Search

Locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are treated with multimodal therapy, namely surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) depending on patient and tumor level factors. Yet, there is little consensus on choice of the optimum systemic therapy. To compare the pathological complete response (pCR) after FLOT, non-FLOT-based chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy regimes in patients with EACs. A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review and Scopus databases. Studies were included if they had investigated the use of chemo(radio)therapy regimens in the neoadjuvant setting for EAC and reported the pCR rates. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to compare the pooled pCR rates between FLOT, non-FLOT and CRT cohorts. We included 22 studies that described tumor regression post-NAC. Altogether, 1,056 patients had undergone FLOT or DCF regimes, while 1,610 patients had received ECF or ECX. The pCR rates ranged from 3.3% to 54% for FLOT regimes, while pCR ranged between 0% and 31% for ECF/ECX protocols. Pooled random-effects meta-meta-analysis of proportions showed a statistically significant higher incidence of pCR in FLOT-based chemotherapy at 0.148 (95%CI: 0.080, 0.259) compared with non-FLOT-based chemotherapy at 0.074 (95%CI: 0.042, 0.129). However, pCR rates were significantly highest at 0.250 (95%CI: 0.202, 0.306) for CRT. The use of enhanced FLOT-based regimens have improved the pCR rates for chemotherapeutic regimes but still falls short of pathological outcomes from CRT. Further work can characterize clinical responses to neoadjuvant therapy and determine whether an organ-preservation strategy is feasible.

Summary Background There is no consensus or guidelines internationally to inform clinicians of how patients should be monitored for recurrence after esophagogastric resections. Aim This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the latest evidence investigating the usefulness of surveillance protocols in patients who underwent esophagectomy or gastrectomy. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review and Scopus databases. Articles were evaluated for the use of surveillance strategies including history-taking, physical examination, imaging modalities and endoscopy for monitoring patients post-gastrectomy or esophagectomy. Studies that compared surveillance strategies and reported detection of recurrence and post-recurrence survival were also included in the meta-analysis. Results Fifteen studies that described a surveillance protocol for post-operative patients were included in the review. Seven studies were used in the meta-analysis. Random-effects analysis demonstrated a statistically significant higher post-recurrence survival (standardized mean difference [SMD] 14.15, 95% CI 1.40–27.26, p = 0.03) with imaging-based planned surveillance post-esophagectomy. However, the detection of recurrence (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.78–3.97, p = 0.17) for esophageal cancers as well as detection of recurrence (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.11–5.12, p = 0.76) and post-recurrence survival (SMD 6.42, 95% CI –2.16–18.42, p = 0.14) for gastric cancers were not significantly different with planned surveillance. Conclusion There is no consensus on whether surveillance carries prognostic survival benefit or how surveillance should be carried out. Surveillance may carry prognostic benefit for patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate the survival benefits of intensive surveillance strategies, determine the ideal surveillance protocol and tailor it to the appropriate population.

Esophago-gastric malignancies are associated with a high recurrence rate; yet there is a lack of evidence to inform guidelines for the standardization and structure of postoperative surveillance after curatively intended treatment. This study aimed to capture the variation in postoperative surveillance strategies across the UK and Ireland, and enquire the opinions and beliefs around surveillance from practicing clinicians. A web-based survey consisting of 40 questions was sent to surgeons or allied health professionals performing or involved in surgical care for esophago-gastric cancers at high-volume centers in the UK. Respondents from each center completed the survey on what best represented their center. The first section of the survey evaluated the timing and components of follow-ups, and their variation between centers. The second section evaluated respondents perspective on how surveillance can be structured. Thirty-five respondents from 27 centers consisting 28 consultants, 6 senior trainees and 1 specialist nurse had completed the questionnaire; 45.7% of responders arranged clinical follow-up at 2–4 weeks. Twenty responders had a specific postoperative surveillance protocol for their patients. Of these, 31.4% had a standardized protocol for all patients, while 25.7% tailored it to patient needs. Patient preference, comorbidities and chance of recurrence were considered as major factors for necessitating more intense surveillance than currently practiced. There is a significant variation in how patients are monitored after surgery between centers in the UK. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to both survival outcomes and quality of life of patients and to evaluate the prognostic value of different postoperative surveillance strategies.