Search

Objective: The goal of surveillance after therapy of localized esophageal cancer (LEC) is to identify actionable relapses amenable to salvage; however, the current surveillance algorithms are not optimized. We report on a large cohort of LEC patients with actionable locoregional relapses (LRRs)., Methods: Between 2000 and 2013, 127 (denominator = 752) patients with actionable LRR were identified. Histologic/cytologic confirmation was the gold standard. All surveillance tools (imaging, endoscopy, fine needle aspiration) were assessed., Results: Most patients were men (89%), had adenocarcinoma (79%), and had no new symptoms (72%) when diagnosed with LRR. In trimodality patients, endoscopic confirmation of positron emission tomography-computed tomography-suspected LRR occurred in only 44%, and 56% required additional tools (e.g., fine needle aspiration). Alternatively, in bimodality patients, endoscopy confirmed LRRs in 81%. Trimodality patients had a higher risk of subsequent LRR/distant metastases after the first LRR than the bimodality patients (p = 0.03). In all patients, 78% of the subsequent relapses were distant. For patients who were salvaged, survival was significantly prolonged (50.6 vs. 25.1 months, p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Patients live longer after successful salvage of the LRR than if salvage is not possible. After LRR, patients have a high risk of subsequent distant metastasis and whether the second relapse is local or distant, survival is uniformly poor., (© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma (LGAC), who get pre-operative therapy, have heterogeneous/unpredictable outcomes. Predictive clinical variables/biomarkers are not established., Methods: We analyzed 107 LGAC patients who had chemoradiation and surgery. LGACs were grouped for (1) presence/absence of signet ring cell histology (SRC) and (2) histologic grade: G2 or G3. %SRC was assessed (0, 1-10, 11-49, and 50-100%) and correlated with pathologic complete response (pathCR) or

Background: Nearly 50% of gastric cancer patients are diagnosed with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Therapy is palliative but results in ill effects. The median overall survival (OS) of AGC patients is often <12 months. It is unclear if the early initiation of therapy in all AGC patients is beneficial., Methods: A retrospective analysis of AGC patients in our database was carried out. The patients were divided into two groups: asymptomatic or symptomatic. We sought to assess whether the delay of systemic therapy was harmful in asymptomatic patients., Results: A total of 135 patients were analyzed. Most patients were symptomatic (68%), males (67%), and had low ECOG scores (0-1; 85%). In univariate analyses, ECOG performance status 0 (p = 0.005), delayed initiation of therapy (p = 0.03), and lack of symptoms (p = 0.03) were associated with a longer OS. The multivariate model for OS identified only ECOG performance status as an independent prognosticator of longer OS (p = 0.02). Asymptomatic patients who had delayed (≥ 4 weeks) systemic therapy had an OS rate of 77% at 1 year compared to 58% for patients treated within 4 weeks (p = 0.47)., Conclusion: Symptomatic AGC patients had a poor outcome compared to asymptomatic AGC patients. Treatment delay in asymptomatic patients had no detrimental effect on OS, suggesting that the timing of therapy can be based on patient selection., (© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: We have limited knowledge of the geographic distribution of resistant esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in resected specimens, but its clinical importance can be enormous., Method: We selected patients with baseline stage III EAC who had had chemoradiation followed by surgery and had residual EAC (resistant cases only). Outcomes were correlated with various endpoints (percentage of resistant EAC and anatomic distribution)., Results: A total of 100 clinical stage III patients were studied; 90% had an R0 resection, and 99% had either moderate or poorly differentiated EAC. Twelve percent had >50% residual cancer, 31% had 11-50% residual cancer, 53% had 1-10% residual cancer, and 3% had positive nodes only. Each compartment was frequently involved: mucosa/submucosa (66%), muscularis propria (76%), and serosa (62%); all compartments were involved in 35% of the cases. Lack of EAC (meaning response) was observed in the mucosa/submucosa (34%), muscularis propria (24%), serosa (38%), and nodes (42%). Although the endoscopic biopsies prior to surgery showed no EAC in 79% of the patients, in the surgical specimens, resistant EAC was frequently occurring in the mucosa/submucosa (66%)., Conclusion: Contrary to our hypothesis that resistant EAC would be frequent in the nodes, our data show that its distribution is heterogeneous and unpredictable. Most importantly, the postchemoradiation biopsies are misleading, and a decision to delay/avoid surgery based on negative biopsies can be detrimental for the patients., (© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background/aim: Malignant nodes in patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (L-EAC) portend a poor prognosis. We assessed the correlation of the distribution of nodes with the outcome of patients undergoing chemoradiation/surgery (trimodality therapy)., Methods: We studied 209 L-EAC patients who had confirmed or suspicious nodes at baseline staging. All patients received trimodality therapy and were grouped according to the nodal geography: above the diaphragm (AD), below the diaphragm (BD), or above and below the diaphragm (ABD). Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the outcomes of the groups were assessed by the log-rank test., Results: Patients were primarily Caucasian (91%) and male (93%), with a baseline stage III L-EAC (89%). The median follow-up was 2.8 years (range, 0.4-11.7). Of the 209 patients, 35% (n = 73) had AD nodes, 20% (n = 41) had BD nodes, and 45% (n = 95) had ABD nodes. ABD patients had a 5-year overall survival rate of 33%, whereas this rate was 55% in AD patients and 60% in BD patients (p = 0.02). Patients with a higher histology grade were also at a higher risk of relapse and had a poor survival (p < 0.01 for both)., Conclusions: L-EAC patients in the ABD group had the worst outcome after trimodality treatment compared to those in the AD or BD group. Novel strategies are needed for ABD patients., (© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: In patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma (LGAC) who receive preoperative therapy, tools to predict response or prognosticate outcome before therapy are lacking. We used initial standardized uptake value (iSUV) of positron emission tomography (PET) to evaluate its association with overall survival (OS)., Methods: We identified 60 patients with confirmed LGAC who were treated with preoperative chemoradiation and had a baseline PET in addition to other routine staging. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank sum test were used to determine the association between iSUV and other variables, and the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival analysis., Results: The median iSUV was 6 (range, 0-28). The presence of signet ring cells in pretreatment biopsies correlated highly with low iSUV (≤ 6; p = 0.0017). Patients with a high iSUV (> 6) had a longer OS compared to those with a low iSUV (≤ 6; p = 0.0344). iSUV was not an independent predictor (p = 0.12); however, the risk of death was reduced for patients with an iSUV > 6 (hazard ratio = 0.26)., Conclusion: Our novel findings show that among LGAC patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation and surgery, those with a high iSUV have longer OS than patients with a low iSUV. iSUV appears to have a predictive role in patients with LGAC when treated with preoperative chemoradiation., (© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Patients with localized esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer (EAC) receive chemoradiation and then surgery (trimodality, TMT) or definitive chemoradiation (bimodality, BMT). Distant metastases (DMs) are common but the details of their distribution and timing in a large cohort have not been described., Methods: 629 patients with localized EAC who had TMT or BMT were analyzed. Standard statistical methods were used to define the end points., Results: The median follow-up time was 37.2 months (interquartile range 17.8-65.0). Of 356 TMT patients, 33% (119) developed DM as their first relapse and of 273 BMT patients, 40% (109) developed DM; 91% (TMT) and 96% (BMT) of the DMs were diagnosed within 2 years of local therapy. The most common sites of DM were: lung, distant nodes, liver, peritoneal cavity, bone, brain and pleura in order of frequency. The median overall survival of TMT patients with DM was 10.2 months (95% CI 7.8-12.7) and that for BMT patients with DM was 7.8 months (95% CI 5.7-9.9)., Conclusions: Following TMT or BMT, ≥33% of patients developed DMs and most of these occurred within 2 years (>90%) of local therapy. A clinical model is desirable that associates clinical parameters with a high risk for DM in TMT-eligible patients prior to surgery., (© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Trimodality therapy (TMT; chemoradiation plus surgery) has level-1 evidence for survival advantage for TMT-eligible esophagogastric cancer patients. Some patients, however, decline surgery after preoperative chemoradiation. The question of which patient should have esophagectomy and which one should not is unlikely to be answered by a prospective comparison; therefore, we matched the clinical covariates of several patients who had surgery with those who declined surgery (DS)., Methods: Between 2002 and 2011, we identified 623 patients in our databases. Of 623 patients, 244 patients had TMT and 61 TMT-eligible patients were in the DS group. Using the propensity-score method, we matched 16 covariates between 36 DS patients and 36 TMT patients., Results: Baseline characteristics between the two groups were balanced (p = NS). The median overall survival times were: 57.9 months (95% CI: 27.7 to not applicable, NA) for the DS group and 50.8 months (95% CI: 30.7 to NA) for the TMT group (p = 0.28). The median relapse-free survival times were: 18.5 (95% CI: 11.5-30.4) for the DS group and 26.5 months (95% CI: 15.5-NA) for the TMT group (p = 0.45). Eleven (31%) of 36 patients in the DS group had salvage surgery., Conclusions: Our results are intriguing but skewed by the patients who had salvage surgery in the DS group. Until highly reliable predictive models are developed for esophageal preservation, TMT must be encouraged for all TMT-eligible gastroesophageal cancer patients., (Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: It is unclear whether patients undergoing trimodality therapy (TMT) should be screened or surveyed for brain metastases., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed esophageal cancer (EC) patients who underwent TMT between the years 2000 and 2010. All were systematically staged and surveyed but none had screening or surveillance brain imaging., Results: The median follow-up time for 518 patients was 29.3 months (range 1-149.2); all patients had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Of 188 (36.3%) patients who developed distant metastases, 20 (10.6% of 188 patients or 3.9% of 518 patients) had brain metastases. A higher baseline clinical stage (stage III or IVa) was associated with brain metastases. Most (90%) patients with brain metastases were diagnosed within 24 months of surgery. Sixteen patients had central nervous system symptoms at diagnosis. Twelve (60%) patients had solitary metastasis and 8 (40%) patients had multiple metastases. Although 17 patients received therapy for brain metastases, the median overall survival time of 20 patients was only 10.5 months (95% CI 6.6-14.0)., Conclusion: After TMT, 3.9% of EC patients developed brain metastases and their prognosis was poor. Our data suggest that screening and/or surveillance for brain metastases in the EC population undergoing TMT is not warranted., (Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: In patients with localized gastric cancer (LGC) who are unfit for surgery, decline surgery, or have unresectable cancer, chemoradiotherapy may provide palliation; however, data in the literature are sparse., Methods: We identified 66 LGC patients who had definitive chemoradiation but no surgery. All patients had baseline and postchemoradiation staging including an endoscopic biopsy. Multiple statistical methods were used to analyze outcomes., Results: Most patients were men and most had stage III or IV cancer. Five patients were surgery eligible but declined to have surgery. The median follow-up time was 33.9 months (95% CI 18.3-49.6). The median survival time (MST) for 66 patients was only 14.5 months (95% CI 10.8-19.7) and the median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 5.03 months (95% CI 4.67-6.40). The estimated overall survival (OS) and RFS rates at 3 years were 22.6% (95% CI 13.7-37.3) and 7.7% (95% CI 3.2-18.6), respectively. Twenty-three (35%) patients who achieved a clinical complete response (cCR; negative postchemoradiation biopsy and no progression by imaging) fared better than those who achieved less than cCR (

Introduction: Level-1 evidence for definitive chemoradiotherapy (bimodality therapy or BM therapy) has been established for patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers (EGEJC) who otherwise do not qualify for surgery; however, tools to estimate individual patient prognosis are unavailable. We used a number of clinical pre- and post-treatment parameters to establish two nomograms: for overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS)., Methods: From 2002 through 2010, 257 consecutive patients with EGEJC who received BM therapy and had pre- and post-treatment positron emission tomography (PET) and post-treatment endoscopic biopsies among other assessments were analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Standard statistical methods were used to generate the nomograms., Results: None of the 257 patients underwent surgery. Persistent or recurrent cancer was documented in 187 (72.8%) patients. The estimated median survival duration for all 257 patients was 21.1 months (95% CI, 18.9-27.1) and the median RFS duration was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.43-15.0). After BM therapy, 155 (60.3%) patients achieved a clinical complete response (cCR). In multivariate analyses, maximum initial standardized uptake value and cCR were independent prognostic variables for OS (p = 0.038, p < 0.001). Nomogram concordance indices of 0.70 for OS and 0.77 for RFS were established by 200 cycles of bootstrap resampling for each of the two outcomes., Conclusion: Our data suggest that, in patients with EGEJC, pre- and post-treatment clinical parameters contribute to the establishment of prognostic nomograms of OS and RFS. Upon validation, these nomograms could prove useful in the clinic to individualize therapy., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: For patients with localized esophageal cancer (EC) who can withstand surgery, the preferred therapy is chemoradiation followed by surgery (trimodality). However, after achieving a clinical complete response [clinCR; defined as both post-chemoradiation endoscopic biopsy showing no cancer and physiologic uptake by positron emission tomography (PET)], some patients decline surgery. The literature on the outcome of such patients is sparse., Method: Between 2002 and 2011, we identified 622 trimodality-eligible EC patients in our prospectively maintained databases. All patients had to be trimodality eligible and must have completed preoperative staging after chemoradiation that included repeat endoscopic biopsy and PET among other routine tests., Results: Out of 622 trimodality-eligible patients identified, 61 patients (9.8%) declined surgery. All 61 patients had a clinCR. The median age was 69 years (range 47-85). Males (85.2%) and Caucasians (88.5%) were dominant. Baseline stage was II (44.2%) or III (52.5%), and histology was adenocarcinoma (65.6%) or squamous cell carcinoma (29.5%). Forty-two patients are alive at a median follow-up of 50.9 months (95% CI 39.5-62.3). The 5-year overall and relapse-free survival rates were 58.1 ± 8.4 and 35.3 ± 7.6%, respectively. Of 13 patients with local recurrence during surveillance, 12 had successful salvage resection., Conclusion: Although the outcome of 61 EC patients with clinCR who declined surgery appears reasonable, in the absence of a validated prediction/prognosis model, surgery must be encouraged for all trimodality-eligible patients., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Gastroesophageal cancers are usually diagnosed in an advanced stage, and effective treatment options remain limited. The discovery of new drugs to treat these diseases has been slow for decades. An occasional favorable outcome, trastuzumab, in patients with HER2 protein-overexpressing tumors, is welcome but not sufficient. For advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (AGC), fluoropyrimidines (given orally or intravenously) plus a platinum compound (usually cisplatin) have been accepted as a global reference to streamline new drug development. The addition of a third cytotoxic (docetaxel or epirubicin) can produce modest prolongation of overall survival. In some European countries, the irinotecanbased regimen is considered as an alternative to platinum-based first-line therapy. Selecting a safe, effective, and convenient regimen is desirable and is the focus of current research. Additionally, it appears that survival differences by regions (e.g., Asians survive longer compared to Western and South American patients) are likely due to second- and third-line therapies, differences in tumor biology, or unknown reasons. Future progress could come from 1 of 2 approaches: (1) conducting many empiric phase III trials in unselected patients or (2) through detailed studies of molecular biology to develop rational therapies. We provide a brief update on the treatment of AGC., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)