B. Mark Smithers

Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Resectable oesophageal cancer is often treated with surgery alone or with preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy. We aimed to clarify the benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy versus surgery alone by a meta-analysis of randomised trial data. METHODS Eligible trials were identified first from earlier published meta-analyses and systematic reviews. We also used MEDLINE, Cancerlit, and EMBASE databases to identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings since 1980. Only randomised studies with an analysis by an intention-to-treat principle were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios if available or estimates from other survival data or survival curves. Treatment effects by type of tumour and treatment sequencing were also investigated. FINDINGS Ten randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1209) and eight of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1724) in patients with local operable oesophageal carcinoma were identified. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.93; p=0.002), corresponding to a 13% absolute difference in survival at 2 years, with similar results for different histological tumour types: 0.84 (0.71-0.99; p=0.04) for squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC), and 0.75 (0.59-0.95; p=0.02) for adenocarcinoma. The hazard ratio for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.90 (0.81-1.00; p=0.05), which indicates a 2-year absolute survival benefit of 7%. There was no significant effect on all-cause mortality of chemotherapy for patients with SCC (hazard ratio 0.88 [0.75-1.03]; p=0.12), although there was a significant benefit for those with adenocarcinoma (0.78 [0.64-0.95]; p=0.014). INTERPRETATION A significant survival benefit was evident for preoperative chemoradiotherapy and, to a lesser extent, for chemotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. The findings provide an evidence-based framework for the use of neoadjuvant treatment in management decisions.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND In a previous meta-analysis, we identified a survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma. We updated this meta-analysis with results from new or updated randomised trials presented in the past 3 years. We also compared the benefits of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. METHODS To identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings, we searched Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane clinical trials database) for studies published since January, 2006, and also manually searched for abstracts from major conferences from the same period. Only randomised studies analysed by intention to treat were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data. We also investigated treatment effects by tumour histology and relations between risk (survival after surgery alone) and effect size. FINDINGS We included all 17 trials from the previous meta-analysis and seven further studies. 12 were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1854), nine were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1981), and two compared neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=194) in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma; one factorial trial included two comparisons and was included in analyses of both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=78) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=81). The updated analysis contained 4188 patients whereas the previous publication included 2933 patients. This updated meta-analysis contains about 3500 events compared with about 2230 in the previous meta-analysis (estimated 57% increase). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.88; p<0.0001); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.80 (0.68-0.93; p=0.004) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.75 (0.59-0.95; p=0.02). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.87 (0.79-0.96; p=0.005); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.92 (0.81-1.04; p=0.18) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.83 (0.71-0.95; p=0.01). The HR for the overall indirect comparison of all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.88 (0.76-1.01; p=0.07). INTERPRETATION This updated meta-analysis provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. A clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. These results should help inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials. FUNDING Cancer Australia and the NSW Cancer Institute.

Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for resectable cancer of the oesophagus: a randomised controlled phase III trial

BACKGROUND Resection remains the best treatment for carcinoma of the oesophagus in terms of local control, but local recurrence and distant metastasis remain an issue after surgery. We aimed to assess whether a short preoperative chemoradiotherapy regimen improves outcomes for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. METHODS 128 patients were randomly assigned to surgery alone and 128 patients to surgery after 80 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day 1, 800 mg/m(2) fluorouracil on days 1-4, with concurrent radiotherapy of 35 Gy given in 15 fractions. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, tumour response, toxic effects, patterns of failure, and quality of life. Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS Neither progression-free survival nor overall survival differed between groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82 [95% CI 0.61-1.10] and 0.89 [0.67-1.19], respectively). The chemoradiotherapy-and-surgery group had more complete resections with clear margins than did the surgery-alone group (103 of 128 [80%] vs 76 of 128 [59%], p=0.0002), and had fewer positive lymph nodes (44 of 103 [43%] vs 69 of 103 [67%], p=0.003). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with squamous-cell tumours had better progression-free survival with chemoradiotherapy than did those with non-squamous tumours (HR 0.47 [0.25-0.86] vs 1.02 [0.72-1.44]). However, the trial was underpowered to determine the real magnitude of benefit in this subgroup. INTERPRETATION Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin and fluorouracil does not significantly improve progression-free or overall survival for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer compared with surgery alone. However, further assessment is warranted of the role of chemoradiotherapy in patients with squamous-cell tumours.

Adjuvant radiotherapy versus observation alone for patients at risk of lymph-node field relapse after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for melanoma: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND The use of radiotherapy after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for patients with melanoma at high risk of further lymph-node field and distant recurrence is controversial. Decisions for radiotherapy in this setting are made on the basis of retrospective, non-randomised studies. We did this randomised trial to assess the effect of adjuvant radiotherapy on lymph-node field control in patients who had undergone therapeutic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma in regional lymph nodes. METHODS This randomised controlled trial included patients from 16 hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Brazil. To be eligible for this trial, patients had to be at high risk of lymph-node field relapse, judged on the basis of number of nodes involved, extranodal spread, and maximum size of involved nodes. After lymphadenectomy, randomisation was done centrally by computer and patients assigned by telephone in a ratio of 1:1 to receive adjuvant radiotherapy of 48 Gy in 20 fractions or observation, with institution, lymph-node field, number of involved nodes, maximum node diameter, and extent of extranodal spread as minimisation factors. Participants, those giving treatment, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was lymph-node field relapse (as a first relapse), analysed for all eligible patients. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00287196. The trial is now closed and follow-up discontinued. FINDINGS 123 patients were randomly allocated to the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 127 to the observation group between March 20, 2002, and Sept 21, 2007. Two patients withdrew consent and 31 had a major eligibility infringement as decided by the independent data monitoring committee, resulting in 217 eligible for the primary analysis (109 in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 108 in the observation group). Median follow-up was 40 months (IQR 27-55). Risk of lymph-node field relapse was significantly reduced in the adjuvant radiotherapy group compared with the observation group (20 relapses in the radiotherapy group vs 34 in the observation group, hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·32-0·98; p=0·041), but no differences were noted for relapse-free survival (70 vs 73 events, HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·65-1·26; p=0·56) or overall survival (59 vs 47 deaths, HR 1·37, 95% CI 0·94-2·01; p=0·12). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were seroma (nine in the radiotherapy group vs 11 in the observation group), radiation dermatitis (19 in the radiotherapy group), and wound infection (three in the radiotherapy group vs seven in the observation group). INTERPRETATION Adjuvant radiotherapy improves lymph-node field control in patients at high risk of lymph-node field relapse after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma. Adjuvant radiotherapy should be discussed with patients at high risk of relapse after lymphadenectomy. FUNDING National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Cancer Australia, Melanoma Institute Australia, Cancer Council of South Australia.

Is concurrent radiation therapy required in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus? A randomised phase II trial

INTRODUCTION Preoperative chemotherapy (CT) and preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for resectable oesophageal cancer have been shown to improve overall survival in meta-analyses. There are limited data comparing these preoperative therapies. We report the outcomes of a randomised phase II trial comparing preoperative CT and CRT for resectable adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction. METHODS Patients were randomised to receive preoperative CT with cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) and infusional 5 fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2)/d) on days 1 and 21, or preoperative CRT with the same drugs accompanied by concurrent radiation therapy commencing on day 21 of chemotherapy and the 5 fluorouracil reduced to 800 mg/m(2)/d. The radiation dose was 35 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks. The endpoints were toxicity, response rates, resection (R) status, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and quality of life. RESULTS Seventy-five patients were enrolled on the study: 36 received preoperative CT and 39 preoperative CRT. Toxicity was similar for CT and CRT. Eight patients (11%) did not proceed to resection. The histopathological response rate (CRT 31% versus CT 8%, p = 0.01) and R1 resection rate (CRT 0% versus CT 11%, p = 0.04) favoured those receiving CRT. The median PFS was 14 and 26 months for CT and CRT respectively (p = 0.37). The median OS was 29 months for CT compared with 32 months for CRT (p = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS Despite no difference in survival, the improvement from preoperative CRT with respect to margin involvement makes this treatment a reasonable option for bulky, locally advanced resectable adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus.

International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG)

INTRODUCTION Perioperative complications influence long- and short-term outcomes after esophagectomy. The absence of a standardized system for defining and recording complications and quality measures after esophageal resection has meant that there is wide variation in evaluating their impact on these outcomes. METHODS The Esophageal Complications Consensus Group comprised 21 high-volume esophageal surgeons from 14 countries, supported by all the major thoracic and upper gastrointestinal professional societies. Delphi surveys and group meetings were used to achieve a consensus on standardized methods for defining complications and quality measures that could be collected in institutional databases and national audits. RESULTS A standardized list of complications was created to provide a template for recording individual complications associated with esophagectomy. Where possible, these were linked to preexisting international definitions. A Delphi survey facilitated production of specific definitions for anastomotic leak, conduit necrosis, chyle leak, and recurrent nerve palsy. An additional Delphi survey documented consensus regarding critical quality parameters recommended for routine inclusion in databases. These quality parameters were documentation on mortality, comorbidities, completeness of data collection, blood transfusion, grading of complication severity, changes in level of care, discharge location, and readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS The proposed system for defining and recording perioperative complications associated with esophagectomy provides an infrastructure to standardize international data collection and facilitate future comparative studies and quality improvement projects.

Interactions among smoking, obesity, and symptoms of acid reflux in Barrett's esophagus

Background: Barretts esophagus, a metaplastic precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, is becoming increasingly prevalent in many populations. Clinical studies suggest acid reflux causes Barretts esophagus; however, no population-based estimates of risk have been reported, and the role of other health factors in modifying risk is unclear. Methods: We conducted a population-based case-control study in Brisbane, Australia. Cases were 167 patients with histologically confirmed Barretts esophagus diagnosed between February and December 2003. Age-matched and sex-matched controls (n = 261) were randomly selected from a population register. Data on exposure to self-reported symptoms of acid reflux, smoking, obesity, and other factors were collected through self-completed questionnaires followed by telephone interview. Risks of Barretts esophagus and Barretts esophagus with dysplasia associated with these exposures were estimated by the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), both crude and adjusted for other factors. Results: Self-reported weekly episodes of acid reflux were associated with greatly increased risks of Barretts esophagus (adjusted OR, 29.7; 95% CI, 12.2-72.6) and Barretts esophagus with dysplasia (OR, 59.7; 95% CI, 18.5-193). Smoking was also associated with risk of Barretts esophagus. We found evidence of interactions between symptoms of acid reflux and smoking and obesity. Obese people with self-reported symptoms of acid reflux had markedly higher risks of Barretts esophagus (OR, 34.4; 95% CI, 6.3-188) than people with reflux alone (OR, 9.3; 95% CI, 1.4-62.2) or obesity alone (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-2.4). Similarly, those reporting both acid reflux symptoms and smoking were at substantially higher risks of Barretts esophagus (OR, 51.4; 95% CI, 14.1-188) than those reporting acid reflux or smoking alone. Conclusions: Although history of symptoms of acid reflux is the principle factor associated with Barretts esophagus, risks are substantially increased by obesity and smoking.

Genomic catastrophes frequently arise in esophageal adenocarcinoma and drive tumorigenesis

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) incidence is rapidly increasing in Western countries. A better understanding of EAC underpins efforts to improve early detection and treatment outcomes. While large EAC exome sequencing efforts to date have found recurrent loss-of-function mutations, oncogenic driving events have been underrepresented. Here we use a combination of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and single-nucleotide polymorphism-array profiling to show that genomic catastrophes are frequent in EAC, with almost a third (32%, n = 40/123) undergoing chromothriptic events. WGS of 22 EAC cases show that catastrophes may lead to oncogene amplification through chromothripsis-derived double-minute chromosome formation (MYC and MDM2) or breakage-fusion-bridge (KRAS, MDM2 and RFC3). Telomere shortening is more prominent in EACs bearing localized complex rearrangements. Mutational signature analysis also confirms that extreme genomic instability in EAC can be driven by somatic BRCA2 mutations. These findings suggest that genomic catastrophes have a significant role in the malignant transformation of EAC.

Similarity of aberrant DNA methylation in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma

BackgroundBarretts esophagus (BE) is the metaplastic replacement of squamous with columnar epithelium in the esophagus, as a result of reflux. It is the major risk factor for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Methylation of CpG dinucleotides of normally unmethylated genes is associated with silencing of their expression, and is common in EAC. This study was designed to determine at what stage, in the progression from BE to EAC, methylation of key genes occurs.ResultsWe examined nine genes (APC, CDKN2A, ID4, MGMT, RBP1, RUNX3, SFRP1, TIMP3, and TMEFF2), frequently methylated in multiple cancer types, in a panel of squamous (19 biopsies from patients without BE or EAC, 16 from patients with BE, 21 from patients with EAC), BE (40 metaplastic, seven high grade dysplastic) and 37 EAC tissues. The methylation frequency, the percentage of samples that had any extent of methylation, for each of the nine genes in the EAC (95%, 59%, 76%, 57%, 70%, 73%, 95%, 74% and 83% respectively) was significantly higher than in any of the squamous groups. The methylation frequency for each of the nine genes in the metaplastic BE (95%, 28%, 78%, 48%, 58%, 48%, 93%, 88% and 75% respectively) was significantly higher than in the squamous samples except for CDKN2A and RBP1. The methylation frequency did not differ between BE and EAC samples, except for CDKN2A and RUNX3 which were significantly higher in EAC. The methylation extent was an estimate of both the number of methylated alleles and the density of methylation on these alleles. This was significantly greater in EAC than in metaplastic BE for all genes except APC, MGMT and TIMP3. There was no significant difference in methylation extent for any gene between high grade dysplastic BE and EAC.ConclusionWe found significant methylation in metaplastic BE, which for seven of the nine genes studied did not differ in frequency from that found in EAC. This is also the first report of gene silencing by methylation of ID4 in BE or EAC. This study suggests that metaplastic BE is a highly abnormal tissue, more similar to cancer tissue than to normal epithelium.

Adjuvant lymph-node field radiotherapy versus observation only in patients with melanoma at high risk of further lymph-node field relapse after lymphadenectomy (ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01) : 6-year follow-up of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Adjuvant radiotherapy is recommended for patients with melanoma after lymphadenectomy. We previously showed this treatment reduced risk of repeat lymph-node field cancer in patients with a high risk of recurrence but had no effect on overall survival. Here, we aim to update the relapse and survival data from that trial and assess quality of life and toxic effects. METHODS In the ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01 randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients who had undergone lymphadenectomy for a palpable lymph-node field relapse and were at high risk of recurrence at 16 hospitals (11 in Australia, three in New Zealand, one in Netherlands, and one in Brazil). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to adjuvant radiotherapy (48 Gy in 20 fractions, given over a maximum of 30 days) or observation, stratified by institution, areas of lymph-node field (parotid and cervical, axilla, or groin), number of involved nodes (≤3 vs >3), maximum involved node diameter (≤4 cm vs >4 cm), and extent of extracapsular extension (none, limited, or extensive). Participants, those giving treatment, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants were unaware of each others treatment allocation. In this follow-up, we assessed outcomes every 3 months from randomisation for the first 2 years, then every 6 months up to 5 years, then annually. The primary endpoint was lymph-node field relapse as a first relapse, assessed in patients without major eligibility infringements (determined by an independent data monitoring committee). We assessed late adverse effects (occurring >90 days after surgery or start of radiotherapy) with standard criteria in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00287196. FINDINGS Between March 21, 2003, and Nov 15, 2007, we randomly assigned 123 patients to adjuvant radiotherapy (109 eligible for efficacy assessments) and 127 to observation (108 eligible). The final follow-up date was Nov 15, 2011. Median follow-up was 73 months (IQR 61-91). 23 (21%) relapses occurred in the adjuvant radiotherapy group compared with 39 (36%) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [95% CI 0·31-0·88], p=0·023). Overall survival (HR 1·27 [95% CI 0·89-1·79], p=0·21) and relapse-free survival (0·89 [0·65-1·22], p=0·51) did not differ between groups. Minor, long-term toxic effects from radiotherapy (predominantly pain, and fibrosis of the skin or subcutaneous tissue) were common, and 20 (22%) of 90 patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy developed grade 3-4 toxic effects. 18 (20%) of 90 patients had grade 3 toxic effects, mainly affecting skin (nine [10%] patients) and subcutaneous tissue (six [7%] patients). Over 5 years, a significant increase in lower limb volumes was noted after adjuvant radiotherapy (mean volume ratio 15·0%) compared with observation (7·7%; difference 7·3% [95% CI 1·5-13·1], p=0·014). No significant differences in upper limb volume were noted between groups. INTERPRETATION Long-term follow-up supports our previous findings. Adjuvant radiotherapy could be useful for patients for whom lymph-node field control is a major issue, but entry to an adjuvant systemic therapy trial might be a preferable first option. Alternatively, observation, reserving surgery and radiotherapy for a further recurrence, might be an acceptable strategy. FUNDING National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Cancer Council Australia, Melanoma Institute Australia, and the Cancer Council South Australia.