Tumor regression grade and survival after neoadjuvant treatment in gastro-esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis of 17 published studies.

INTRODUCTION: Major pathologic regression after neoadjuvant therapy is a strong and favorable prognostic factor in several types of cancer (breast, rectal and bladder). This information is less clear and has yet to be systematically evaluated in upper gastrointestinal tumors. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic impact of tumor regression after preoperative therapy on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in gastro-esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: we searched for relevant articles in PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Embase up to June 2, 2016. Data of tumor regression (complete or near-complete pathologic response) that independently correlated with OS and DFS in multivariate analysis were extracted, and the proper hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled according to the random effect model. RESULTS: a total of 17 studies-which included 3145 patients-were considered in the final analysis. Major pathologic response was significantly related with better OS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.66, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.62, P < 0.001). Pathologic complete response (pCR) or major tumor regression were associated with the same degree of benefit in outcome compared to no or minimal pathologic regression, regardless of histology. CONCLUSION: major pathologic response is associated with a significant improvement in OS compared to no response or minor pathologic changes after neoadjuvant therapy in gastro-esophageal cancers. This should be considered a robust prognostic factor to guide postoperative treatment and follow-up.

Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer: Five-year follow-up of patients with clinically node-negative or node-positive disease before treatment.

PURPOSE: It is controversial whether sentinel node biopsy (SNB) without axillary dissection (AD) should be performed in cN1/2 breast cancer patients who become cN0 after neoadjuvant treatment, since the false negative rate (FNR) may be unacceptably high. We assessed outcomes to address this issue. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 396 cT1-4, cN0/1/2 patients, who became or remained cN0 after neoadjuvant treatment and underwent SNB with at least one sentinel node (SN) found, and AD not performed if the SN was negative. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 61 months (interquartile range 38-82), five-year overall survival was 90.7% (95% CI, 87.7-93.7) in the whole cohort, 93.3% (95% CI, 90.0-96.6) in those initially cN0, and 86.3% (95% CI, 80.6-92.1) in those initially cN1/2 (P = 0.12). Axillary failure occurred in only 1 (0.7%) initially cN1/2 patient who became cN0. In initially cN0 patients, and also initially cN1/2 patients who responded well to neoadjuvant treatment (ypT0/ypTx), SN-negativity was a significant predictor of good outcome, consistent with the known prognostic significance of axillary status, and suggesting that SN status accurately reflected axillary status. By contrast, in initially cN1/2 patients found to be ypT1/2/3, SN status (and whether or not AD was performed) had no influence on survival. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that SNB is acceptable in cN1/2 patients who become cN0 after neoadjuvant therapy.

[Perianal Paget's disease: five cases report]. / Malattia di Paget perianale: presentazione di 5 casi.

AIM: Extramammary Paget's disease is a rare neoplastic condition, often associated with a synchronous or metachronous underlying skin or visceral malignancies. The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the results we got in 5 cases of perianal Paget's disease and to revise what literature have reported about this issue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five patients with perianal EMPD were consecutively treated in our Division between March 1996 and December 2006. In 3 cases the disease was limited to the epidermidis, in one case with multiple recurrences there was dermal infiltration, and one patient had a low rectal adenocarcinoma with pagetoid phenomenon. The surgical treatment we performed in all patients was a wide perianal excision, followed by reconstruction with cutaneous grafts; the resection of rectal adenocarcinoma was carried out using the transanal approach. In two cases we performed a temporary stoma with the sigmoid colon to help the wound healing. RESULTS: We didn't record any complication neither postoperative nor at long time. Two patients developed a local recurrence, but none of our patients showed distant metastases. Four patients are alive and free from disease and one, who developed a multiple local recurrences, died for heart failure. DISCUSSION: The studies available in literature clearly distinguish between a primary EMPD (intraepidermal/intradermal) and secondary disease which is associated with anorectal adenocarcinomas and is thought to be a pagetoid phenomenon, while few informations can derive from those cases in which the disease is associated with an underlying cutaneous adnexal carcinoma. Disease tend to relapse even after a radical surgery and can have metastatic spread, also in intraepidermal form. CONCLUSIONS: Perianal EMPD is a complex disease, difficult to recognize and the association with synchronous or metachronous malignancies imposes long term clinical and instrumental follow up.