Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the histopathological classification of gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the era of individualized gastric cancer (GC) treatment, accurate determination of histological subtype becomes increasingly relevant. As yet, it is unclear whether preoperative chemotherapy may affect the histological subtype. The aim of this study was to assess concordance in histological subtype between pretreatment biopsies and surgical resection specimens before and after the introduction of perioperative treatment. METHODS: Histological subtype was centrally determined in paired GC biopsies and surgical resection specimens of patients treated with either surgery alone (SA) in the Dutch D1/D2 study or with preoperative chemotherapy (CT) in the CRITICS trial. The histological subtype as determined in the resection specimen was considered the gold standard. Concordance rates and sensitivity and specificity of intestinal, diffuse, mixed, and "other" subtypes of GC were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 105 and 515 pairs of GC biopsies and resection specimens of patients treated in the SA and CT cohorts, respectively, were included. Overall concordance in the histological subtype was 72% in the SA and 74% in the CT cohort and substantially higher in the diffuse subtype (83% and 86%) compared to the intestinal (70% and 74%), mixed (21% and 33%) and "other" subtypes (54% and 54%). In the SA cohort, sensitivities and specificities were 0.88 and 0.71 in the intestinal, 0.67 and 0.93 in the diffuse, 0.20 and 0.98 in the mixed, and 0.50 and 0.93 in the "other" subtypes, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that accurate determination of histological subtype on gastric cancer biopsies is suboptimal but that the impact of preoperative chemotherapy on histological subtype is negligible.

Adjuvant chemotherapy is superior to chemoradiation after D2 surgery for gastric cancer in the per-protocol analysis of the randomized CRITICS trial.

BACKGROUND: The Intergroup 0116 and the MAGIC trials changed clinical practice for resectable gastric cancer in the Western world. In these trials, overall survival improved with post-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and perioperative chemotherapy (CT). Intention-to-treat analysis in the CRITICS trial of post-operative CT or post-operative CRT did not show a survival difference. The current study reports on the per-protocol (PP) analysis of the CRITICS trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The CRITICS trial was a randomized, controlled trial in which 788 patients with stage Ib-Iva resectable gastric or esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were included. Before start of preoperative CT, patients from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark were randomly assigned to receive post-operative CT or CRT. For the current analysis, only patients who started their allocated post-operative treatment were included. Since it is uncertain that the two treatment arms are balanced in such PP analysis, adjusted proportional hazards regression analysis and inverse probability weighted analysis were used to minimize the risk of selection bias and to estimate and compare overall and event-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 788 patients, 478 started post-operative treatment according to protocol, 233 (59%) patients in the CT group and 245 (62%) patients in the CRT group. Patient and tumor characteristics between the groups before start of the post-operative treatment were not different. After a median follow-up of 6.7 years since the start of post-operative treatment, the 5-year overall survival was 57.9% (95% confidence interval: 51.4% to 64.3%) in the CT group versus 45.5% (95% confidence interval: 39.2% to 51.8%) in the CRT group (adjusted hazard ratio CRT versus CT: 1.62 (1.24-2.12), P = 0.0004). Inverse probability weighted analysis resulted in similar hazard ratios. CONCLUSION: After adjustment for all known confounding factors, the PP analysis of patients who started the allocated post-operative treatment in the CRITICS trial showed that the CT group had a significantly better 5-year overall survival than the CRT group (NCT00407186).

Rectal cancer lateral lymph nodes: multicentre study of the impact of obturator and internal iliac nodes on oncological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In patients with rectal cancer, enlarged lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) result in increased lateral local recurrence (LLR) and lower cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates, which can be improved with (chemo)radiotherapy ((C)RT) and LLN dissection (LLND). This study investigated whether different LLN locations affect oncological outcomes. METHODS: Patients with low cT3-4 rectal cancer without synchronous distant metastases were included in this multicentre retrospective cohort study. All MRI was re-evaluated, with special attention to LLN involvement and response. RESULTS: More advanced cT and cN category were associated with the occurrence of enlarged obturator nodes. Multivariable analyses showed that a node in the internal iliac compartment with a short-axis (SA) size of at least 7 mm on baseline MRI and over 4 mm after (C)RT was predictive of LLR, compared with a post-(C)RT SA of 4 mm or less (hazard ratio (HR) 5.74, 95 per cent c.i. 2.98 to 11.05 vs HR 1.40, 0.19 to 10.20; P < 0.001). Obturator LLNs with a SA larger than 6 mm after (C)RT were associated with a higher 5-year distant metastasis rate and lowered CSS in patients who did not undergo LLND. The survival difference was not present after LLND. Multivariable analyses found that only cT category (HR 2.22, 1.07 to 4.64; P = 0.033) and margin involvement (HR 2.95, 1.18 to 7.37; P = 0.021) independently predicted the development of metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Internal iliac LLN enlargement is associated with an increased LLR rate, whereas obturator nodes are associated with more advanced disease with increased distant metastasis and reduced CSS rates. LLND improves local control in persistent internal iliac nodes, and might have a role in controlling systemic spread in persistent obturator nodes.Members of the Lateral Node Study Consortium are co-authors of this study and are listed under the heading Collaborators.

Clinical translation and implementation of optical imaging agents for precision image-guided cancer surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The field of tumor-specific fluorescence-guided surgery has seen a significant increase in the development of novel tumor-targeted imaging agents. Studying patient benefit using intraoperative fluorescence-guided imaging for cancer surgery is the final step needed for implementation in standard treatment protocols. Translation into phase III clinical trials can be challenging and time consuming. Recent studies have helped to identify certain waypoints in this transition phase between studying imaging agent efficacy (phase I-II) and proving patient benefit (phase III). TRIAL INITIATION: Performing these trials outside centers of expertise, thus involving motivated clinicians, training them, and providing feedback on data quality, increases the translatability of imaging agents and the surgical technique. Furthermore, timely formation of a trial team which oversees the translational process is vital. They are responsible for establishing an imaging framework (camera system, imaging protocol, surgical workflow) and clinical framework (disease stage, procedure type, clinical research question) in which the trial is executed. Providing participating clinicians with well-defined protocols with the aim to answer clinically relevant research questions within the context of care is the pinnacle in gathering reliable trial data. OUTLOOK: If all these aspects are taken into consideration, tumor-specific fluorescence-guided surgery is expected be of significant value when integrated into the diagnostic work-up, surgical procedure, and follow-up of cancer patients. It is only by involving and collaborating with all stakeholders involved in this process that successful clinical translation can occur. AIM: Here, we discuss the challenges faced during this important translational phase and present potential solutions to enable final clinical translation and implementation of imaging agents for image-guided cancer surgery.

Strong CD8+ lymphocyte infiltration in combination with expression of HLA class I is associated with better tumor control in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are associated with pathological complete response (pCR) and survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with early breast cancer. We investigated the prognostic and predictive role of TILs, macrophages, and HLA class 1 expression after NAC with or without the potentially immune modulating compound zoledronic acid (ZA). METHODS: Baseline tumor biopsies from 196 patients in the NEOZOTAC trial were analyzed for CD8 (cytotoxic T-cells), FoxP3 (regulatory T-cells), CD68 (macrophages), and HLA class I (HCA2/HC10) expression by immunohistochemistry and subsequently related to pCR and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A strong intratumoral CD8+ infiltration or expression of HLA class 1 by cancer cells was associated with a higher pCR rate (p < 0.05). Clinical benefit of high CD8+ T-cell infiltration was found when cancer cells expressed HLA class 1 (pCR: 21.8% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.04) but not when HLA class 1 expression was lost or downregulated (pCR: 5.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.38). Interaction analyses revealed survival benefit between HLA class 1 expression and strong CD8+ T-cell infiltration, whereas in the absence or downregulation of HLA class 1 expression, high levels of CD8+ T-cells were associated with survival disadvantage (p for interaction 0.01; hazard ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.15-1.10, p = 0.08 and hazard ratio 7.67, 95% CI 0.88-66.4, p = 0.07, respectively). Baseline immune markers were not related to ZA treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Strong baseline tumor infiltration with CD8+ T-cells in the presence of tumoral HLA class 1 expression in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer is related to a higher pCR rate and a better DFS after NAC.

Impact of resection margin status on recurrence and survival in pancreatic cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is poor and selection of patients for surgery is challenging. This study examined the impact of a positive resection margin (R1) on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and overall survival (OS); and also aimed to identified tumour characteristics and/or technical factors associated with a positive resection margin in patients with PDAC. METHODS: Patients scheduled for pancreatic resection for PDAC between 2006 and 2016 were identified from an institutional database. The effect of resection margin status, patient characteristics and tumour characteristics on LRR, distant metastasis and OS was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients underwent pancreatectomy for PDAC. A positive resection (R1) margin was found in 129 patients (40·1 per cent); this was associated with decreased OS compared with that in patients with an R0 margin (median 15 (95 per cent c.i. 13 to 17) versus 22 months; P < 0·001). R1 status was associated with reduced time to LRR (median 16 versus 36 (not estimated, n.e.) months; P = 0·002). Disease recurrence patterns were similar in the R1 and R0 groups. Risk factors for early recurrence were tumour stage, positive lymph nodes (N1) and perineural invasion. Among 100 patients with N0 disease, R1 status was associated with shorter OS compared with R0 resection (median 17 (10 to 24) versus 45 (n.e.) months; P = 0·002), whereas R status was not related to OS in 222 patients with N1 disease (median 14 (12 to 16) versus 17 (15 to 19) months after R1 and R0 resection respectively; P = 0·068). CONCLUSION: Although pancreatic resection with a positive margin was associated with poor survival and early recurrence, particularly in patients with N1 disease, disease recurrence patterns were similar between R1 and R0 groups.

Impact of upfront randomization for postoperative treatment on quality of surgery in the CRITICS gastric cancer trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative randomization for postoperative treatment might affect quality of surgery. In the CRITICS trial (ChemoRadiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach), patients were randomized before treatment to receive chemotherapy prior to a D1 + gastrectomy (removal of lymph node station (LNS) 1-9 + 11), followed by either chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In this analysis, the influence of upfront randomization on the quality of surgery was evaluated. METHODS: Quality of surgery was analyzed in both study arms using surgicopathological compliance (removal of ≥ 15 lymph nodes), surgical compliance (removal of the indicated LNS), and surgical contamination (removal of LNS that should be left in situ). Furthermore, the 'Maruyama Index of Unresected disease' (MI) was evaluated in both study arms, and validated with overall survival. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2015, 788 patients with gastric cancer were included in the CRITICS study of which 636 patients were operated with curative intent. No difference was observed between the CT and CRT group regarding surgicopathological compliance (74.8% vs 70.9%, P = 0.324), surgical compliance (43.2% vs 39.2%, P = 0.381), and surgical contamination (59.4% vs 59.9%, P = 0.567). Median MI was 1 in both groups (range CT 0-88 and CRT 0-136, P = 0.700). A MI below 5 was associated with better overall survival (CT: P = 0.009 and CRT: P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Surgical quality parameters were similar in both study arms in the CRITICS gastric cancer trial, indicating that upfront randomization for postoperative treatment had no impact on the quality of surgery. A Maruyama Index below five was associated with better overall survival.

Quantitative margin assessment of radiofrequency ablation of a solitary colorectal hepatic metastasis using MIRADA RTx on CT scans: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Compared to surgery, radiofrequency ablation(RFA) for colorectal liver metastasis(CRLM) is associated with higher local recurrence(LR) rates. A wide margin (at least 5 mm) is generally recommended to prevent LR, but the optimal method to assess ablation margins is yet to be established. The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and reproducibility of CT-CT co-registration, using MIRADA software, in order to assess ablation margins of patients with CRLM. METHODS: In this retrospective study, pre- and post-ablation contrast-enhanced CT scans of 29 patients, treated with percutaneous RFA for a solitary CRLM, were co-registered. Co-registration was performed by two independent radiologist, based on venous structures in proximity to the tumor. Feasibility of CT-CT co-registration and inter-observer agreement for reproducibility and ablation margins was determined. Furthermore, the minimal ablation margin was compared with the occurrence of LR during follow-up. RESULTS: Co-registration was considered feasible in 18 patients (61% male, 63.1(±10.9) year), with a perfect inter-observer agreement for completeness of ablation: κ = 1.0(p < 0.001). And substantial inter-observer agreement for measurement of the minimal margin (≤ 0 mm, 1-5 mm, ≥ 5 mm): κ = 0.723(p-value < 0.001). LR occurred in eight of nine(88.9%) incompletely ablated CRLM and in one of the nine completely ablated CRLM(11.1%). CONCLUSION: Co-registration using MIRADA is reproducible and potentially a valuable tool in defining technical success. Feasibility of co-registration of pre- and post-ablation CT scans is suboptimal if scans are not acquired concordantly. Co-registration may potentially aid in the prediction of LR after percutaneous ablation.

Evaluation of applying IHC4 as a prognostic model in the translational study of Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES): PathIES.

BACKGROUND: Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) was a randomised study that showed a survival benefit of switching adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2-3 years from tamoxifen to exemestane. This PathIES aimed to assess the role of immunohistochemical (IHC)4 score in determining the relative sensitivity to either tamoxifen or sequential treatment with tamoxifen and exemestane. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary tumour samples were available for 1274 patients (27% of IES population). Only patients for whom the IHC4 score could be calculated (based on oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2 and Ki67) were included in this analysis (N = 430 patients). The clinical score (C) was based on age, grade, tumour size and nodal status. The association of clinicopathological parameters, IHC4(+C) scores and treatment effect with time to distant recurrence-free survival (TTDR) was assessed in univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses. A modified clinical score (PathIEscore) (N = 350) was also estimated. RESULTS: Our results confirm the prognostic importance of the original IHC4, alone and in conjunction with clinical scores, but no significant difference with treatment effects was observed. The combined IHC4 + Clinical PathIES score was prognostic for TTDR (P < 0.001) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 5.54 (95% CI 1.29-23.70) for a change from 1st quartile (Q1) to Q1-Q3 and HR of 15.54 (95% CI 3.70-65.24) for a change from Q1 to Q4. CONCLUSION: In the PathIES population, the IHC4 score is useful in predicting long-term relapse in patients who remain disease-free after 2-3 years. This is a first trial to suggest the extending use of IHC4+C score for prognostic indication for patients who have switched endocrine therapies at 2-3 years and who remain disease-free after 2-3 years.