%; p = 0.001). No significant difference in HR-QoL was found over time between the patients with and without complications. In both groups, a significant decline in short-term HR-QoL was found in various HR-QoL domains, which were restored to the baseline level during the 12-month follow-up period. No significant difference was found in HR-QoL between the patients with and without anastomotic leakage. The patients with grades 2 and 3 anastomotic leakage reported significantly more "choking when swallowing" at 6 months (ß = 14.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 24.833 to - 4.202; p = 0.049), 9 months (ß = 22.4, 95% CI, - 34.259 to - 10.591; p = 0.007), and 24 months (ß = 24.6; 95% CI, - 39.494 to - 9.727; p = 0.007) than the patients with grade 1 or no anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSION

In general, postoperative complications were not associated with decreased short- or long-term HR-QoL for patients after esophagectomy for esophageal or GEJ cancer. The temporary decrease in HR-QoL likely is related to the nature of esophagectomy and reconstruction itself.

Impact of nationwide centralization of oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic surgery on travel distance and experienced burden in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the impact of nationwide centralization of surgery on travel distance and travel burden among patients with oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer according to age in the Netherlands. As centralization of care increases to improve postoperative outcomes, travel distance and experienced burden might increase.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery between 2006 and 2017 for oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer in the Netherlands were included. Travel distance between patient's home address and hospital of surgery in kilometres was calculated. Questionnaires were used to assess experienced travel burden in a subpopulation (n = 239). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors for longer travel distance.

RESULTS

Over 23,838 patients were included, in whom median travel distance for surgical care increased for oesophageal cancer (n = 9217) from 18 to 28 km, for gastric cancer (n = 6743) from 9 to 26 km, and for pancreatic cancer (n = 7878) from 18 to 25 km (all p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses showed an increase in travel distance for all cancer types over time. In general, patients experienced a physical and social burden, and higher financial costs, due to traveling extra kilometres. Patients aged >70 years travelled less often independently (56% versus 68%), as compared to patients aged ≤70 years.

CONCLUSION

With nationwide centralization, travel distance increased for patients undergoing oesophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer surgery. Younger patients travelled longer distances and experienced a lower travel burden, as compared to elderly patients. Nevertheless, on a global scale, travel distances in the Netherlands remain limited.

SOURCE-PANC: A Prediction Model for Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Based on Nationwide Population-Based Data

BACKGROUND

A prediction model for overall survival (OS) in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) including patient and treatment characteristics is currently not available, but it could be valuable for supporting clinicians in patient communication about expectations and prognosis. We aimed to develop a prediction model for OS in metastatic PDAC, called SOURCE-PANC, based on nationwide population-based data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on patients diagnosed with synchronous metastatic PDAC in 2015 through 2018 were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A multivariate Cox regression model was created to predict OS for various treatment strategies. Available patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were used to compose the model. Treatment strategies were categorized as systemic treatment (subdivided into FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, and gemcitabine monotherapy), biliary drainage, and best supportive care only. Validation was performed according to a temporal internal-external cross-validation scheme. The predictive quality was assessed with the C-index and calibration.

RESULTS

Data for 4,739 patients were included in the model. Sixteen predictors were included: age, sex, performance status, laboratory values (albumin, bilirubin, CA19-9, lactate dehydrogenase), clinical tumor and nodal stage, tumor sublocation, presence of distant lymph node metastases, liver or peritoneal metastases, number of metastatic sites, and treatment strategy. The model demonstrated a C-index of 0.72 in the internal-external cross-validation and showed good calibration, with the intercept and slope 95% confidence intervals including the ideal values of 0 and 1, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A population-based prediction model for OS was developed for patients with metastatic PDAC and showed good performance. The predictors that were included in the model comprised both baseline patient and tumor characteristics and type of treatment. SOURCE-PANC will be incorporated in an electronic decision support tool to support shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Prospective bladder cancer infrastructure for experimental and observational research on bladder cancer: study protocol for the 'trials within cohorts' study ProBCI

INTRODUCTION

A better understanding of the molecular profile of bladder tumours, the identification of novel therapeutic targets, and introduction of new drugs and has renewed research interest in the field of bladder cancer. We describe the design and setup of a Dutch Prospective Bladder Cancer Infrastructure (ProBCI) as a means to stimulate and accelerate clinically meaningful experimental and observational research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

ProBCI entails an open cohort of patients with bladder cancer in which the trials within cohorts (TwiCs) design can be embedded. Physicians in participating hospitals prospectively recruit invasive (≥T1) patients with bladder cancer on primary diagnosis for inclusion into the study. Extensive clinical data are collected and updated every 4 months, along with patient-reported outcomes and biomaterials. Informed consent includes participation in TwiCs studies and renewed contact for future studies. Consent for participation in questionnaires and molecular analyses that may yield incidental findings is optional.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Dutch ProBCI is a unique effort to construct a nation-wide cohort of patients with bladder cancer including clinical data, patient-reported outcomes and biomaterial, to facilitate observational and experimental research. Data and materials are available for other research groups on request through www.probci.nl. Ethics approval was obtained from METC Utrecht (reference: NL70207.041.19).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04503577.

Current status of probiotics for prevention and management of gastrointestinal cancers

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal cancers contribute to a significant number of cancer- associated mortality. The gastrointestinal tract harbors a multitude of microorganisms, known as the microbiota. Recently, the microbiota is considered to be an accessory organ resulting in several health benefits. The microbiota is involved in almost all aspects of an individual ranging from managing behavior to controlling metabolism, immune status and the response to a disease. Researchers are observing the modulation of microbiota in almost every disease, including cancer. Probiotics are microorganisms that can help to alter the host microbiota toward a healthy state thus providing benefits from many diseases including cancer.

AREAS COVERED

We explored the current status of the use of probiotics in cancer patients. Although probiotic bacteria can provide significant benefits to individuals suffering from cancer, the number of cancer-specific clinical products containing probiotics is not comparable to research studies showing their benefits. The lack of available products is due to several factors including a lack of risk assessment data of beneficial probiotics in cancer patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Laboratory investigations indicate a huge potential of probiotics for the prevention and management of gastrointestinal cancer, but more clinical studies are required to support their application in clinical settings.

Cachexia and Dietetic Interventions in Patients With Esophagogastric Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Cachexia is common in patients with esophagogastric cancer and is associated with increased mortality. Nutritional screening and dietetic interventions can be helpful in preventing evolvement of cachexia. Our aim was to study the real-world prevalence and prognostic value of pretreatment cachexia on overall survival (OS) using patient-reported weight loss, and to explore dietetic interventions in esophagogastric cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with esophagogastric cancer (2015-2018), regardless of disease stage, who participated in the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP) and completed patient-reported outcome measures were included. Data on weight loss and dietetic interventions were retrieved from questionnaires before start of treatment (baseline) and 3 months thereafter. Additional patient data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cachexia was defined as self-reported >5% half-year body weight loss at baseline or >2% in patients with a body mass index (BMI) <20 kg/m2 according to the Fearon criteria. The association between cachexia and OS was analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusted for sex, age, performance status, comorbidities, primary tumor location, disease stage, histology, and treatment strategy.

RESULTS

Of 406 included patients, 48% had pretreatment cachexia, of whom 65% were referred for dietetic consultation at baseline. The proportion of patients with cachexia was the highest among those who received palliative chemotherapy (59%) or best supportive care (67%). Cachexia was associated with decreased OS (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11-2.09). Median weight loss after 3-month follow-up was lower in patients with cachexia who were referred to a dietician at baseline compared with those who were not (0% vs 2%; P=.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of patients with esophagogastric cancer have pretreatment cachexia. Dietetic consultation at baseline was not reported in more than one-third of the patients with cachexia. Because cachexia was independently associated with decreased survival, improving nutritional screening and referral for dietetic consultation are warranted to prevent further deterioration of malnutrition and mortality.

Long-Term Quality of Life Following Transthoracic and Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The impact of transthoracic (TTE) and transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) on long-term health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients with distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer has been studied with variable results. This study investigates long-term HR-QoL in patients having undergone TTE or THE.

METHODS

Disease-free patients after TTE or THE for distal esophageal or GEJ cancer with a follow-up > 2 years were included. Patients who visited the outpatient clinic of a tertiary referral center between 2014 and 2018 were asked to complete EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. Uni- and multivariable linear regression analysis of HR-QoL was performed in all patients and in subgroups of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients after TTE and 56 after THE were included. When compared with the general population, all patients reported worse HR-QoL in 'role functioning' and 'social functioning' and in a range of disease- and/or treatment-specific symptoms. The only significant difference between TTE and THE was a better HR-QoL score for "hair loss" following TTE (ß = 29.4,95%CI = -49.108 - -9.671, p = 0.016). Subgroup analysis of minimally invasively operated patients showed better scores in "physical functioning" following TTE (ß = 13.8,95%CI = 2.755-24.933, p = 0.030). No significant differences in HR-QoL were found between TTE and THE after neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSION

Long-term HR-QoL is largely comparable in disease-free patients following TTE or THE for distal esophageal or GEJ cancer. If there were differences between the surgical groups, they were in favor of TTE. These findings may aid in preoperative counseling of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.

Long-Term Quality of Life After Total Gastrectomy Versus Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

There is scarce evidence on whether a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is preferred for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers regarding effects on morbidity, pathology, survival and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). The aim of this study was to investigate the difference in long-term HR-QoL in patients undergoing total gastrectomy versus Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Patients with a follow-up of >1 year after a total gastrectomy or an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for GEJ/cardia carcinoma completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 questionnaires. 'Problems with eating,' 'reflux,' and 'nausea and vomiting' were the primary HR-QoL endpoints. The secondary endpoints were the remaining HR-QoL domains, postoperative complications and pathology results.

RESULTS

Thirty patients after gastrectomy and 71 after esophagectomy were included. Mean age was 63 years. Median follow-up was 2 years (range 12-84 months). Patients after gastrectomy reported less 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' (β = - 5.952, 95% CI - 9.437 to - 2.466; β = - 13.084, 95% CI - 18.525 to - 7.643). More lymph nodes were resected in esophagectomy group (p = 0.008). No difference was found in number of positive lymph nodes, R0 resection or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

After a follow-up of >1 year 'choking when swallowing' and 'coughing' were less common after a total gastrectomy. No differences were found in postoperative complications or radicality of surgery. Based on this study, no general preference can be given to either of the procedures for GEJ cancer. These results support shared decision making when a choice between the two treatment options is possible.

Nationwide compliance with a multidisciplinary guideline on pancreatic cancer during 6-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Compliance with national guidelines on pancreatic cancer management could improve patient outcomes. Early compliance with the Dutch guideline was poor. The aim was to assess compliance with this guideline during six years after publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nationwide guideline compliance was investigated for three subsequent time periods (2012-2013 vs. 2014-2015 vs. 2016-2017) in patients with pancreatic cancer using five quality indicators in the Netherlands Cancer Registry: 1) discussion in multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT), 2) maximum 3-week interval from final MDT to start of treatment, 3) preoperative biliary drainage when bilirubin >250 μmol/L, 4) use of adjuvant chemotherapy, and 5) chemotherapy for inoperable disease (non-metastatic and metastatic).

RESULTS

In total, 14 491 patients were included of whom 2290 (15.8%) underwent resection and 4561 (31.5%) received chemotherapy. Most quality indicators did not change over time: overall, 88.8% of patients treated with curative intent were discussed in a MDT, 42.7% were treated with curative intent within the 3-week interval, 62.7% with a resectable head tumor and bilirubin >250 μmol/L underwent preoperative biliary drainage, 57.2% received chemotherapy after resection, and 36.6% with metastatic disease received chemotherapy. Only use of chemotherapy for non-metastatic, non-resected disease improved over time (23.4% vs. 25.6% vs. 29.7%).

CONCLUSION

Nationwide compliance to five quality indicators for the guideline on pancreatic cancer management showed little to no improvement during six years after publication. Besides critical review of the current quality indicators, these outcomes may suggest that a nationwide implementation program is required to increase compliance to guideline recommendations.

Cachexia, dietetic consultation, and survival in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer: A multicenter cohort study

It is unclear to what extent patients with pancreatic cancer have cachexia and had a dietetic consult for nutritional support. The aim was to assess the prevalence of cachexia, dietitian consultation, and overall survival in these patients. This prospective multicenter cohort study included patients with pancreatic cancer, who participated in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project and completed patient reported outcome measures (2015-2018). Additional data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Cachexia was defined as self-reported >5% body weight loss, or >2% in patients with a BMI <20 kg/m2 over the past half year. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze overall survival. In total, 202 patients were included from 18 centers. Cachexia was present in 144 patients (71%) and 81 of those patients (56%) had dietetic consultation. Cachexia was present in 63% of 94 patients who underwent surgery, 77% of 70 patients who received palliative chemotherapy and 82% of 38 patients who had best supportive care. Dietitian consultation was reported in 53%, 52%, and 71%, respectively. Median overall survival did not differ between patients with and without cachexia, but decreased in those with severe weight loss (12 months (IQR 7-20) vs. 16 months (IQR 8-31), p = 0.02), as compared to those with <10% weight loss during the past half year. Two-thirds of patients with pancreatic cancer present with cachexia of which nearly half had no dietetic consultation. Survival was comparable in patients with and without cachexia, but decreased in patients with more severe weight loss.

Prospective cohort study of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives on the experienced quality of care and life (eQuiPe study): a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Palliative care is becoming increasingly important because the number of patients with an incurable disease is growing and their survival is improving. Previous research tells us that early palliative care has the potential to improve quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced cancer and their relatives. According to limited research on palliative care in the Netherlands, patients with advanced cancer and their relatives find current palliative care suboptimal. The aim of the eQuiPe study is to understand the experienced quality of care (QoC) and QoL of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives to further improve palliative care.

METHODS

A prospective longitudinal observational cohort study is conducted among patients with advanced cancer and their relatives. Patients and relatives receive a questionnaire every 3 months regarding experienced QoC and QoL during the palliative trajectory. Bereaved relatives receive a final questionnaire 3 to 6 months after the patients' death. Data from questionnaires are linked with detailed clinical data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). By means of descriptive statistics we will examine the experienced QoC and QoL in our study population. Differences between subgroups and changes over time will be assessed while adjusting for confounding factors.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first to prospectively and longitudinally explore experienced QoC and QoL in patients with advanced cancer and their relatives simultaneously. This study will provide us with population-based information in patients with advanced cancer and their relatives including changes over time. Results from the study will inform us on how to further improve palliative care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial NL6408 ( NTR6584 ). Registered in Netherlands Trial Register on June 30, 2017.

Improving clinical management of colon cancer through CONNECTION, a nation-wide colon cancer registry and stratification effort (CONNECTION II trial): rationale and protocol of a single arm intervention study

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that around 15-30% of patients with early stage colon cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We are currently not capable of upfront selection of patients who benefit from chemotherapy, which indicates the need for additional predictive markers for response to chemotherapy. It has been shown that the consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs), defined by RNA-profiling, have prognostic and/or predictive value. Due to postoperative timing of chemotherapy in current guidelines, tumor response to chemotherapy per CMS is not known, which makes the differentiation between the prognostic and predictive value impossible. Therefore, we propose to assess the tumor response per CMS in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy setting. This will provide us with clear data on the predictive value for chemotherapy response of the CMSs.

METHODS

In this prospective, single arm, multicenter intervention study, 262 patients with resectable microsatellite stable cT3-4NxM0 colon cancer will be treated with two courses of neoadjuvant and two courses of adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin. The primary endpoint is the pathological tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy per CMS. Secondary endpoints are radiological tumor response, the prognostic value of these responses for recurrence free survival and overall survival and the differences in CMS classification of the same tumor before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study is scheduled to be performed in 8-10 Dutch hospitals. The first patient was included in February 2020.

DISCUSSION

Patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage colon cancer is far from optimal. The CMS classification is a promising new biomarker, but a solid chemotherapy response assessment per subtype is lacking. In this study we will investigate whether CMS classification can be of added value in clinical decision making by analyzing the predictive value for chemotherapy response. This study can provide the results necessary to proceed to future studies in which (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy may be withhold in patients with a specific CMS subtype, who show no benefit from chemotherapy and for whom possible new treatments can be investigated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL8177) at 11-26-2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8177 . The study has been approved by the medical ethics committee Utrecht (MEC18/712).

Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life Before and After Treatment of Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

This study sought to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) before and after treatment of pancreatic and periampullary cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicenter study of patients treated for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. General patient satisfaction was measured using the EORTC satisfaction with care questionnaire (IN-PATSAT32) at baseline and 3 months after treatment initiation, with a 10-point change on the Likert scale considered clinically meaningful. QoL was measured using the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). The influence of treatment (curative and palliative) on patient satisfaction and QoL was determined.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients, 71 completed follow-up questionnaires. General satisfaction with care decreased from 74.3 before treatment to 61.9 after treatment (P<.001), whereas global QoL increased from 68.4 to 71.4 (P=.39). Clinically meaningful reductions were also observed for the reported interpersonal skills of doctors (from 73.4 to 63.3) and exchange of information within the care team (from 63.5 to 52.5). Satisfaction scores were lower for patients treated with curative intent than for those treated with palliative intent regarding interpersonal skills of doctors (P=.01), information provision by doctors (P=.004), information provision by nurses (P=.02), availability of nurses (P=.004), exchange of information within the care team (P=.01), and hospital access (P=.02). In multivariable analysis, clinicopathologic or QoL factors were not independently associated with general patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction with care, but not QoL, decreased after pancreatic cancer treatment. Improvements in communication and interpersonal skills are needed to maintain patient satisfaction after treatment.

Textbook Outcome: Nationwide Analysis of a Novel Quality Measure in Pancreatic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome (TO) is a multidimensional measure for quality assurance, reflecting the "ideal" surgical outcome.

METHODS

Post-hoc analysis of patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) for all indications between 2014 and 2017, queried from the nationwide prospective Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. An international survey was conducted among 24 experts from 10 countries to reach consensus on the requirements for TO in pancreatic surgery. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify TO predictors. Between-hospital variation in TO rates was compared using observed-versus-expected rates.

RESULTS

Based on the survey (92% response rate), TO was defined by the absence of postoperative pancreatic fistula, bile leak, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (all ISGPS grade B/C), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III), readmission, and in-hospital mortality. Overall, 3341 patients were included (2633 (79%) PD and 708 (21%) DP) of whom 60.3% achieved TO; 58.3% for PD and 67.4% for DP. On multivariable analysis, ASA class 3 predicted a worse TO rate after PD (ASA 3 OR 0.59 [0.44-0.80]), whereas a dilated pancreatic duct (>3 mm) and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were associated with a better TO rate (OR 2.22 [2.05-3.57] and OR 1.36 [1.14-1.63], respectively). For DP, female sex and the absence of neoadjuvant therapy predicted better TO rates (OR 1.38 [1.01-1.90] and OR 2.53 [1.20-5.31], respectively). When comparing institutions, the observed-versus-expected rate for achieving TO varied from 0.71 to 1.46 per hospital after casemix-adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

TO is a novel quality measure in pancreatic surgery. TO varies considerably between pancreatic centers, demonstrating the potential benefit of quality assurance programs.

MSI as a predictive factor for treatment outcome of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

Gastroesophageal cancers are a major cause of death worldwide and treatment outcomes remain poor. Adequate predictive biomarkers have not been identified. Microsatellite instability (MSI) as a result of mismatch repair deficiency is present in four to twenty percent of gastroesophageal cancers and has been associated with favorable survival outcomes compared to microsatellite stable tumors. This prognostic advantage may be related to immunosurveillance, which may also explain the favorable response to immune checkpoint inhibition observed in MSI high (MSI-H) tumors. The value of conventional cytotoxic treatment in MSI-H tumors is unclear and results on its efficacy range from detrimental to beneficial effects. Here the recent data on MSI as a predictive factor for outcome of gastroesophageal cancer treatment is reviewed.

Impact of nationwide enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care (PACAP-1): a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life.

Methods/design

PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide.

Discussion

The PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018.

Practice variation on hospital level in the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in The Netherlands: a population-based study

Introduction: Population-based data on the implementation of guidelines for cancer patients in daily practice are scarce, while practice variation may influence patient outcomes. Therefore, we evaluated treatment patterns and associated variables in the systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the Netherlands.Material and methods: We selected a random sample of adult mCRC patients diagnosed from 2008 to 2015 from the National Cancer Registry in 20 (4 academic, 8 teaching and 8 regional) Dutch hospitals. We examined the influence of patient, demographic and tumour characteristics on the odds of being treated with systemic therapy according to the current guideline and assessed its association with survival.Results: Our study population consisted of 2222 mCRC patients of whom 1307 patients received systemic therapy for mCRC. Practice variation was most obvious in the use of bevacizumab and anti-EGFR therapy in patients with (K)RAS wild-type tumours. Administration rates did not differ between hospital types but fluctuated between individual hospitals for bevacizumab (8-92%; p < .0001) and anti-EGFR therapy (10-75%; p = .05). Bevacizumab administration was inversely correlated to higher age (OR:0.2; 95%CI: 0.1-0.3) comorbidity (OR:0.6; 95%CI: 0.5-0.8) and the presence of metachronous metastases (OR:0.5; 95%CI: 0.3-0.7), but patient characteristics did not differ between hospitals with low or high bevacizumab administration rates. The hazard ratios for exposure to bevacizumab and anti-EGFR therapy were 0.8 (95%CI: 0.7-0.9) and 0.6 (95%CI: 0.5-0.8), respectively.Discussion: We identified significant inter-hospital variation in targeted therapy administration for mCRC patients, which may affect outcome. Age and comorbidity were inversely correlated with non-administration of bevacizumab but did not explain inter-hospital practice variation. Our data suggest that practice variation is based on individual strategy of hospitals rather than guideline recommendations or patient-driven decisions. Individual hospital strategies are an additional factor that may explain the observed differences between real-life data and results obtained from clinical trials.

The risk of not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

The relation between type of postoperative complication and not receiving chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is unclear. The aim was to investigate which patient factors and postoperative complications were associated with not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection (2014-2017) for PDAC were identified from the nationwide mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. The association between patient-, tumor-, center-, treatment characteristics, and the risk of not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, of 1306 patients, 24% (n = 312) developed postoperative Clavien Dindo ≥3 complications. In-hospital mortality was 3.5% (n = 46). Some 433 patients (33%) did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Independent predictors (all p < 0.050) for not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were older age (odds ratio (OR) 0.96), higher ECOG performance status (OR 0.57), postoperative complications (OR 0.32), especially grade B/C pancreatic fistula (OR 0.51) and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (OR 0.36), poor tumor differentiation grade (OR 0.62), and annual center volume of <40 pancreatoduodenectomies (OR 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that a third of patients do not receive chemotherapy after resection of PDAC. Next to higher age, worse performance status and lower annual surgical volume, this is mostly related to surgical complications, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula and post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage.

Do esophageal cancer survivors work after esophagectomy and do health problems impact their work? A cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the occupational status and work impediments due to health problems in long-term esophageal cancer survivors.

METHODS

The Short-Form Health and Labour Questionnaire (SF-HLQ) was sent to esophageal cancer survivors. Primary outcomes included the number of working esophageal cancer survivors and the patient-reported impact of health problems on work, as evaluated by the SF-HLQ. Patient and treatment characteristics were compared between survivors who worked and survivors who did not work at the time of follow-up after esophagectomy.

RESULTS

The SF-HLQ was sent to 98 survivors and was completed by 86 of them. Of the 86 included survivors, 35 worked at the time of cancer diagnosis and 18 worked at a median follow-up of 48 months [range 23-87] after treatment. Survivors who worked at the time of follow-up were younger at the time of treatment when compared to survivors who had quit working after their cancer diagnosis (58.4 vs. 64.2 years, P = 0.006). Working survivors most commonly reported reduced work pace (44%), a self-imposed need to work in seclusion (33%), and concentration problems (28%) due to health problems at work. The majority of working survivors (93%) reported an efficiency score ≥ 8 on a scale from 1 (lowest efficiency) to 10 (highest efficiency).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly half of the esophageal cancer survivors who worked at the time of diagnosis also worked at a median follow-up of 48 months after esophagectomy. Despite health problems impacting work, most esophageal cancer survivors reported high efficiency at work.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Esophageal cancer survivors can often work with high efficiency, despite potential health problems.

COMplot, A Graphical Presentation of Complication Profiles and Adverse Effects for the Curative Treatment of Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: For the curative treatment of gastric cancer, several neoadjuvant, and adjuvant treatment-regimens are available which have shown to improve overall survival. No overview is available regarding toxicity and surgery related outcomes. Our aim was to construct a novel graphical method concerning adverse events (AEs) associated with multimodality treatment and perform a meta-analysis to compare different clinically relevant cytotoxic regimens with each other.

Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO databases were searched up to May 2019 for randomized controlled trials investigating curative treatment regimens for gastric cancer. To construct single and bidirectional bar-charts (COMplots), grade 1–2 and grade 3–5 AEs were extracted per cytotoxic regimen. For surgery-related outcomes a pre-specified set of complications was used. Thereafter, treatment-arms comparing the same regimens were combined in a single-arm random-effects meta-analysis and pooled-proportions were calculated with 95% confidence-intervals. Comparative meta-analyses were performed based on clinical relevance and compound similarity.

Results: In total 16 RCTs (n = 4,526 patients) were included investigating pre-operative-therapy and 39 RCTs investigating adjuvant-therapy (n = 13,732 patients). Pre-operative COMplots were created for among others; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin-oxaliplatin-docetaxel (FLOT), epirubicin-cisplatin-fluoropyrimidine (ECF), cisplatin-fluoropyrimidine (CF), and oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine (FOx). Pre-operative FLOT showed a minor increase in grade 1–2 and grade 3–4 AEs compared to pre-operative ECF, CF, and FOx. A pooled analysis of patients who had received pre-operative therapy compared to patients who underwent direct surgery did not reveal any significant difference in surgery related morbidity/mortality. When we compared three commonly used adjuvant regimens; S-1 had the lowest amount of grade 3–4 AEs compared to capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and 5-FU with radiotherapy (5-FU+RT).

Conclusion: COMplot provides a novel tool to visualize and compare treatment related AEs for gastric cancer. Based on our comparisons, pre-operative FLOT had a manageable toxicity profile compared to other pre-operative doublet or triplet regimens. We found no evidence indicating surgical outcomes might be hampered by pre-operative therapy. Adjuvant S-1 had a more favorable toxicity profile compared to CAPOX and 5-FU+RT.

Prognostic and Predictive Factors for the Curative Treatment of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

An overview of promising prognostic variables and predictive subgroups concerning the curative treatment of esophageal and gastric cancer from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO conferences were searched up to March 2019 for RCTs on the curative treatment of esophageal or gastric cancer with data on prognostic and/or predictive factors for overall survival. Prognostic factors were deemed potentially clinically relevant according to the following criteria; (1) statistically significant (p < 0.05) in a multivariate analysis, (2) reported in at least 250 patients, and (3) p < 0.05, in ≥ 33% of the total number of patients in RCTs reporting this factor. Predictive factors were potentially clinically-relevant if (1) the p-value for interaction between subgroups was <0.20 and (2) the hazard ratio in one of the subgroups was significant (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

For gastric cancer, 39 RCTs were identified (n = 13,530 patients) and, for esophageal cancer, 33 RCTs were identified (n = 8618 patients). In total, we identified 23 potentially clinically relevant prognostic factors for gastric cancer and 16 for esophageal cancer. There were 15 potentially clinically relevant predictive factors for gastric cancer and 10 for esophageal cancer.

CONCLUSION

The identified prognostic and predictive factors can be included and analyzed in future RCTs and be of guidance for nomograms. Further validation should be performed in large patient cohorts.

Variation in pancreatoduodenectomy as delivered in two national audits

Background

Nationwide audits facilitate quality and outcome assessment of pancreatoduodenectomy. Differences may exist between countries but studies comparing nationwide outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy based on audits are lacking. This study aimed to compare the German and Dutch audits for external data validation.

Methods

Anonymized data from patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2016 were extracted from the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery StuDoQ|Pancreas and Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit, and compared using descriptive statistics. Univariable and multivariable risk analyses were undertaken.

Results

Overall, 4495 patients were included, 2489 in Germany and 2006 in the Netherlands. Adenocarcinoma was a more frequent indication for pancreatoduodenectomy in the Netherlands. German patients had worse ASA fitness grades, but Dutch patients had more pulmonary co-morbidity. Dutch patients underwent more minimally invasive surgery and venous resections, but fewer multivisceral resections. No difference was found in rates of grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, grade C postpancreatectomy haemorrhage and in-hospital mortality. There was more centralization in the Netherlands (1·3 versus 13·3 per cent of pancreatoduodenectomies in very low-volume centres; P &lt; 0·001). In multivariable analysis, both hospital stay (difference 2·49 (95 per cent c.i. 1·18 to 3·80) days) and risk of reoperation (odds ratio (OR) 1·55, 95 per cent c.i. 1·22 to 1·97) were higher in the German audit, whereas risk of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0·57, 0·37 to 0·88) and readmission (OR 0·38, 0·30 to 0·49) were lower. Several baseline and surgical characteristics, including hospital volume, but not country, predicted mortality.

Conclusion

This comparison of the German and Dutch audits showed variation in case mix, surgical technique and centralization for pancreatoduodenectomy, but no difference in mortality and pancreas-specific complications.

The role of definitive chemoradiation in patients with non-metastatic oesophageal cancer

Definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) is a curative treatment option for patients with oesophageal cancer. It is effective in both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. However, locoregional control is less after dCRT compared to preoperative CRT (pCRT) followed by surgery. Also, overall survival is lower compared to pCRT followed by surgery, which can only partly be explained by a negative selection of patients. The optimal dose of radiotherapy remains to be determined, but dose escalation above 50.4Gy might be beneficial. Cisplatinum/5-FU is the most applied concurrent chemotherapy, but carboplatin/paclitaxel seems equally effective with less toxicity. The addition of 5-FU to a taxane and platinum seems promising. Accelerated fractionation and addition of cetuximab did not improve results. dCRT is a successful treatment for regional lymph node recurrences, but less so for recurrences at the anastomotic site. Re-irradiation after prior curative radiotherapy yields poor results. dCRT can be safely used in carefully selected elderly.