OEO2 is a randomized, controlled trial of preoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing radical surgery for esophageal cancer. Random assignment was to surgery alone (S) or to two cycles of ...combination cisplatin and fluorouracil before surgery (CS). Initial results reported in 2002 demonstrated an advantage for both disease-free and overall survival in the CS group. The analysis has now been updated after a median follow-up of 6 years.
OEO2 recruited 802 patients, 400 on CS and 402 on S. The nature of the first recurrence event and cause of death are detailed. Survival has been determined from Kaplan-Meier curves and treatment comparisons made with the log-rank test. Survival by extent of resection is presented.
There were 655 deaths, 335 for S and 320 for CS. The survival benefit has been maintained with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.98; P = .03) which in absolute terms is a 5-year survival of 23.0% for CS compared with 17.1% for S. The treatment effect is consistent in both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. The first disease-free survival event was macroscopic residual disease from incomplete resection (R2) or no resection in 26.4% of the S group versus 14.3% of the CS P < .001. Three-year survival by type of resection was R0 42.4%, R1 was 18.0%, and R2 was 8.6%.
Long-term follow-up confirms that preoperative chemotherapy improves survival in operable esophageal cancer and should be considered as a standard of care.
Summary Background Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard of care for patients with resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, ...improves the proportion of patients responding to treatment in advanced gastric cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2–3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically proven, resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma from 87 UK hospitals and cancer centres. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery. Patients in the control group (chemotherapy alone) received three pre-operative and three post-operative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy: 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1250 mg/m2 oral capecitabine on days 1–21. Patients in the investigational group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7·5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and for six further doses once every 21 days following chemotherapy, as maintenance treatment. Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, where staff used a computer programme that implemented a minimisation algorithm with a random element to establish the allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy centre, site of tumour, and tumour stage. The primary outcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we report the primary analysis results of the trial; all patients have completed treatment and the required number of primary outcome events has been reached. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 46020948, and with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00450203. Findings Between Oct 31, 2007, and March 25, 2014, 1063 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530). At the time of analysis, 508 deaths were recorded (248 in the chemotherapy alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). 3-year overall survival was 50·3% (95% CI 45·5–54·9) in the chemotherapy alone group and 48·1% (43·2–52·7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio HR 1·08, 95% CI 0·91–1·29; p=0·36). Apart from neutropenia no other toxic effects were reported at grade 3 or worse severity in more than 10% of patients in either group. Wound healing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in this group compared with 33 (7%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. In patients who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 10% of 233 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 52 24% of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients with lower oesophageal or junctional tumours planned for an oesophagogastric resection was stopped towards the end of the trial. Serious adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophil count (42 events vs 53). Interpretation The results of this trial do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy for patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound healing. Funding Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and F Hoffmann-La Roche Limited.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Introduction
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a format for multidisciplinary care and has been shown to predictably improve short term outcomes associated with surgical ...procedures. Esophagectomy has historically been associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality and as a result routine application and audit of ERAS guidelines specifically designed for esophageal resection has significant potential to improve outcomes associated with this complex procedure.
Methods
A team of international experts in the surgical management of esophageal cancer was assembled and the existing literature was identified and reviewed prior to the production of the guidelines. Well established procedure specific components of ERAS were reviewed and updated with changes relevant to esophagectomy. Procedure specific, operative and technical sections were produced utilizing the best current level of evidence. All sections were rated regarding the level of evidence and overall recommendation according to the evaluation (GRADE) system.
Results
Thirty-nine sections were ultimately produced and assessed for quality of evidence and recommendations. Some sections were completely new to ERAS programs due to the fact that esophagectomy is the first guideline with a thoracic component to the procedure.
Conclusions
The current ERAS society guidelines should be reviewed and applied in all centers looking to improve outcomes and quality associated with esophageal resection.
The Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial established perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy as a standard of care for patients ...with resectable esophagogastric cancer. However, identification of patients at risk for relapse remains challenging. We evaluated whether pathologic response and lymph node status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are prognostic in patients treated in the MAGIC trial.
Pathologic regression was assessed in resection specimens by two independent pathologists using the Mandard tumor regression grading system (TRG). Differences in overall survival (OS) according to TRG were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards method established the relationships among TRG, clinical-pathologic variables, and OS.
Three hundred thirty resection specimens were analyzed. In chemotherapy-treated patients with a TRG of 1 or 2, median OS was not reached, whereas for patients with a TRG of 3, 4, or 5, median OS was 20.47 months. On univariate analysis, high TRG and lymph node metastases were negatively related to survival (Mandard TRG 3, 4, or 5: hazard ratio HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.11 to 3.39; P = .0209; lymph node metastases: HR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.88 to 7.0; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, only lymph node status was independently predictive of OS (HR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.70 to 6.63; P < .001).
Lymph node metastases and not pathologic response to chemotherapy was the only independent predictor of survival after chemotherapy plus resection in the MAGIC trial. Prospective evaluation of whether omitting postoperative chemotherapy and/or switching to a noncross-resistant regimen in patients with lymph node-positive disease whose tumor did not respond to preoperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil may be appropriate.
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.
A multidisciplinary literature review was performed to develop guidance to facilitate clinical management of GI side effects of cancer treatments.
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.
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 patient's family and friends often helps the gastroenterologist to refine management strategies. Increased training in the late effects of cancer treatment is required.
A regimen of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infused fluorouracil (ECF) improves survival among patients with incurable locally advanced or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. We assessed whether the ...addition of a perioperative regimen of ECF to surgery improves outcomes among patients with potentially curable gastric cancer.
We randomly assigned patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, esophagogastric junction, or lower esophagus to either perioperative chemotherapy and surgery (250 patients) or surgery alone (253 patients). Chemotherapy consisted of three preoperative and three postoperative cycles of intravenous epirubicin (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and cisplatin (60 mg per square meter) on day 1, and a continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil (200 mg per square meter per day) for 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival.
ECF-related adverse effects were similar to those previously reported among patients with advanced gastric cancer. Rates of postoperative complications were similar in the perioperative-chemotherapy group and the surgery group (46 percent and 45 percent, respectively), as were the numbers of deaths within 30 days after surgery. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less advanced in the perioperative-chemotherapy group. With a median follow-up of four years, 149 patients in the perioperative-chemotherapy group and 170 in the surgery group had died. As compared with the surgery group, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a higher likelihood of overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.93; P=0.009; five-year survival rate, 36 percent vs. 23 percent) and of progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression, 0.66; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001).
In patients with operable gastric or lower esophageal adenocarcinomas, a perioperative regimen of ECF decreased tumor size and stage and significantly improved progression-free and overall survival. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN93793971 controlled-trials.com.).
Summary Diarrhoea induced by chemotherapy in cancer patients is common, causes notable morbidity and mortality, and is managed inconsistently. Previous management guidelines were based on poor ...evidence and neglect physiological causes of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea. In the absence of level 1 evidence from randomised controlled trials, we developed practical guidance for clinicians based on a literature review by a multidisciplinary team of clinical oncologists, dietitians, gastroenterologists, medical oncologists, nurses, pharmacist, and a surgeon. Education of patients and their carers about the risks associated with, and management of, chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea is the foundation for optimum treatment of toxic effects. Adequate—and, if necessary, repeated—assessment, appropriate use of loperamide, and knowledge of fluid resuscitation requirements of affected patients is the second crucial step. Use of octreotide and seeking specialist advice early for patients who do not respond to treatment will reduce morbidity and mortality. In view of the burden of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea, appropriate multidisciplinary research to assess meaningful endpoints is urgently required.
PDF
