Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy Versus Perioperative Chemotherapy for Patients With Resectable Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with perioperative chemotherapy (pCT) for patients with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma in terms of toxicity, postoperative complications, pathologic response, and survival. METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed and compared 313 patients with resectable esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with either nCRT (carboplatin/paclitaxel 41.4 Gy, n = 176) or pCT (epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine, n = 137). RESULTS: The baseline and tumor characteristics were similar in both groups. The ability to deliver all planned preoperative cycles was greater in the nCRT group (92.0 vs. 76.6%). Whereas nCRT was associated with a higher rate of grades 3 and 4 esophagitis, pCT was associated with a higher rate of grades 3 and 4 thromboembolic events, febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, cardiac complications, and electrolyte imbalances. Two patients in the pCT group died during neoadjuvant treatment due to febrile neutropenia. More postoperative cardiac complications occurred in the nCRT group. All other postoperative complications and the in-hospital mortality rate (nCRT, 4.7%; pCT, 2.3%) were comparable. The pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 15.1% after nCRT and 6.9% after pCT. Radicality of surgery was comparable (R0: 93.0 vs. 91.6%). The median overall survival was 35 months after nCRT versus 36 months after pCT. CONCLUSION: For patients with esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma, chemoradiotherapy with paclitaxel, carboplatin and concurrent radiotherapy, and perioperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabin lead to equal oncologic outcomes in terms of radical resection rates, lymphadenectomy, patterns of recurrent disease, and (disease-free) survival. However, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a considerably lower level of severe adverse events and should therefore be the preferred protocol until a well-powered randomized controlled trial provides different insights.

Patients with oesophageal cancer report elevated distress and problems yet do not have an explicit wish for referral prior to receiving their medical treatment plan.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify patients with oesophageal cancer's level of distress, type of problems, and wish for referral prior to treatment. To identify the clinical relevance of patients with oesophageal cancer's level of distress and type of problems, we build models to predict elevated distress, wish for referral, and overall survival. METHODS: We implemented the Distress Thermometer and Problem List in daily clinical practice. A score of ≥5 on the Distress Thermometer reflected elevated distress. We first created an initial model including predictors based on the literature. We then added predictors to the initial model to create an extended model based on the sample data. We used the 'least absolute shrinkage and selection operator' to define our final model. RESULTS: We obtained data from 187 patients (47.9%, of 390 eligible patients with oesophageal cancer) which were similar to non-respondents in their demographic and clinical characteristics. One-hundred thirteen (60%) patients reported elevated distress. The five most frequently reported problems were as follows: eating, tension, weight change, fatigue, and pain. Most patients did not have a wish for referral. Predictors for elevated distress were as follows: being female, total number of practical, emotional, and physical problems, pain, and fatigue. For referral, we identified age, the total number of emotional problems, the level of distress, and fear. The level of distress added prognostic information in a model to predict overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with oesophageal cancer report elevated distress and a myriad of problems yet do not have an explicit wish for referral prior to receiving their medical treatment plan. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Treatment strategies in recurrent esophageal or junctional cancer.

Little evidence is available about survival rates in patients with recurrent disease after potentially curative surgery for esophageal or junctional cancer. Only in limited occasions, potentially curative salvage strategies are available. The aim of this study is to analyze survival rates and patterns of dissemination, and to identify independent prognostic factors in a consecutive series of patients who develop recurrent esophageal or junctional cancer. Between 1994 and 2015, patients who developed disease recurrence after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by radical esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer were retrospectively analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to calculate and compare overall survival between patients with different patterns of dissemination and to compare between different treatment strategies. Furthermore, univariate and multivariate Cox-regression analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors for post recurrence survival. In this study, we included 219 patients. The median overall survival of all included patients was 3.2 months (range: 0.0-101.1 months). The median overall survival in patients with exclusively locoregional recurrence (n = 23, 10.8%) was 4.9 months (range: 0.1- 55.6) and 2.9 months (range: 0.0-101.1) in patients who had distant metastases (n = 189, 89.2%), P = 0.003. Patients who received treatment aimed at complete tumor eradication (n = 28, 13.7%) had a median overall survival of 13.6 months (range: 1.1-101.1) and palliative treated patients (n = 94, 46.1%) of 4.7 months (range: 0.3-25.6), P < 0.001. In a selected group of patients survival of more than 20 months was achieved. Univariate and multivariate Cox-regression analysis showed that a higher age at the diagnosis of recurrent disease (hazard ratio: 1.087, P ≤ 0.001), an irradical resection of the primary tumor (hazard ratio: 3.355, P = < 0.001), the number of positive lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy (hazard ratios: ypN2 = 1.724 (P = 0.024) and ypN3 = 2.082 (P = 0.028) and the presence of a single hematogenous distant metastases (hazard ratio: 2.281, P = 0.003) or more than one hematogenous distant metastasis (hazard ratio: 2.385, P = 0.005) were associated with a shorter postrecurrence survival. The prognosis of patients who develop recurrent esophageal or junctional cancer is poor. In a selected group of patients however relatively long survival can be achieved. This offers new perspectives to improve treatment strategies and survival rates.

Burden of spousal caregivers of stage II and III esophageal cancer survivors 3 years after treatment with curative intent.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to examine caregiver burden of spousal caregivers of patients with esophageal cancer after curative treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by resection and to assess factors associated with caregiver burden. METHODS: In this exploratory, cross-sectional study, spousal caregivers and patients were eligible if the caregiver was the patient's spouse and the patient had been treated with chemoradiation followed by surgery after esophageal carcinoma diagnosis. Forty-seven couples were included. Spousal caregivers completed a questionnaire, examining caregivers' burden (Self-Perceived Pressure from Informal Care (SPPIC, Dutch)), caregiver unmet needs (SCNS-P&S), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)), and marital satisfaction (Maudsley Marital Questionnaire (MMQ)). Patients completed the latter two questionnaires and a cancer specific quality of life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ C30 and OES18 (oesophageal module). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify correlates for caregiver burden. RESULTS: The median time after esophagectomy was 38 months. Thirty-four percent of the spousal caregivers reported moderate or high burden. Spousal caregivers most frequently reported unmet needs were managing concerns about the cancer coming back (43%), dealing with others not acknowledging the impact on your life of caring for a person with cancer (38%), and balancing the needs of the person with cancer and one's own needs. A comparable proportion of spousal caregivers and patients showed symptoms of anxiety (23 vs 17%) and depression (17 vs 17%). Spousal caregivers reported significantly more dissatisfaction than patients on the marital scale (p < 0.01). Factors independently associated with higher caregiver burden were fatigue of the patient (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.12-2.47) and depression of the spousal caregiver (OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.11-1.86). CONCLUSIONS: More than a third of the spousal caregivers of patients with esophageal cancer treated with curative intent report moderate or high burden 3 years after treatment. Fatigue of the patient and depression of the spousal caregiver are associated with caregiver burden. To improve clinical care, identification of spousal caregivers at risk for experiencing higher caregiver burden and implementation of specific interventions is needed.

18F-FDG-PET/CT to Detect Pathological Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients with Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction: Accuracy and Long-Term Implications.

PURPOSE: The curative strategy for patients with esophageal cancer without distant metastases consists of esophagectomy with preceding chemo(radio)therapy (CRT). In 10-40% of patients treated with CRT, no viable tumor is detectable in the resection specimen (pathological complete response (pCR)). This study aims to define the clinical outcomes of patients with a pCR and to assess the accuracy of post-CRT FDG-PET/CT in the detection of a pCR. METHODS: Four hundred sixty-three patients with cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who underwent esophageal resection after CRT between 1994 and 2013 were included. Patients were categorized as pathological complete responders or noncomplete responders. Standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios of 135 post-CRT FDG-PET/CTs were calculated and compared with the pathological findings in the corresponding resection specimens. RESULTS: Of the 463 included patients, 85 (18.4%) patients had a pCR. During follow-up, 25 (29.4%) of these 85 patients developed recurrent disease. Both 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) were significantly higher in complete responders compared to noncomplete responders (5y-DFS 69.6% vs. 44.2%; P = 0.001 and 5y-OS 66.5% vs. 43.7%; P = 0.001). Not pCR, but only pN0 was identified as an independent predictor of (disease-free) survival. CONCLUSION: Patients with a pCR have a higher probability of survival compared to noncomplete responders. One third of patients with a pCR do develop recurrent disease, and pCR can therefore not be equated with cure. FDG-PET/CT was inaccurate to predict pCR and therefore cannot be used as a sole diagnostic tool to predict pCR after CRT for esophageal cancer.

Learning inguinal hernia repair? A survey of current practice and of preferred methods of surgical residents.

PURPOSE: During surgical residency, many learning methods are available to learn an inguinal hernia repair (IHR). This study aimed to investigate which learning methods are most commonly used and which are perceived as most important by surgical residents for open and endoscopic IHR. METHODS: European general surgery residents were invited to participate in a 9-item web-based survey that inquired which of the learning methods were used (checking one or more of 13 options) and what their perceived importance was on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = completely not important to 5 = very important). RESULTS: In total, 323 residents participated. The five most commonly used learning methods for open and endoscopic IHR were apprenticeship style learning in the operation room (OR) (98% and 96%, respectively), textbooks (67% and 49%, respectively), lectures (50% and 44%, respectively), video-demonstrations (53% and 66%, respectively) and journal articles (54% and 54%, respectively). The three most important learning methods for the open and endoscopic IHR were participation in the OR [5.00 (5.00-5.00) and 5.00 (5.00-5.00), respectively], video-demonstrations [4.00 (4.00-5.00) and 4.00 (4.00-5.00), respectively], and hands-on hernia courses [4.00 (4.00-5.00) and 4.00 (4.00-5.00), respectively]. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a discrepancy between learning methods that are currently used by surgical residents to learn the open and endoscopic IHR and preferred learning methods. There is a need for more emphasis on practising before entering the OR. This would support surgical residents' training by first observing, then practising and finally performing the surgery in the OR.