Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Histopathological outcomes, such as lymph node yield and margin positivity, are used to benchmark and assess surgical centre quality, and are reported annually by the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) in England and Wales. The variation in pathological specimen assessment and how this affects these outcomes is not known. METHODS: A survey of practice was circulated to all tertiary oesophagogastric cancer centres across England and Wales. Questions captured demographic data, and information on how specimens were prepared and analysed. National performance data were retrieved from the NOGCA. Survey results were compared for tertiles of lymph node yield, and circumferential and longitudinal margins. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 32 of 37 units (86 per cent response rate), accounting for 93.1 per cent of the total oesophagectomy volume in England and Wales. Only 5 of 32 units met or exceeded current guidelines on specimen preparation according to the Royal College of Pathologists guidelines. There was wide variation in how centres defined positive (R1) margins, and how margins and lymph nodes were assessed. Centres with the highest nodal yield were more likely to use systematic fat blocking, and to re-examine specimens when the initial load was low. Systematic blocking of lesser curve fat resulted in significantly higher rates of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes examined (91.4 versus 86.5 per cent; P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Preparation and histopathological assessment of specimens varies significantly across institutions. This challenges the validity of currently used surgical quality metrics for oesophageal and other tumours.

Lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer at European specialist centres.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this project was to evaluate the current practice of D2 in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the first part of the study, 18 European high volume gastric cancer centres completed a questionnaire, designed to evaluate their preferred lymphadenectomy in a series of clinical scenarios. Surgeon compliance with international guidelines for lymphadenectomy was evaluated. In the second part, information on 381 gastrectomies performed for primary gastric cancer by participating surgeons from January to December 2015, was retrospectively collected. RESULTS: Surgical choice in clinical scenarios was affected by tumour stage and to a lesser extent, site and histotype. In particular, in early gastric cancer with diffuse histology D2 was recommended by >70% of surgeons, while this percentage dropped to 44% in intestinal histotypes. When surgeons selected a D2 dissection, the procedure was rarely fully compliant with the Japanese guidelines. In the review of gastrectomy experience an adequate number of nodes (≥15 nodes) was retrieved in 97% after D2. The number of retrieved nodes varied with median values ranging from 17 to 35 (p < 0.001) after D2. D2/D2+ was more frequently performed in mixed (80%) and diffuse (78%) cases than in intestinal cases (69%) (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Although an adequate lymphadenectomy was achieved in almost all cases in dedicated centres, there is still variation in the number of retrieved nodes. Tumor histology largely affects surgeon's choice as regards the extent of lymphadenectomy; however, the role of histology in planning surgical procedures needs to be verified in prospective trials.

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.

Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro-oesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: The UK Medical Research Council ST03 trial compared perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (B) in gastric and oesophagogastric junctional cancer. No difference in survival was noted between the arms of the trial. The present study reviewed the standards and performance of surgery in the context of the protocol-specified surgical criteria. METHODS: Surgical and pathological clinical report forms were reviewed to determine adherence to the surgical protocols, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and final histopathological stage for all patients treated in the study. RESULTS: Of 1063 patients randomized, 895 (84·2 per cent) underwent resection; surgical details were available for 880 (98·3 per cent). Postoperative assessment data were available for 873 patients; complications occurred in 458 (52·5 per cent) overall, of whom 71 (8·1 per cent) developed complications deemed to be life-threatening by the responsible clinician. The most common complications were respiratory (211 patients, 24·2 per cent). The anastomotic leak rate was 118 of 873 (13·5 per cent) overall; among those who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, the rate was higher in the group receiving ECX-B (23·6 per cent versus 9·9 per cent in the ECX group). Pathological assessment data were available for 845 patients. At least 15 nodes were removed in 82·5 per cent of resections and the median lymph node harvest was 24 (i.q.r. 17-34). Twenty-five or more nodes were removed in 49·0 per cent of patients. Histopathologically, the R1 rate was 24·9 per cent (208 of 834 patients). An R1 resection was more common for proximal tumours. CONCLUSION: In the ST03 trial, the performance of surgery met the protocol-stipulated criteria. Registration number: NCT00450203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

International comparison of treatment strategy and survival in metastatic gastric cancer.

Background: In the randomized Asian REGATTA trial, no survival benefit was shown for additional gastrectomy over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer with a single incurable factor, thereby discouraging surgery for these patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment strategies for patients with metastatic gastric cancer in daily practice in five European countries, along with relative survival in each country. Methods: Nationwide population-based data from Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden were combined. Patients with primary metastatic gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2014 were included. The proportion of gastric resections performed and the administration of chemotherapy (irrespective of surgery) within each country were determined. Relative survival according to country was calculated. Results: Overall, 15 057 patients with gastric cancer were included. The proportion of gastric resections varied from 8·1 per cent in the Netherlands and Denmark to 18·3 per cent in Belgium. Administration of chemotherapy was 39·2 per cent in the Netherlands, compared with 63·2 per cent in Belgium. The 6-month relative survival rate was between 39·0 (95 per cent c.i. 37·8 to 40·2) per cent in the Netherlands and 54·1 (52·1 to 56·9) per cent in Belgium. Conclusion: There is variation in the use of gastrectomy and chemotherapy in patients with metastatic gastric cancer, and subsequent differences in survival.

A seven-Gene Signature assay improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated gastroesophageal cancer patients from the MAGIC trial.

Background: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable gastroesophageal cancer, lymph node metastasis is the only validated prognostic variable; however, within lymph node groups there is still heterogeneity with risk of relapse. We hypothesized that gene profiles from neoadjuvant chemotherapy treated resection specimens from gastroesophageal cancer patients can be used to define prognostic risk groups to identify patients at risk for relapse. Patients and methods: The Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial (n = 202 with high quality RNA) samples treated with perioperative chemotherapy were profiled for a custom gastric cancer gene panel using the NanoString platform. Genes associated with overall survival (OS) were identified using penalized and standard Cox regression, followed by generation of risk scores and development of a NanoString biomarker assay to stratify patients into risk groups associated with OS. An independent dataset served as a validation cohort. Results: Regression and clustering analysis of MAGIC patients defined a seven-Gene Signature and two risk groups with different OS [hazard ratio (HR) 5.1; P < 0.0001]. The median OS of high- and low-risk groups were 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 6.5 and 13.2 months] and 80.9 months (CI: 43.0 months and not assessable), respectively. Risk groups were independently prognostic of lymph node metastasis by multivariate analysis (HR 3.6 in node positive group, P = 0.02; HR 3.6 in high-risk group, P = 0.0002), and not prognostic in surgery only patients (n = 118; log rank P = 0.2). A validation cohort independently confirmed these findings. Conclusions: These results suggest that gene-based risk groups can independently predict prognosis in gastroesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This signature and associated assay may help risk stratify these patients for post-surgery chemotherapy in future perioperative chemotherapy-based clinical trials.

North European comparison of treatment strategy and survival in older patients with resectable gastric cancer: A EURECCA upper gastrointestinal group analysis.

BACKGROUND: As older gastric cancer patients are often excluded from randomized clinical trials, the most appropriate treatment strategy for these patients remains unclear. The current study aimed to gain more insight in treatment strategies and relative survival of older patients with resectable gastric cancer across Europe. METHODS: Population-based cohorts from Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were combined. Patients ≥70 years with resectable gastric cancer (cT1-4a, cN0-2, cM0), diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 were included. Resection rates, administration of chemotherapy (irrespective of surgery), and relative survival within a country according to stage were determined. RESULTS: Overall, 6698 patients were included. The percentage of operated patients was highest in Belgium and lowest in Sweden for both stage II (74% versus 56%) and stage III disease (57% versus 25%). For stage III, chemotherapy administration was highest in Belgium (44%) and lowest in Sweden (2%). Three year relative survival for stage I, II, and III disease in Belgium was 67.8% (95% CI:62.8-72.6), 41.2% (95% CI:37.3-45.2), 17.8% (95% CI:12.5-24.0), compared with 56.7% (95% CI:51.5-61.7), 31.3% (95% CI:27.6-35.2), 8.2% (95% CI:4.4-13.4) in Sweden. There were no significant differences in treatment strategies of patients with stage I disease. CONCLUSION: Substantial treatment differences are observed across North European countries for patients with stages II and III resectable gastric cancer aged 70 years or older. In the present comparison, treatment strategies with a higher proportion of patients undergoing surgery seemed to be associated with higher survival rates for patients with stages II or III disease.

Lymph node regression and survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to define the pathological response in lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma and to quantify any associated survival benefit. METHODS: Lymph nodes retrieved at oesophagectomy were examined retrospectively by two pathologists for evidence of a response to chemotherapy. Patients were classified as lymph node-negative (either negative nodes with no evidence of previous tumour involvement or negative with evidence of complete regression) or positive (allocated a lymph node regression score based on the proportion of fibrosis to residual tumour). Lymph node responders (score 1, complete response; 2, less than 10 per cent remaining tumour; 3, 10-50 per cent remaining tumour) and non-responders (score 4, more than 50 per cent viable tumour; 5, no response) were compared in survival analyses using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 377 patients, 256 had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Overall, 68 of 256 patients (26·6 per cent) had a lymph node response and 115 (44·9 per cent) did not. The remaining 73 patients (28·5 per cent) had negative lymph nodes with no evidence of regression. Some patients had a lymph node response in the absence of a response in the primary tumour (27 of 99, 27 per cent). Lymph node responders had a significant survival benefit (P < 0·001), even when stratified by patients with or without a response in the primary tumour. On multivariable analysis, lymph node responders had decreased overall (hazard ratio 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·36 to 0·78) and disease-specific (HR 0·42, 0·27 to 0·66) mortality, and experienced reduced local and systemic recurrence. CONCLUSION: Lymph node regression is a strong prognostic factor and may be more important than response in the primary tumour.