B. P. L. Wijnhoven

Comparison of 30-day, 90-day and in-hospital postoperative mortality for eight different cancer types†

Various definitions are used to calculate postoperative mortality. As variation hampers comparability between reports, a study was performed to evaluate the impact of using different definitions for several types of cancer surgery.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery versus surgery alone for patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (CROSS)

BackgroundA surgical resection is currently the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer if the tumor is considered to be resectable without evidence of distant metastases (cT1-3 N0-1 M0). A high percentage of irradical resections is reported in studies using neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone and in trials in which patients are treated with surgery alone. Improvement of locoregional control by using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy might therefore improve the prognosis in these patients. We previously reported that after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with weekly administrations of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel combined with concurrent radiotherapy nearly always a complete R0-resection could be performed. The concept that this neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimen improves overall survival has, however, to be proven in a randomized phase III trial.Methods/designThe CROSS trial is a multicenter, randomized phase III, clinical trial. The study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer, with inclusion of 175 patients per arm.The objectives of the CROSS trial are to compare median survival rates and quality of life (before, during and after treatment), pathological responses, progression free survival, the number of R0 resections, treatment toxicity and costs between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone for surgically resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma. Over a 5 week period concurrent chemoradiotherapy will be applied on an outpatient basis. Paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) and Carboplatin (Area-Under-Curve = 2) are administered by i.v. infusion on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29. External beam radiation with a total dose of 41.4 Gy is given in 23 fractions of 1.8 Gy, 5 fractions a week. After completion of the protocol, patients will be followed up every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the second year, and then at the end of each year until 5 years after treatment. Quality of life questionnaires will be filled out during the first year of follow-up.DiscussionThis study will contribute to the evidence on any benefits of neoadjuvant treatment in esophageal cancer patients using a promising chemoradiotherapy regimen.Trial registrationISRCTN80832026

Lymph node retrieval during esophagectomy with and without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: prognostic and therapeutic impact on survival.

Objectives:We aimed to examine the association between total number of resected nodes and survival in patients after esophagectomy with and without nCRT. Background:Most studies concerning the potentially positive effect of extended lymphadenectomy on survival have been performed in patients who underwent surgery alone. As nCRT is known to frequently “sterilize” regional nodes, it is unclear whether extended lymphadenectomy after nCRT is still useful. Methods:Patients from the randomized CROSS-trial who completed the entire protocol (ie, surgery alone or chemoradiotherapy + surgery) were included. With Cox regression models, we compared the impact of number of resected nodes as well as resected positive nodes on survival in both groups. Results:One hundred sixty-one patients underwent surgery alone, and 159 patients received multimodality treatment. The median (interquartile range) number of resected nodes was 18 (12–27) and 14 (9–21), with 2 (1–6) and 0 (0–1) resected positive nodes, respectively. Persistent lymph node positivity after nCRT had a greater negative prognostic impact on survival as compared with lymph node positivity after surgery alone. The total number of resected nodes was significantly associated with survival for patients in the surgery-alone arm (hazard ratio per 10 additionally resected nodes, 0.76; P = 0.007), but not in the multimodality arm (hazard ratio 1.00; P = 0.98). Conclusions:The number of resected nodes had a prognostic impact on survival in patients after surgery alone, but its therapeutic value is still controversial. After nCRT, the number of resected nodes was not associated with survival. These data question the indication for maximization of lymphadenectomy after nCRT.

Recurrence pattern in patients with a pathologically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal cancer

Little is known about recurrence patterns in patients with a pathologically complete response (pCR) or an incomplete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by resection for oesophageal cancer. This study was performed to determine the pattern of recurrence in patients with a pCR after neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery.

Surgical management of submucosal esophageal cancer: extended or regional lymphadenectomy?

Introduction:Radical esophagectomy is considered the standard therapy for tumors that infiltrate the submucosa of the esophagus (T1b), as the prevalence of lymph node metastases has been reported in up to 40% of these patients. It remains unclear whether radical esophagectomy with extended lymphadenectomy is needed or whether a surgical procedure with only regional lymphadenectomy suffices. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent esophagectomy for T1b cancer through a transthoracic approach with extended lymphadenectomy (TTE) with those of patients in whom transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) was performed with a regional lymph node dissection. Methods:Patients who underwent esophagectomy for T1b cancer between 1990 and 2004 and who did not receive (neo)adjuvant therapy were included. Data were collected from prospective databases of 4 centers. In Leuven, Belgium (n = 101), and Los Angeles, CA (n = 31), patients with T1b tumors had been operated on via TTE with extended lymphadenectomy, whereas in Amsterdam (n = 43) and Rotterdam (n = 47), the Netherlands, THE with regional lymphadenectomy had been performed. Results:The 2 patient groups (TTE, n = 132; THE, n = 90) were comparable with regard to age, body mass index, and ASA classification. Operative time was longer in patients who underwent TTE (390 minutes) versus THE (250 minutes) (P < 0.001). The yield of lymph nodes resected was higher in the TTE group (median: 32) versus THE (median: 10) (P < 0.001). Overall morbidity, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay were comparable between both the groups. In the TTE group, 27.3% of complications were classified as major versus 14.4% in the THE group (P < 0.001); however, the reoperation rate was higher after THE (12.2%) versus TTE (3.8%) (P = 0.01). There was no difference in pathological outcomes (infiltration depth, pN stage, pM stage, positive lymph node ratio) between both groups. Overall, 5-year survival (63.4% TTE vs 69.4% THE; P = 0.55) and disease-free 5-year survival (76.9% TTE vs 78.3% THE; P = 0.65) were comparable between both the groups. In patients with N1 disease, disease-free 5-year survival was 49.8% in the TTE group versus 40.0% in the THE group (P = 0.57). Conclusions:In patients with submucosal esophageal cancer (T1b), TTE with extended lymphadenectomy and THE with regional lymphadenectomy had similar short-term outcome and long-term survival. In the selected group of T1bN1 patients, TTE may be the preferred operative technique because of a potential disease-free survival benefit; in patients with T1bN0 disease, THE with en bloc dissection of the esophagus and regional lymph nodes offers an oncologically safe and less invasive treatment.

Early outcomes from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

In 2011, the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) group began nationwide registration of all patients undergoing surgery with the intention of resection for oesophageal or gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to describe the initiation and implementation of this process along with an overview of the results.

Cancer stem cells and their potential implications for the treatment of solid tumors

There is increasing evidence that a variety of human cancers is maintained by a subset of cells, cancer stem cells (CSCs), which sustain tumor growth, underlie its malignant behavior, and possibly initiate distant metastases. The aim of this review is to evaluate the current evidence for the existence of CSCs and the implications on the present management and treatment of solid tumors.

Worldwide esophageal cancer collaboration: clinical staging data

To address uncertainty of whether clinical stage groupings (cTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for clinically staged patients from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 22,123 clinically staged patients, 8,156 had squamous cell carcinoma, 13,814 adenocarcinoma, 116 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 37 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (18.5-25 mg/kg2 , 47%), little weight loss (2.4 ± 7.8 kg), 0-1 ECOG performance status (67%), and history of smoking (67%). Cancers were cT1 (12%), cT2 (22%), cT3 (56%), cN0 (44%), cM0 (95%), and cG2-G3 (89%); most involved the distal esophagus (73%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for squamous cell carcinoma was not distinctive for early cT or cN; for adenocarcinoma, it was distinctive for early versus advanced cT and for cN0 versus cN+. Patients with early cancers had worse survival and those with advanced cancers better survival than expected from equivalent pathologic categories based on prior WECC pathologic data. Thus, clinical and pathologic categories do not share prognostic implications. This makes clinically based treatment decisions difficult and pre-treatment prognostication inaccurate. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient characteristics, cancer categories, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data

We report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for patients with pathologically staged cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction after resection or ablation with no preoperative therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted de-identified data using standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 13,300 patients, 5,631 had squamous cell carcinoma, 7,558 adenocarcinoma, 85 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 26 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (51%), little weight loss (1.8 kg), 0-2 ECOG performance status (83%), and a history of smoking (70%). Cancers were pT1 (24%), pT2 (15%), pT3 (50%), pN0 (52%), pM0 (93%), and pG2-G3 (78%); most involved distal esophagus (71%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma was monotonic and distinctive across pTNM. Survival was more distinctive for adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma when pT was ordered by pN. Survival for pTis-1 adenocarcinoma was better than for squamous cell carcinoma, although monotonic and distinctive for both. WECC pathologic staging data is improved over that of the 7th edition, with more patients studied and patient and cancer variables collected. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics, and should direct 9th edition data collection. However, the role of pure pathologic staging as the principal point of reference for esophageal cancer staging is waning.

Hospital of diagnosis and probability to receive a curative treatment for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND Surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer in the Netherland is performed in high volume centres. However, the decision to refer patients for curative surgery is made in the referring hospital of diagnosis. The objective of this study was to determine the influence of hospital of diagnosis on the probability of receiving a curative treatment and survival. MATERIAL AND METHOD All patients with resectable oesophageal cancer (cT1-3, cN0-3, cM0-1A) diagnosed between 2003 and 2010 (n = 849) were selected from the population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry, an area with ten non-academic hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the independent influence of hospital of diagnosis on the probability to receive curative treatment. Furthermore, the effect of hospital of diagnosis on overall survival was examined using multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS 849 patients were included in the study. A difference in proportion of patients referred for surgery was observed ranging from 33% to 67% (p = 0.002) between hospitals of diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed the effect of hospital of diagnosis on the chance of undergo curative treatment (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.1-0.4). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that hospital of diagnosis also had an effect on overall survival, up to hazard ratio (HR) 2.2 (95% CI 1.3-3.7). CONCLUSION There is a strong relation between hospital of diagnosis and the chance of referring patients with oesophageal cancer for a curative treatment as well as overall survival. Patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer should be discussed within a regional multidisciplinary expert panel.