Adjuvant therapy following oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma in patients with a positive resection margin.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy is contentious. In UK practice, surgical resection margin status is often used to classify patients for receiving adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with positive (R1) resection margins. METHODS: Two prospectively collected UK institutional databases were combined to identify eligible patients. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were used to compare overall and recurrence-free survival according to adjuvant treatment. Recurrence patterns were assessed as a secondary outcome. Propensity score-matched analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Of 616 patients included in the combined database, 242 patients who had an R1 resection were included in the study. Of these, 112 patients (46·3 per cent) received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 46 (19·0 per cent) were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and 84 (34·7 per cent) had no adjuvant treatment. In adjusted analysis, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·38 to 0·94; P = 0·026), with a benefit in terms of both local (HR 0·48, 0·24 to 0·99; P = 0·047) and systemic (HR 0·56, 0·33 to 0·94; P = 0·027) recurrence. In analyses stratified by tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-responders (Mandard tumour regression grade 4-5) treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had an overall survival benefit (HR 0·61, 0·38 to 0·97; P = 0·037). In propensity score-matched analysis, an overall survival benefit (HR 0·62, 0·39 to 0·98; P = 0·042) and recurrence-free survival benefit (HR 0·51, 0·30 to 0·87; P = 0·004) were observed for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy may improve overall survival and recurrence-free survival after margin-positive resection. This pattern seems most pronounced with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

ANTECEDENTES: El papel del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con adenocarcinoma esofagogástrico tratados con quimioterapia neoadyuvante es polémico. En la práctica del Reino Unido, el estado del margen de resección quirúrgico se utiliza a menudo para identificar a los pacientes que reciben tratamiento adyuvante. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el beneficio en la supervivencia del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con márgenes de resección positivos (R1). MÉTODOS: Se combinaron dos bases de datos de instituciones del Reino Unido que recogen información de forma prospectiva para identificar pacientes elegibles. Se utilizaron análisis de regresión de Cox ajustados para comparar la supervivencia global y la supervivencia libre de recidiva según el tratamiento adyuvante. Los patrones de recidiva se evaluaron como resultado secundario. También se realizó un análisis de emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión. RESULTADOS: De 616 pacientes incluidos en la base de datos combinada, se incluyeron en el estudio 242 pacientes con resección R1. De estos pacientes, 112 (46%) recibieron quimiorradioterapia adyuvante, 46 (19%) pacientes fueron tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante y 84 (35%) pacientes no recibieron ningún tratamiento. En el análisis ajustado, la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante mejoró la supervivencia libre de recidiva (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio, HR 0,59, i.c. del 95% 0,38-0,94; P = 0,026) con un beneficio tanto para la recidiva local (HR 0,48, i.c. del 95% 0,24-0,99; P = 0,047) como para la sistémica (HR 0,56, i.c. del 95% 0,33-0,94; P = 0,027). Cuando los pacientes se clasificaron según la respuesta tumoral a la quimioterapia neoadyuvante, los no respondedores (Mandard Grado 4/5) tratados con quimiorradioterapia adyuvante obtuvieron un beneficio en la supervivencia (HR 0,61, i.c. del 95% 0,38-0,97; P = 0,037). En el análisis por emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión, se observó un beneficio en la supervivencia global (HR 0,62, i.c. del 95% 0,39-0,98; P = 0,042) y en la supervivencia libre de recidiva (HR 0,51.i.c. del 95% 0,30-0,87; P = 0,004) con la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante frente a no recibir tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: El tratamiento adyuvante puede mejorar la supervivencia global y la supervivencia libre de recidiva en pacientes con margen de resección positivo. Este patrón parece más pronunciado con la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante en pacientes que no responden a la quimioterapia.

Prediction of a positive circumferential resection margin at surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus.

Background: A positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) has been associated with higher rates of locoregional recurrence and worse survival in oesophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to establish if clinicopathological and radiological variables might predict CRM positivity in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods: Multivariable analysis of clinicopathological and CT imaging characteristics considered potentially predictive of CRM was performed at initial staging and following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Prediction models were constructed. The area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (c.i.) from 1000 bootstrapping was assessed. Results: A total of 223 patients were included in the study. Poor differentiation (odds ratio (OR) 2·84, 95 per cent c.i. 1·39 to 6·01) and advanced clinical tumour status (T3-4) (OR 2·93, 1·03 to 9·48) were independently associated with an increased CRM risk at diagnosis. CT-assessed lack of response (stable or progressive disease) following chemotherapy independently corresponded with an increased risk of CRM positivity (OR 3·38, 1·43 to 8·50). Additional CT evidence of local invasion and higher CT tumour volume (14 cm3) improved the performance of a prediction model, including all the above parameters, with an AUC (c-index) of 0·76 (0·67 to 0·83). Variables associated with significantly higher rates of locoregional recurrence were pN status (P = 0·020), lymphovascular invasion (P = 0·007) and poor response to chemotherapy (Mandard score 4-5) (P = 0·006). CRM positivity was associated with a higher locoregional recurrence rate, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0·092). Conclusion: The presence of advanced cT status, poor tumour differentiation, and CT-assessed lack of response to chemotherapy, higher tumour volume and local invasion can be used to identify patients at risk of a positive CRM following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Antecedentes: Un margen de resección circunferencial (circumferential resection margin, CRM) positivo se ha asociado con tasas más elevadas de recidiva locorregional y peor supervivencia en el cáncer de esófago. El objetivo de este estudio fue establecer si las variables clínico­patológicas y radiológicas podrían predecir la positividad del CRM en el adenocarcinoma de esófago tras quimioterapia neoadyuvante antes de la cirugía. Métodos: Se realizó un análisis multivariable de las características clínico­patológicas y de la tomografía computarizada (computed tomography, CT) que se consideraron potencialmente predictivas de CRM en la estadificación inicial y tras la quimioterapia neoadyuvante. Se construyeron modelos de predicción. Se evaluó el área bajo la curva (area under curve, AUC) con el i.c. del 95% a partir de 1.000 muestras bootstrap. Resultados: Se incluyeron 223 pacientes en el estudio. Una pobre diferenciación (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 2,84, i.c. del 95% 1,39­6,01) y un estadio clínico T avanzado (T3­4) (OR 2,93, i.c. del 95% 1,03­9,48) se asociaron de forma independiente con un riesgo aumentado de CRM en el diagnóstico. La falta de respuesta en la CT (estable o enfermedad en progresión) tras la quimioterapia se correspondía de forma independiente con un riesgo aumentado de CRM positivo (OR 3,38, i.c. del 95% 1,43­8,50). Además, la evidencia por CT de invasión local y un mayor volumen del tumor en CT (14 cm3) mejoraron el funcionamiento del modelo predictivo, incluyendo todos los parámetros previamente señalados; con AUC (índice c) de 0,76 (0,68­0,83). Las variables asociadas de forma significativa con tasas más elevadas de recidiva locorregional fueron el estado de los ganglios linfáticos patológicos (P = 0,002), la invasión linfovascular (P = 0,007) y la respuesta pobre a la quimioterapia (Mandard 4 y 5 (P = 0,006)). La positividad del CRM se asoció con una tasa de recidiva locorregional más elevada pero sin alcanzar significación estadística (P = 0,09). Conclusión: La presencia de un estadio clínico T avanzado, tumor pobremente diferenciado, falta de respuesta a la quimioterapia en la TC, mayor volumen del tumor en la TC e invasión local pueden ser utilizados para identificar pacientes en riesgo de un CRM positivo tras quimioterapia neoadyuvante.

Impact of incremental circumferential resection margin distance on overall survival and recurrence in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses of the oesophageal circumferential resection margin (CRM) have focused on the prognostic validity of two different definitions of a positive CRM, that of the College of American Pathologists (tumour at margin) and that of the Royal College of Pathologists (tumour within 1 mm). This study aimed to analyse the validity of these definitions and explore the risk of recurrence and survival with incremental tumour distances from the CRM. METHODS: This cohort study included patients who underwent resection for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus between 2000 and 2014. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to determine the hazard ratio (HR) with 95 per cent confidence intervals for recurrence and mortality in CRM increments: tumour at the cut margin, extending to within 0·1-0·9, 1·0-1·9, 2·0-4·9 mm, and 5·0 mm or more from the margin. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients were included in the study. Kaplan-Meier and unadjusted analyses showed a significant incremental improvement in overall survival (P < 0·001) and recurrence (P for trend < 0·001) rates with increasing distance from the CRM. Tumour distance of 2·0 mm or more remained a significant predictor of survival on multivariable analysis (HR for risk of death 0·66, 95 per cent c.i. 0·44 to 1·00). Multivariable analysis of overall survival demonstrated a significant difference between a positive and negative CRM with the Royal College of Pathologists' definition (HR 1·37, 1·01 to 1·85), but not with the College of American Pathologists' definition (HR 1·22, 0·90 to 1·65). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated an incremental improvement in survival and recurrence rates with increasing tumour distance from the CRM.

Patterns of recurrence in oesophageal cancer following oesophagectomy in the era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Tumour recurrence following oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer is common despite neoadjuvant treatment. Understanding patterns of recurrence and risk factors associated with locoregional and systemic recurrence might influence future treatment strategies. METHODS: This was a cohort study involving patients undergoing resection for adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus between 2000 and 2014. Clinicopathological factors associated with locoregional and systemic recurrence were analysed using multivariable logistic regression to determine odds ratios (ORs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: Some 698 patients were identified. Lymphovascular invasion (OR 2·09, 95 per cent c.i. 1·18 to 3·71) and preoperative stenting (OR 3·70, 1·34 to 10·23) were independent risk factors for isolated locoregional recurrence. Pathological nodal disease in patients with pT1-2 (pN1: OR 2·72, 1·35 to 5·48; pN2-3: OR 5·00, 2·35 to 10·66) or pT3-4 (pN1: OR 3·03, 1·51 to 6·07; pN2-3: OR 5·75, 3·15 to 10·49) disease predisposed to systemic recurrence. Poor or no response to chemotherapy was also an independent risk factor for isolated systemic recurrence (OR 1·85, 1·05 to 3·26). A positive resection margin (R1 resection) was not associated with a significantly increased risk of isolated locoregional recurrence (OR 1·37, 0·81 to 2·33). CONCLUSION: These findings confirm that oesophageal adenocarcinoma is frequently a systemic disease. Understanding the key predictors of local and systemic recurrence may facilitate the tailoring of oncological therapies to the individual patient.