William H. Allum

Guidelines for the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer

Over the past decade the Improving Outcomes Guidance (IOG) document has led to service re-configuration in the NHS and there are now 41 specialist centres providing oesophageal and gastric cancer care in England and Wales. The National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit, which was supported by the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (AUGIS) and the Royal College of Surgeons of England Clinical Effectiveness Unit, and sponsored by the Department of Health, has been completed and has established benchmarks for the service as well as identifying areas for future improvements.1–3 The past decade has also seen changes in the epidemiology of oesophageal and gastric cancer. The incidence of lower third and oesophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinomas has increased further, and these tumours form the most common oesophago-gastric tumour, probably reflecting the effect of chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and the epidemic of obesity. The increase in the elderly population with significant co-morbidities is presenting significant clinical management challenges. Advances in understanding of the natural history of the disease have increased interest in primary and secondary prevention strategies. Technology has improved the options for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy and staging with cross-sectional imaging. Results from medical and clinical oncology trials have established new standards of practice for both curative and palliative interventions. The quality of patient experience has become a significant component of patient care, and the role of the specialist nurse is fully intergrated. These many changes in practice and patient management are now routinely controlled by established multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) which are based in all hospitals managing these patients. The original guidelines described the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer within existing practice. This paper updates the guidance to include new evidence and to embed it within the framework of the current UK National Health Service (NHS) Cancer …

Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up A. Okines, M. Verheij, W. Allum, D. Cunningham & A. Cervantes On behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group* GI Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK; Department of Radiation Oncology and Division of Cellular Biochemistry, The Netherlands Cancer Institute—Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London; Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK; Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, INCLIVA, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Practice guidance on the management of acute and chronic gastrointestinal problems arising as a result of treatment for cancer

Backgound The number of patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms after cancer therapies which have a moderate or severe impact on quality of life is similar to the number diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease annually. However, in contrast to patients with inflammatory bowel disease, most of these patients are not referred for gastroenterological assessment. Clinicians who do see these patients are often unaware of the benefits of targeted investigation (which differ from those required to exclude recurrent cancer), the range of available treatments and how the pathological processes underlying side effects of cancer treatment differ from those in benign GI disorders. This paper aims to help clinicians become aware of the problem and suggests ways in which the panoply of syndromes can be managed. Methods A multidisciplinary literature review was performed to develop guidance to facilitate clinical management of GI side effects of cancer treatments. Results Different pathological processes within the GI tract may produce identical symptoms. Optimal management requires appropriate investigations and coordinated multidisciplinary working. Lactose intolerance, small bowel bacterial overgrowth and bile acid malabsorption frequently develop during or after chemotherapy. Toxin-negative Clostridium difficile and cytomegalovirus infection may be fulminant in immunosuppressed patients and require rapid diagnosis and treatment. Hepatic side effects include reactivation of viral hepatitis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, steatosis and steatohepatitis. Anticancer biological agents have multiple interactions with conventional drugs. Colonoscopy is contraindicated in neutropenic enterocolitis but endoscopy may be life-saving in other patients with GI bleeding. After cancer treatment, simple questions can identify patients who need referral for specialist management of GI symptoms. Other troublesome pelvic problems (eg, urinary, sexual, nutritional) are frequent and may also require specialist input. The largest group of patients affected by chronic GI symptoms are those who have been treated with pelvic radiotherapy. Their complex symptoms, often caused by more than one diagnosis, need systematic investigation by gastroenterologists when empirical treatments fail. All endoscopic and surgical interventions after radiotherapy are potentially hazardous as radiotherapy may induce significant local ischaemia. The best current evidence for effective treatment of radiation-induced GI bleeding is with sucralfate enemas and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Conclusions All cancer units must develop simple methods to identify the many patients who need help and establish routine referral pathways to specialist gastroenterologists where patients can receive safe and effective treatment. Early contact with oncologists and/or specialist surgeons with input from the patients family and friends often helps the gastroenterologist to refine management strategies. Increased training in the late effects of cancer treatment is required.

Hospital volume, proportion resected and mortality from oesophageal and gastric cancer: a population-based study in England, 2004–2008

Objective This study assessed the associations between hospital volume, resection rate and survival of oesophageal and gastric cancer patients in England. Design 62 811 patients diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer between 2004 and 2008 were identified from a national population-based cancer registration and Hospital Episode Statistics-linked dataset. Cox regression analyses were used to assess all-cause mortality according to hospital volume and resection rate, adjusting for case-mix variables (sex, age, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity and type of cancer). HRs and 95% CIs, according to hospital volume, were evaluated for three predefined periods following surgery: <30, 30–365, and >365 days. Analysis of mortality in relation to resection rate was performed among all patients and among the 13 189 (21%) resected patients. Results Increasing hospital volume was associated with lower mortality (ptrend=0.0001; HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95 for hospitals resecting 80+ and compared with <20 patients a year). In relative terms, the association between increasing hospital volume and lower mortality was particularly strong in the first 30 days following surgery (ptrend<0.0001; HR 0.52, (0.39 to 0.70)), but a clinically relevant association remained beyond 1 year (ptrend=0.0011; HR 0.82, (0.72 to 0.95)). Increasing resection rates were associated with lower mortality among all patients (ptrend<0.0001; HR 0.86, (0.84 to 0.89) for the highest, compared with the lowest resection quintile). Conclusions With evidence of lower short-term and longer-term mortality for patients resected in high-volume hospitals, this study supports further centralisation of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgical services in England.

Tumor Stage After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Determines Survival After Surgery for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction

PURPOSE Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is established in the management of most resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas. However, assessing the downstaging effects of chemotherapy and predicting response to treatment remain challenging, and the relative importance of tumor stage before and after chemotherapy is debatable. METHODS We analyzed consecutive resections for esophageal or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas performed at two high-volume cancer centers in London between 2000 and 2010. After standard investigations and multidisciplinary team consensus, all patients were allocated a clinical tumor stage before treatment, which was compared with pathologic stage after surgical resection. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS Among 584 included patients, 400 patients (68%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with downstaged tumors after neoadjuvant chemotherapy experienced improved survival compared with patients without response (P < .001), and such downstaging (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.59) was the strongest independent predictor of survival after adjusting for patient age, tumor grade, clinical tumor stage, lymphovascular invasion, resection margin status, and surgical resection type. Patients downstaged by chemotherapy, compared with patients with no response, experienced lower rates of local recurrence (6% v. 13%, respectively; P = .030) and systemic recurrence (19% v. 29%, respectively; P = .027) and improved Mandard tumor regression scores (P = .001). Survival was strongly dictated by stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rather than clinical stage at presentation. CONCLUSION The stage of esophageal or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy determines prognosis rather than the clinical stage before neoadjuvant chemotherapy, indicating the importance of focusing on postchemotherapy staging to more accurately predict outcome and eligibility for surgery. Patients who are downstaged by neoadjuvant chemotherapy benefit from reduced rates of local and systemic recurrence.

Unmet needs and challenges in gastric cancer: The way forward

Although the incidence of gastric cancer has fallen steadily in developed countries over the past 50 years, outcomes in Western countries remain poor, primarily due to the advanced stage of the disease at presentation. While earlier diagnosis would help to improve outcomes for patients with gastric cancer, better understanding of the biology of the disease is also needed, along with advances in therapy. Indeed, progress in the treatment of gastric cancer has been limited, mainly because of its genetic complexity and heterogeneity. As a result, there is an urgent need to apply precision medicine to the management of the disease in order to ensure that individuals receive the most appropriate treatment. This article suggests a number of strategies that may help to accelerate progress in treating patients with gastric cancer. Incorporation of some of these approaches could help to improve the quality of life and survival for patients diagnosed with the disease. Standardisation of care across Europe through expansion of the European Registration of Cancer Care (EURECCA) registry - a European cancer audit that aims to improve quality and decrease variation in care across the region - may also be expected to lead to improved outcomes for those suffering from this common malignancy.

Differences in outcomes of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery across Europe

In several European countries, centralization of oesophagogastric cancer surgery has been realized and clinical audits initiated. The present study was designed to evaluate differences in resection rates, outcomes and annual hospital volumes between these countries, and to analyse the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes.

Highlights of the EORTC St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of gastric, gastroesophageal and oesophageal cancer – Differential treatment strategies for subtypes of early gastroesophageal cancer

The 1st St. Gallen EORTC Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference 2012 Expert Panel clearly differentiated treatment and staging recommendations for the various gastroesophageal cancers. For locally advanced gastric cancer (≥T3N+), the preferred treatment modality was pre- and postoperative chemotherapy. The majority of panel members would also treat T2N+ or even T2N0 tumours with a similar approach mainly because pretherapeutic staging was considered highly unreliable. It was agreed that adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (AEG) is classified best according to Siewert et al. Preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCT) is the preferred treatment for AEG type I and II tumours. For AEG type III, i.e. tumours which may be considered as gastric cancer, perioperative chemotherapy is the majority approach. For resectable squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus a clear majority recommended radiochemotherapy followed by surgery as optimal approach, irrespective of tumour size. In contrast, definitive RCT was judged appropriate for advanced tumours with extended lymph node involvement (N2) or for cancers of the upper oesophagus. Additional recommendations are presented on the use of endosonography, PET-CT scan and laparoscopy for staging and on the preferred approach to surgery.

Anal cancer: ESMO–ESSO–ESTRO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up☆

Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is a rare cancer but its incidence is increasing throughout the world, and is particularly high in the human immunodeficiency virus positive (HIV+) population. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory (involving radiation therapists, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiologists and pathologists). SCCA usually spreads in a loco-regional manner within and outside the anal canal. Lymph node involvement at diagnosis is observed in 30-40% of cases while systemic spread is uncommon with distant extrapelvic metastases recorded in 5-8% at onset, and rates of metastatic progression after primary treatment between 10% and 20%. SCCA is strongly associated with human papilloma virus (HPV, types 16-18) infection. The primary aim of treatment is to achieve cure with loco-regional control and preservation of anal function, with the best possible quality of life. Treatment dramatically differs from adenocarcinomas of the lower rectum. Combinations of 5FU-based chemoradiation and other cytotoxic agents (mitomycin C) have been established as the standard of care, leading to complete tumour regression in 80-90% of patients with locoregional failures in the region of 15%. There is an accepted role for surgical salvage. Assessment and treatment should be carried out in specialised centres treating a high number of patients as early as possible in the clinical diagnosis. To date, the limited evidence from only 6 randomised trials [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], the rarity of the cancer, and the different behaviour/natural history depending on the predominant site of origin, (the anal margin, anal canal or above the dentate line) provide scanty direction for any individual oncologist. Here we aim to provide guidelines which can assist medical, radiation and surgical oncologists in the practical management of this unusual cancer.

Hospital volume and survival in oesophagectomy and gastrectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND High volume upper gastrointestinal cancer hospitals demonstrate improved postoperative mortality rates, but the impact on survival is unclear. This population-based cohort study explores the effect of hospital volume on survival following upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study used a population-based cohort of 3866 patients who underwent surgery for oesophageal or gastric cancer between 1998 and 2008 with follow-up until December 2008. RESULTS Hospital volume ranged from 1 to 68 cases/year. Overall, 5-year survival was 27%. Increasing age and advanced stage of disease were independently correlated with shorter survival. High hospital volume was significantly and independently correlated with improved 30-day mortality postoperatively (P<0.001), but not with survival beyond 30 days. CONCLUSION The correlation between hospital volume and improved 30-day mortality following oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery supports the centralisation of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery services. The low survival in both high and low volume hospitals beyond 30 days highlights the need for increasing earlier diagnosis and optimising approaches to radical treatment.