W.O. de Steur

Quality control of lymph node dissection in the Dutch Gastric Cancer Trial

Current guidelines indicate that D2 resection is the standard of care for patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. To assess the impact of quality assurance of lymph node removal, non‐compliance and contamination in the D1 and D2 study arms of the Dutch Gastric Cancer Trial were investigated with respect to recurrence and survival.

Description and analysis of clinical pathways for oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, in 10 European countries (the EURECCA upper gastro intestinal group - European Registration of Cancer Care)

AIMS Outcomes for patients with oesophago-gastric cancer are variable across Europe. The reasons for this variability are not clear. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse clinical pathways to understand differences in service provision for oesophageal and gastric cancer in the countries participating in the EURECCA Upper GI group. METHODS A questionnaire was devised to assess clinical presentation, diagnosis, staging, treatment, pathology, follow-up and service frameworks across Europe for patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer. The questionnaire was issued to experts from 14 countries. The responses were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively and compared. RESULTS The response rate was (10/14) 71.4%. The approach to diagnosis was similar. Most countries established a diagnosis within 3 weeks of presentation. However, there were different approaches to staging with variable use of endoscopic ultrasound reflecting availability. There has been centralisation of treatments in most countries for oesophageal surgery. The most consistent area was the approach to pathology. There were variations in access to specialist nurse and dietitian support. Although most countries have multidisciplinary teams, their composition and frequency of meetings varied. The two main areas of significant difference were research and audit and overall service provision. Observations on service framework indicated that limited resources restricted many of the services. CONCLUSION The principle approaches to diagnosis, treatment and pathology were similar. Factors affecting the quality of patient experience were variable. This may reflect availability of resources. Standard pathways of care may enhance both the quality of treatment and patient experience.

Impact of upfront randomization for postoperative treatment on quality of surgery in the CRITICS gastric cancer trial

BackgroundPreoperative randomization for postoperative treatment might affect quality of surgery. In the CRITICS trial (ChemoRadiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach), patients were randomized before treatment to receive chemotherapy prior to a D1 + gastrectomy (removal of lymph node station (LNS) 1–9 + 11), followed by either chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this analysis, the influence of upfront randomization on the quality of surgery was evaluated.MethodsQuality of surgery was analyzed in both study arms using surgicopathological compliance (removal of ≥ 15 lymph nodes), surgical compliance (removal of the indicated LNS), and surgical contamination (removal of LNS that should be left in situ). Furthermore, the ‘Maruyama Index of Unresected disease’ (MI) was evaluated in both study arms, and validated with overall survival.ResultsBetween 2007 and 2015, 788 patients with gastric cancer were included in the CRITICS study of which 636 patients were operated with curative intent. No difference was observed between the CT and CRT group regarding surgicopathological compliance (74.8% vs 70.9%, P = 0.324), surgical compliance (43.2% vs 39.2%, P = 0.381), and surgical contamination (59.4% vs 59.9%, P = 0.567). Median MI was 1 in both groups (range CT 0–88 and CRT 0–136, P = 0.700). A MI below 5 was associated with better overall survival (CT: P = 0.009 and CRT: P = 0.013).ConclusionSurgical quality parameters were similar in both study arms in the CRITICS gastric cancer trial, indicating that upfront randomization for postoperative treatment had no impact on the quality of surgery. A Maruyama Index below five was associated with better overall survival.

Management of resectable esophageal and gastric (mixed adeno)neuroendocrine carcinoma: A nationwide cohort study.

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study is to provide insight in accuracy of diagnosing, current treatment and survival in patients with resectable esophageal and gastric neuroendocrine- and mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC, MANEC). METHODS All patients with esophageal or gastric (MA)NEC, who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2016, were identified from the Dutch national registry for histo- and cytopathology (PALGA). Patients with a neuroendocrine tumor lower than grade 3 were excluded. Data on patients, treatment and outcomes were retrieved from the patient records. Diagnosis by endoscopic biopsy was compared with diagnosis by resection specimen. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was performed. RESULTS A total of 49 patients were identified in 25 hospitals, including 21 patients with esophageal (MA)NEC and 26 patients with gastric (MA)NEC on resection specimen. Biopsy diagnosis of (MA)NEC was correct in 23/27 patients. However, 20/47 patients with definitive diagnosis of (MA)NEC, were misdiagnosed on biopsy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 13 (62%) esophageal (MA)NECs and 12 (46%) gastric (MA)NECs. Survival curves were similar with and without neoadjuvant therapy. One (4.8%) esophageal (MA)NEC and 4 (15%) gastric (MA)NECs died within 90 days postoperatively. For esophageal (MA)NEC the median overall survival (OS) after surgery was 37 months and 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 71%, 50% and 35%, respectively. For gastric (MA)NEC, the median OS was 23 months and 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 62%, 50% and 39%, respectively. CONCLUSION Localized esophageal and gastric (MA)NEC are often misdiagnosed on endoscopic biopsies. After resection, long-term survival was achieved in respectively 35% and 39% of patients.

North European comparison of treatment strategy and survival in older patients with resectable gastric cancer: A EURECCA upper gastrointestinal group analysis

BACKGROUND As older gastric cancer patients are often excluded from randomized clinical trials, the most appropriate treatment strategy for these patients remains unclear. The current study aimed to gain more insight in treatment strategies and relative survival of older patients with resectable gastric cancer across Europe. METHODS Population-based cohorts from Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were combined. Patients ≥70 years with resectable gastric cancer (cT1-4a, cN0-2, cM0), diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 were included. Resection rates, administration of chemotherapy (irrespective of surgery), and relative survival within a country according to stage were determined. RESULTS Overall, 6698 patients were included. The percentage of operated patients was highest in Belgium and lowest in Sweden for both stage II (74% versus 56%) and stage III disease (57% versus 25%). For stage III, chemotherapy administration was highest in Belgium (44%) and lowest in Sweden (2%). Three year relative survival for stage I, II, and III disease in Belgium was 67.8% (95% CI:62.8-72.6), 41.2% (95% CI:37.3-45.2), 17.8% (95% CI:12.5-24.0), compared with 56.7% (95% CI:51.5-61.7), 31.3% (95% CI:27.6-35.2), 8.2% (95% CI:4.4-13.4) in Sweden. There were no significant differences in treatment strategies of patients with stage I disease. CONCLUSION Substantial treatment differences are observed across North European countries for patients with stages II and III resectable gastric cancer aged 70 years or older. In the present comparison, treatment strategies with a higher proportion of patients undergoing surgery seemed to be associated with higher survival rates for patients with stages II or III disease.

Association between hospital volume and quality of gastric cancer surgery in the CRITICS trial

Studies investigating the association between hospital volume and quality of gastric cancer surgery are lacking. In the present study, the effect of hospital volume on quality of gastric cancer surgery was evaluated by analysing data from the CRITICS (ChemoRadiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach) trial.

International comparison of treatment strategy and survival in metastatic gastric cancer: Treatment strategy and survival in metastatic gastric cancer

In the randomized Asian REGATTA trial, no survival benefit was shown for additional gastrectomy over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer with a single incurable factor, thereby discouraging surgery for these patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment strategies for patients with metastatic gastric cancer in daily practice in five European countries, along with relative survival in each country.