Recent Advances in the Systemic Treatment of Localized Gastroesophageal Cancer

The overall survival expectancy of localized gastroesophageal cancer patients still remains under 5 years despite advances in neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategies in recent years. For almost a decade, immunotherapy has been successfully implemented as a first-line treatment for various oncological diseases in advanced stages. In the case of advanced gastroesophageal cancer, 2021 witnessed several approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies by different authorities. Although it is still a debate whether this treatment should be restricted to a certain subgroup of patients based on biomarker selection, immunotherapy agents are making remarkable steps in resectable settings as well. The Checkmate-577 study demonstrated significant benefits of nivolumab as an adjuvant treatment for resectable esophageal and gastroesophageal junction tumors and thereby obtained approvals both from U.S. American and European authorities. First results of further potential practice-changing clinical trials are expected in 2023, which might change the treatment armamentarium for resectable gastroesophageal cancers significantly. This review aims to demonstrate the advances of immunotherapy and targeted therapies in treatment of localized gastric, gastroesophageal junction and esophageal tumors and gives a short summary on promising ongoing clinical trials.

How we treat esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) poses a major challenge for clinicians as the prognosis is poor and treatment options are limited. However, recent advances in immunotherapy have significantly changed the treatment algorithm of ESCC. Patients with early ESCC should undergo an endoscopic resection. If histological margins are infiltrated with tumor cells or other risk factors for lymph node metastasis are present, further resective surgery should be offered. In a locally advanced setting, radiochemotherapy with or without resection remains the standard of care. In the absence of pathological complete response after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and R0 resection, adjuvant immunotherapy for 1 year should be administered to improve disease-free survival. In metastatic first-line setting, combination of platin/fluoropyrimidine-based systemic chemotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is the novel standard of care for all-comers in the United States and for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 positivity in Europe. Immunotherapy has also been approved in a second-line setting. However, the benefit from immunotherapy reinduction is still unknown and, therefore, standard second-line chemotherapy with taxanes or irinotecan is still the treatment of choice after progression on immunochemotherapy. It is of highest importance that treatment decisions are based on informed patient wishes and are discussed in an interdisciplinary tumor board. This review summarizes how to manage, in our opinion, patients with ESCC and gives a practical overview of the treatment strategies in Europe.

Development of an alarm symptom-based risk prediction score for localized oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (VIOLA score)

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is a major contributor to global disease burden with poor prognosis even in resectable, regionally limited stages. Feasible prognostic tools are crucial to improve patient management, yet scarce.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Disease-related symptoms, patient, tumour, treatment as well as laboratory parameters at initial diagnosis and overall survival (OS) of patients with stage II and III gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, who were treated between 1990 and 2020 at the Medical University of Vienna, were evaluated in a cross-validation model to develop a feasible risk prediction score.

RESULTS

In total, 628 patients were included in this single-centre analysis. The final score ranked from 0 to 10 and included the factors sex (female +1), age, years (30-59 +1, >60 +2), underweight classified by body mass index (+2), location of the tumour (stomach +1), stage (III +2), stenosis in endoscopy (+1) and weight loss (+1). The score was grouped into low- (0-3), medium- (4-6) and high-risk (7+) subgroups. The median OS were 70.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 51.2-111.8], 23.4 (95% CI 21.2-26.7) and 12.6 (7.0-16.1) months, respectively. The 1-year survival probabilities were 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93), 0.75 (95% CI 0.70-0.79) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.39-0.74), whereas the 5-year survival probabilities were 0.57 (95% CI 0.49-0.66), 0.24 (95% CI 0.20-0.28) and 0.09 (95% CI 0.03-0.28), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The VIennese risk prediction score for Oesophagogastric Localized Adenocarcinoma (VIOLA) risk prediction score poses a feasible tool for the estimation of OS in patients with regionally limited gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and, thus, may improve patient management in clinical routine. Prospective analyses should be carried out to confirm our findings.

Innovative strategies in metastatic gastric cancer: a short review

Recent innovative advances, especially concerning immunotherapeutic agents and targeted therapies, have changed the face of modern oncology. The year 2020 represents a milestone in the treatment of gastroesophageal cancer because several trials showed promising survival benefits, at least for a specific subgroup of patients. Not only immunotherapeutic agents, but also targeted therapies seem to be beneficial, particularly when the target is well defined and the threshold value is selected appropriately. Thus, many new innovative treatment strategies are underway and might lead to a further paradigm change in the therapy of patients with advanced gastric tumors. This review gives a concise overview of these new therapeutic options and recently approved strategies as well as ongoing studies.

Immunotherapy for Gastroesophageal Tumors: Is There Still Hope for Efficacy?

Abstract:

Immunotherapy represents one of the biggest break-throughs of the 21st century and redefined modern cancer treatment. Despite this new approach changed the treatment paradigm in various cancer entities including lung and head-and-neck cancer, the efficacy of these treatment regimens varies in different patient subgroups and so far, failed to meet these high expectations in gastroesophageal cancer patients. This review discusses new treatment approaches concerning immunotherapy in gastroesophageal cancer patients and sheds some light on ongoing trials and new treatment combinations.

Immunotherapy for Esophageal Cancers: What Is Practice Changing in 2021?

The prognosis of advanced esophageal cancer is dismal, and treatment options are limited. Since the first promising data on second-line treatment with checkpoint inhibitors in esophageal cancer patients were published, immunotherapy was surmised to change the face of modern cancer treatment. Recently, several studies have found this to be true, as the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab have achieved revolutionary response rates in advanced as well as resectable settings in esophageal cancer patients. Although the current results of large clinical trials promise high efficacy with tolerable toxicity, desirable survival rates, and sustained quality of life, some concerns remain. This review aims to summarize the novel clinical data on immunotherapeutic agents for esophageal cancer and provide a critical view of potential restrictions for the implementation of these therapies for unselected patient populations.

Systemic and local inflammation characteristics in patients with cancer after lung transplantation

e14527

Background: Immune suppressive treatment is associated with an increased cancer risk due to its negative impact on immunosurveillance. We analyzed the association of immune suppressive treatment with the inflammatory tumor microenvironment and systemic inflammation parameters in patients with solid cancers after lung transplantation. Methods: Systemic inflammation was measured by neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), leucocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (LLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) and CRP/albumin ratio (CRP/Alb) and analyzed at time of lung transplantation and time of tumor diagnosis. In tumor samples, the expression of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) including CD3, CD8, CD45RO and PD-L1 using the Ventana Benchmark Ultra system for immunohistochemistry were investigated. Automated tissue analyses were performed for CD3, CD8 and CD45RO TIL (Definiens software). PD-L1 expression was determined by using the combined positive score (CPS). Results: 28 patients with cancer (10 lung cancer, 4 colorectal cancer, 2 renal cell carcinoma, 2 gastric cancer, 2 pancreatic cancer, 2 head&neck tumor, and others) were included in the study. Median time from transplantation to cancer diagnosis was 45 months (range 29-61). 57% (16/28) experienced a period of transplant rejection between transplantation and tumor diagnosis. Therefore, 25% (7/28) of the patients received intensified immunosuppression up to 8 weeks before tumor diagnosis. Median density of CD3+TIL was 5742 cells/ mm2 (range 3,203-8,429), median density of CD8+TIL was 6,363 cells/ mm2 (range 3,643-8,190), median density of CD45RO TIL was 72 cells/ mm2 (range 4-635) and median expression of PD-L1 was 60 (range 5-100) in tumor samples. No statistically significant changes in systemic inflammation were observed from time of transplantation to time of tumor diagnosis (p>0.05; Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test). Furthermore, a history of transplant rejection before tumor diagnosis was not statistically significant associated with changes in TIL densities or systemic inflammation parameters (p>0.05; Mann Whitney U test). Conclusions: An activated local inflammatory tumor microenvironment as well as stable systemic inflammation characteristics were observed in our cohort. These results support the further development of immunotherapy as treatment approach also in cancer patients under immunosuppression after lung transplantation.[Table: see text]

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in oncology healthcare professionals and patients with cancer at a tertiary care centre during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

During the COVID-19 outbreak, healthcare professionals (HCP) are at the frontline of clinical management and at increased risk for infection. The SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of oncological HCP and their patients has significant implications for oncological care.

Methods

HCP and patients with cancer at the Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna were included between 21 March and 4 June and tested for total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 employing the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Reactive samples were confirmed or disproved by the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG test. Additionally, a structured questionnaire regarding basic demographic parameters, travel history and COVID-19-associated symptoms had to be completed by HCP.

Results

146 subjects (62 HCP and 84 patients with cancer) were enrolled. In the oncological HCP cohort, 20 (32.3%) subjects were medical oncologists, 28 (45.2%) nurses at our ward and 14 (22.6%) fulfil other functions such as study coordinators. In the patient cohort, most individuals are on active anticancer treatment (96.4%). 26% of the HCP and 6% of the patients had symptoms potentially associated with COVID-19 since the end of February 2020. However, only in 2 (3.2%) HCP and in 3 (3.6%) patients, anti-SARS-Cov-2 total antibodies were detected. The second assay for anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG antibodies confirmed the positive result in all HCP and in 2 (2.4%) patients, suggesting an initial assay’s unspecific reaction in one case. In individuals with a confirmed test result, an active COVID-19 infection was documented by a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR test.

Conclusion

Specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were found solely in persons after a documented SARS-CoV-2 viral infection, thus supporting the test methods’ high sensitivity and specificity. The low prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in our cohorts indicates a lack of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. It highlights the need for continued strict safety measures to prevent uncontrolled viral spread among oncological HCPs and patients with cancer.

Clinical characteristics and comparison of the outcome in young versus older patients with upper gastrointestinal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The clinical behaviour and outcome of young patients with gastroesophageal tumours (GET) is surmised to differ from older patients, yet data on the comparison of these two patient subgroups is scarce. This study focuses on the investigation of the clinical characteristics and survival outcome of younger-age people with GET, when compared to older patients.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with GET at the Medical University of Vienna between 2004 and 2016 were included in this study. Clinical parameters and the overall survival (OS) were compared between young (≤ 45 years) and elderly (≥ 65 years) patients.

RESULTS

Among 796 patients, who were eligible for this analysis, fifty-eight patients (7%) were ≤ 45 years at the initial onset of the disease. These 58 young patients were then matched to elderly patients based on the gender, tumour stage, histology and tumour location. The number of metastatic lesions was significantly higher among young patients (p < 0.05). In a non-metastatic setting younger patients showed a significant longer OS than older patients (median 1226 versus 801 days, p = 0.028). Furthermore, young patients with extensive metastatic disease (2 or more metastatic site) had a significantly poorer OS than elderly patients (median 450 versus 646 days, p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that young patients might be diagnosed very late, which might lead to the development of a more aggressive disease compared to older patients, but a relatively long OS when diagnosed and treated in a non-metastatic setting. Thus, screening methods for younger patients might be considerable to enhance the outcome of young patients with GET.

Viennese risk prediction score for Advanced Gastroesophageal carcinoma based on Alarm Symptoms (VAGAS score): characterisation of alarm symptoms in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer and its correlation with outcome

INTRODUCTION

The prognostic value of symptoms at disease presentation of advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer is unknown. Thus, the aim of this study was to characterise these symptoms and correlate them with the outcome, so new prognostic markers can be defined.

METHODS

We analysed clinical data including symptoms, therapies and survival of patients with stage IV gastro-oesophageal cancer treated between 2002 and 2018 at the Vienna General Hospital, Austria. Initial symptoms as well as stenosis in endoscopy and HER2 positivity were evaluated in a cross-validation model to ascertain the impact of each variable on patient survival.

RESULTS

In total, 258 patients were evaluated. Five factors (stenosis in endoscopy, weight loss, HER2 positivity, dyspepsia, ulcer or active bleeding) have proven to be statistically relevant prognostic factors and were given a count of +1 and -1, if applicable. The resulting score ranges between -3 and +2. The survival probability for 180 days with a score of -3/-2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 is 90%, 80%, 73%, 72% and 42%, whereas for 2 years, it is 30%, 30%, 8%, 7% and 3%, respectively. The median overall survival of a score of -3/-2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 was 579 (95% CI 274 to not measurable), 481 (95% CI 358 to 637), 297 (95% CI 240 to 346), 284 (95% CI 205 to 371), 146 (95% CI 120 to 229) days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The data from this retrospective study indicate that the Viennese risk prediction score for Advanced Gastroesophageal carcinoma based on Alarm Symptoms score provides independent prognostic information that may support clinical decision making at diagnosis of advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer. Our findings should be evaluated in prospective studies.

New Treatment Options for Advanced Gastroesophageal Tumours: Mature for the Current Practice?

Several clinical trials attempted to identify novel treatment options for advanced gastroesophageal tumours in first, second and further lines. Although results of targeted therapy regimens were mainly disappointing, novel immunotherapy agents showed promising activity, which led to their approval in second and third lines in many countries. This review focuses on the results of recent clinical trials investigating novel agents including targeted therapies, immunotherapy components and chemotherapies and discuss their current impact as well as current approval status on the treatment armamentarium of advanced gastroesophageal tumours.

New emerging targets in cancer immunotherapy: the role of LAG3

The success of immunotherapy in many disease entities is limited to a specific subpopulation of patients. To overcome this problem, dual blockade treatments mainly against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4) and programmed cell death receptor (ligand) 1 (PD-(L)1) axis were developed. However, due to high toxicity rates and treatment resistance, alternative pathways and novel strategies were desperately needed. Lymphocyte-associated gene 3 (LAG3) represents an inhibitory receptor, which is mainly found on activated immune cells and involved in the exhaustion of T cells in malignant diseases. Its co-expression with other inhibitory receptors, particularly with PD-1 leads to an extensive research on the blockade of LAG3 and PD-1 in preclinical settings. Interestingly, several in-vivo approaches demonstrated a highly significant clinical benefit under dual blockade, whereas the efficacy was very low in case of single agent targeting. Moreover, human tumour tissues showed co-expression of LAG3 and PD-1 in infiltrated lymphocytes, which again generated a rationale for blocking these both molecules in clinical settings. The ongoing clinical studies mainly use dual blockage of LAG3/PD-1, which demonstrated promising survival benefits and long duration of response rates. The following review focuses on the biological background and rationale of combining LAG3 with other agents and serves as an update on the state of clinical research on LAG3 targeting.