Endoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding caused by malignancy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding secondary to malignancy can be challenging. Endoscopy is the gold standard to diagnose and treat gastrointestinal bleeding but clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with malignancy-related bleeding are not well understood. This study aims to look at clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, safety and clinical outcomes of endoscopic interventions for GI malignancy-related bleeding. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of patients with confirmed GI malignancies who underwent endoscopy for GI bleeding at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2010 and 2019. Cox hazard analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with survival. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were included, with median age of 59 years; 74.8% were male. The stomach (30.0%) was the most common tumor location. Active bleeding was evident endoscopically in 47.3% of patients. Most patients (77.3%) did not receive endoscopic treatment. Of the patients who received endoscopic treatment, 57.7% had hemostasis. No endoscopy-related adverse events were recorded. Endoscopic treatment was associated with hemostasis (P < 0.001), but not decreased recurrent bleeding or mortality. Absence of active bleeding on endoscopy, stable hemodynamic status at presentation, lower cancer stage, and surgical intervention were associated with improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that endoscopy is a safe diagnostic tool in this patient population; while endoscopic treatments may help achieve hemostasis, it may not decrease the risk of recurrent bleeding or improve survival.

Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Plus Chemoradiation as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Multi-institutional Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus chemoradiation (CRT) for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal neoadjuvant therapy regimen for resectable GA is not defined. METHODS: Utilizing data from 2 high-volume cancer centers, we analyzed patients who underwent surgery for localized GA from 1/1/2000-12/31/2017. Standard CT regimens were used according to treatment period. We compared propensity matched cohorts based on age, sex, race, histology, and clinical stage. RESULTS: Four-hundred five patients (age 62 ± 12 year, 58% male, 56% White) were analyzed. 231 (57%) received CRT and 174 (43%) received CT. Groups differed based on histopathologic characteristics including preoperative stage (p = 0.013). To control for these differences, propensity matched cohorts of 113 CT and 113 CRT patients were compared. CRT had similar frequencies of microscopically negative resections to CT (93% vs 91%, p = 0.81), but higher rates of complete pathologic response (15% vs 4%, p = 0.003) and lower pathologic stage (p = 0.002). Completion of intended perioperative therapy occurred in 63% of CT and 91% of CRT patients (p < 0.001). Median DFS was 45mo (95%CI: 20-70) in the CT group and 113mo (95%CI: 75-151) in the CRT group (p = 0.018). Median OS was 53mo (95%CI: 30-77) versus 120mo (95%CI: 101-138); p = 0.015. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional comparison of neoadjuvant CT and CRT for resectable GA, CRT is associated with higher rates of completed perioperative therapy, higher rates of complete pathologic response, lower pathologic stage, and improved survival.Level of Evidence: Level III.

Determinants of Survival for Patients with Neoadjuvant-Treated Node-Negative Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine prognostic markers for disease recurrence and survival in a cohort of neoadjuvant-treated, node-negative gastric cancer patients (ypT0-4N0M0). METHODS: Clinicopathologic data from patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by curative-intent gastrectomy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1995 to 2017 were evaluated. Patients with AJCC TNM stage ypT0-4N0M0 were considered for analysis. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 212 patients with a mean age of 58.3 years. Of these patients, 60 % were male, 53 % were Caucasian, 87 % received chemoradiation, and 13 % received chemotherapy. The findings showed a median overall survival (OS) rate of 11.3 years, a 5-year survival rate of 72 %, and a 10-year survival rate of 57 %. During a median follow-up period of 5.5 years, 38.2 % of the patients died. In the multivariable analysis, ypT4-stage and nodal yield fewer than 16 were significantly associated with reduced OS. Cancer classified as ypT4 had more aggressive biologic traits, including lymphovascular and perineural invasion, and was treated more aggressively with total gastrectomy and additional organ resection despite frequent positive margins. Depth of invasion remained significantly associated with worse outcome after the analysis controlled for nodal yield and possible stage migration. Compared with ypT0-3 tumors, ypT4 cancers were associated with significantly more recurrences (13 % vs. 45 %; p < 0.05), and the primary modes of failure for ypT4 lesions were local recurrence and peritoneal metastases (88 % of recurrences). CONCLUSIONS: Depth of primary tumor invasion and nodal yield were significantly associated with OS among the patients with ypT0-4N0M0 gastric cancer. Serosal invasion (ypT4) was associated with a high rate of peritoneal recurrence, and trials of intraperitoneal therapy targeting these patients should be considered.

Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Plus Chemoradiation as Preoperative Therapy for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of a Large, Single-Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: We compared oncologic outcomes of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) with those of patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus chemoradiation (CRT) for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We compared oncologic and survival outcomes of patients who received CT or CRT for gastric adenocarcinoma at our institution between July 1995 and July 2018. We analyzed propensity score-matched cohorts based on age, sex, race, tumor histologic characteristics, and clinical stage. RESULTS: We identified 440 patients (mean age 61 ± 12 years, 62% male, 55% white); 345 (78%) received CRT, and 95 (22%) received CT. The propensity score-matched cohorts included 65 patients who received CT and 65 who received CRT. The CRT group had similar frequencies of R1 resection margins to the CT group (7.7% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.75) but significantly higher frequency of pathologic complete response (27.7% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001). The CRT group had lower pathologic stages (p = 0.002). Median disease-free survival was 50.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7-97.2) in the CT group and 122.1 months (95% CI: 69.0-175.1) in the CRT group (p = 0.07). Median overall survival was 70.7 months (95% CI: 23.9-117.5) in the CT group and 122.1 months (95% CI: 68.7-175.4) in the CRT group (p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CT, CRT for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma is associated with higher rates of pathologic complete response and subsequent lower final pathologic stage, but survival differences are not significant. Ongoing investigation is necessary to better determine the optimal neoadjuvant therapy and identify patients who receive optimal benefit from CRT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Navigating Nodal Metrics for Node-Positive Gastric Cancer in the United States: An NCDB-Based Study and Validation of AJCC Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The optimal number of examined lymph nodes (ELNs) and the positive lymph node ratio (LNR) for potentially curable gastric cancer are not established. We sought to determine clinical benchmarks for these values using a large national database. METHODS: Demographic, clinicopathologic, and treatment-related data from patients treated using an R0, curative-intent gastrectomy registered in the National Cancer Database during 2004 to 2016 were evaluated. Patients with node-positive (pTxN+M0) disease were considered for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 22,018 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years. Mean age at diagnosis was 65.6 years, 66% were male, 68% were White, 33% of tumors were located near the gastroesophageal junction, and 29% of patients had undergone preoperative therapy. Most primary tumors (62%) were category pT3-4, 67% had a poor or anaplastic grade, and 19% had signet features. Clinical nodal staging was inaccurate compared with staging at final pathology. The mean [SD] number of nodes examined was 19 [11]. On multivariable analysis, the pN category, ELNs, and LNR were independently associated with survival (all P<.0001). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, an optimal ELN threshold of ≥30 was established for patients with pN3b disease and was applied to the entire cohort. Node positivity and LNR had minimal change beyond 30 examined nodes. Stage-specific LNR thresholds calculated by ROC analysis were 11% for pN1, 28% for pN2, 58% for pN3a, 64% for pN3b, 30% for total combined. By using an ELN threshold of ≥30, prognostically advantageous stage-specific LNR values could be determined for 96% of evaluated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using a large national cancer registry, we determined that an ELN threshold of ≥30 allowed for prognostically advantageous LNRs to be achieved in 96% of patients. Therefore, ≥30 examined nodes should be considered a clinical benchmark for practice in the United States.

Comparison of laparoscopy versus mini-laparotomy for jejunostomy placement in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Optimal nutrition is challenging for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and often requires feeding tube placement prior to preoperative therapy. Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) placement via mini-laparotomy is technically easier to perform than laparoscopic FJ. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing laparoscopic versus mini-laparotomy FJ placement. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma receiving laparoscopic versus mini-laparotomy FJ at a single tertiary referral center from 2000 to 2018. 30-day outcomes included complications, conversion to laparotomy, reoperation, length of stay, and readmission. RESULTS: A total of 656 patients met the inclusion criteria and were studied. The majority of patients were male (68.1%) with a mean age of 60.6 years. The difference in surgical approach remained relatively stable over time. Overall, 82 (12.5%) patients experienced complications, and three (0.5%) patients died postoperatively. While readmission and conversion to open laparotomy did not differ between groups, overall complications (10.5% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.002), Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications (4.0% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.021), length of stay (4.1 vs. 5.6 days, p < 0.001), and reoperation (0.9% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.002) favored the laparoscopic over mini-laparotomy group. CONCLUSION: The current study helps clarify the risk of FJ placement in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma requiring nutritional support. Laparoscopic FJ placement has lower overall morbidity and length of stay compared to mini-laparotomy. However, caution is needed in preventing and identifying the rare causes of postoperative mortality that may be associated with laparoscopic FJ placement.

Laparoscopic HIPEC for Low-Volume Peritoneal Metastasis in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We seek to determine whether laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (LS-HIPEC) improves overall survival (OS) in patients with gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and low-volume peritoneal metastasis compared with standard of care treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed data from a prospectively maintained database of patients with gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma to identify patients with radiologically occult carcinomatosis or positive peritoneal cytology, no evidence of distant metastasis, and without disease progression during initial chemotherapy or observation. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of LS-HIPEC on OS. RESULTS: We identified 25 patients who underwent LS-HIPEC and 27 treated with a standard of care approach due to patient (33.3%) or provider (51.9%) preference or financial limitations/lack of insurance coverage (14.8%). Resection was ultimately performed in 28% of LS-HIPEC patients and no standard care patients. At a median follow-up of 18.9 months, median OS was 24.7 (IQR 20.8-34.2) months in LS-HIPEC patients and 21.3 (IQR 12.3-23.1) months in standard care patients (p = 0.08). Three-year OS in the LS-HIPEC group was 19.1%, compared with 9.6% (p = 0.08). Patients who underwent resection had a median OS of 25.3 (IQR 22.6-47.1) months compared with 21.3 months in standard care patients (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant LS-HIPEC for the treatment of low-volume peritoneal disease in gastric and gastroesophageal cancer patients did not significantly improve OS compared with standard care. Multiinstitutional studies are necessary to further elucidate the benefit of LS-HIPEC for this patient population.

Prognostic Value of Lymph Node Yield After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Optimal lymphadenectomy (LAD) for gastric cancer (GC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACXRT) is not defined. This study assessed the prognostic value of LAD extent after modern preoperative therapy for GC. METHODS: The study analyzed patients who underwent resection after NACXRT for GC at the authors' institution. Survival of the patients was compared between D1 and D2 resections and between lymph node (LN) yields (LNY) of fewer than 15 LNs and 15 or more LNs. The patients with early clinical nodal disease (cN0-1) were separately analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to assess overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Resection of GC was performed for 345 patients after NACXRT. Of these patients, 269 (78%) received a D2 resection, and 277 (80%) had an LNY of 15 LNs or more. There were no differences in length of stay (12[10-16] days vs. 12[10-15] days, p = 0.917) or in any major complication including leak rates, intraabdominal infections, and bleeding (all p > 0.05). There was a significant difference in DFS (p = 0.050) and an OS trend (p = 0.085) based on D1 versus D2. Those who had 15 LNs removed showed a trend toward improved survival (DFS, p = 0.082; OS, p = 0.096). Among the patients with early clinical N stage disease (cN0-1), those who underwent D2 resections had better survival (DFS, p = 0.040; OS, p = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with GC who underwent resection after NACXRT showed evidence of improved survival after an extended LAD, particularly those with early N stage disease. Perioperative morbidity did not differ based on extent of LAD. Despite the potential effects of tumor downstaging with preoperative therapy, a thorough locoregional lymphatic resection is recommended.

Relationship between initial management strategy and survival in patients with gastric outlet obstruction due to gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) due to gastric cancer (GC) is unclear. We examined the relationships between clinical and management variables and outcomes in patients with GC having GOO. METHODS: The GOO management and clinical course were reviewed in patients with GC and GOO. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to identify variables predictive of overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study included 59 patients. Eleven had imaging evidence of metastasis and 35 had pathologically confirmed peritoneal disease. Initial management included resection in 23 patients, feeding jejunostomy ± decompressive gastrostomy (JT/GT) in 25, surgical gastrojejunostomy in five, and endoscopic intervention in six. Seven patients with initial JT/GT underwent resection after neoadjuvant therapy. Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.4 (0.0-45.1) months in the upfront resection group (median follow-up, 14.7 months) and not reached in those with initial JT/GT, neoadjuvant therapy, and later resection (median follow-up, 26.5 months) (P = .18). On multivariable analysis, clinically positive nodes (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.76; 95% CI, 1.17-12.12; P = .03), metastasis on CT (HR: 3.97; 95% CI: 1.53-10.26;P = .01), and resection (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.79;P = .01) independently predicted OS. CONCLUSION: In GOO due to GC, OS is similar after treatment with upfront resection compared with JT/GT, neoadjuvant therapy, and later resection. Upfront JT/GT may allow patients to tolerate chemotherapy and improve selection for gastrectomy.

Staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology in patients with early stage gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology can detect occult metastatic disease prior to treatment of gastric cancer. The yield of peritoneal staging in patients with early stage disease is lacking. We assess the yield of peritoneal staging in early stage gastric cancer and its impact on survival. METHODS: Data were obtained from a prospective database of patients who underwent staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology for gastric cancer at our institution between July 1995 and July 2018. Clinical stage was determined by endoscopic ultrasound, and early stage was defined as cT1-2 and cN0. Rates of positive cytology and carcinomatosis at time of laparoscopy were obtained. Univariate analyses were used to compare groups, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to assess survival outcomes. RESULTS: Eight hundred sixty-seven patients underwent staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology; 56 were defined as early stage. Age was 61 ± 12 years, 66.4% were male, and 62.3% were white. Of the patients with early stage disease, 17.9% had either gross carcinomatosis (10.7%) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (10.9%). All cases of peritoneal disease were in patients with cT2 disease. There were no differences in age, gender, or race based on peritoneal disease (all p > 0.05). The presence of carcinomatosis or positive cytology significantly affected overall survival (p < 0.001), regardless of clinical T or N stage. CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal staging identifies metastatic disease in a significant number of patients with early stage disease. Given its poor prognosis and alternate therapy options, independent staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology should be considered in patients with early stage gastric adenocarcinoma.

Characteristics and Survival of Gastric Cancer Patients with Pathologic Complete Response to Preoperative Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response of a primary tumor (ypT0) after preoperative therapy is associated with improved overall survival (OS). However, whether other variables are associated with outcome for gastric cancer patients with ypT0 status is unknown. METHODS: This study reviewed an institutional database of patients who underwent resection of gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma after preoperative therapy and identified patients with ypT0 status. Cox regression models were used to identify clinicopathologic predictors of OS. RESULTS: Of 77 patients with ypT0 status identified in this study, 36 (47%) had gastroesophageal junction tumors. At presentation, 62 patients (81%) had clinical T3 disease, and 7 (9%) had clinical T4 disease. The clinical nodal status was positive (cN+) for 45 patients (58%). Preoperative chemoradiation was administered to 75 patients (97%). The median follow-up duration was 3.54 years. The median OS was 10 years, and the 5-year OS rate was 61%. Univariable analysis identified age of 65 years or older at the time of diagnosis, histologic grade, and ypN status as significant predictors of OS. Multivariable analysis confirmed age of 65 years or older [hazard ratio (HR), 4.26; p < 0.001] and persistent nodal disease (ypN+ status; HR, 5.12; p < 0.001) to be independently associated with OS. Clinical stage was not associated with survival. In the subset of ypT0N0 patients, no clinicopathologic feature was predictive of survival. CONCLUSION: For gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients with ypT0 status after preoperative therapy, ypN+ status substantially reduced survival. Pretreatment clinical stage had no impact on OS for patients with a pathologic complete response.

Laparoscopic Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy is Safe for Patients with Peritoneal Metastases from Gastric Cancer and May Lead to Gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (LS-HIPEC) is a novel strategy for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) metastatic to the peritoneum. We evaluated the safety profile of LS-HIPEC for patients with positive peritoneal cytology (PPC) or carcinomatosis from GA. METHODS: Outcomes were reviewed of patients with stage IV GA with peritoneal involvement who received LS-HIPEC from June 2014 to January 2017. LS-HIPEC included a 60-minute perfusion of mitomycin-C (30 mg) and cisplatin (200 mg) with inflow temperatures of 41-42 °C and outflow temperatures of 39-40 °C. RESULTS: A total of 71 LS-HIPEC procedures were performed in 44 patients. At diagnosis, 68% (n = 30) had carcinomatosis and 32% (n = 14) had isolated PPC. Three patients (7%) underwent LS-HIPEC for intractable ascites. All patients initially received systemic chemotherapy, and 20 patients (45%) received pre-procedural chemoradiotherapy. The median number of LS-HIPEC procedures performed per patient was one (range 1-5 procedures). There were no conversions to laparotomy, two outflow catheter obstructions, and one major (Clavien-Dindo grade III) surgical complication within 30 days. A total of seven postoperative adverse hematologic events (> CTCAE 2) were observed in five patients (11%), without any major renal or gastrointestinal adverse events within 30 days. The median overall length of hospital stay after LS-HIPEC was 2 (range 2-11) days. Eleven patients (25%) underwent secondary gastrectomy following resolution of peritoneal cytology. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic HIPEC is a safe procedure and may be repeated in patients with peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer. Future studies are required to determine the optimal HIPEC regimen and timing relative to systemic therapy to best minimize morbidity.

Yield of peritoneal cytology in staging patients with gastric and gastroesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for gastric and gastroesophageal (GE) cancer recommend staging laparoscopy (SL) with peritoneal cytology (PC). However, the reliability of PC is unknown. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity of PC. METHODS: We analyzed a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent SL and PC for gastric and GE cancer. Test sensitivity of PC for detecting peritoneal disease was assessed. Survival analyses were used to examine the implication of PC. RESULTS: There were 1186 patients that underwent SL and PC; 282 (24%) were found with carcinomatosis. PC was analyzed in 214 (76%) of these patients and 77 (36%) were found to have no malignant cells. In this setting, PC had a sensitivity of 64% for confirming peritoneal disease. Those with peritoneal disease had a poorer 5-year overall survival (5.8% vs 37.7%; P < .001). Those with positive PC without carcinomatosis had a similar survival to those with gross disease with and without cytological confirmation (both P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: PC has limited sensitivity for detecting peritoneal disease. Positive PC alone carries a similar poor survival as in patients with gross carcinomatosis. Improvements in the identification of microscopic disease in peritoneal washings are needed.

Should endoscopic mucosal resection be attempted for cT2N0 esophageal cancer?

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) can be an effective therapy for superficial esophageal cancer. Many patients with cT2 invasion by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) receive surgery but are subsequently found to have superficial disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety profile and the added value of attempting EMR for EUS-staged cT2N0 esophageal cancer. A retrospective review was performed at a single institution from 2008 to 2017. Patients who were staged cT2N0 by EUS were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. Among 75 patients identified for analysis, 30 underwent an attempt at EMR. No perforations or other immediate complications occurred. EMR was more likely to be attempted among older patients (P = 0.001) with smaller tumor size (P < 0.001) and diminished SUVmax (P = 0.001). At the time of treatment, EMR was successful in clearing all known disease among 17/30 patients, with 12 representing pT1a or less and 5 representing pT1b with negative margins. Among the 17 patients for whom EMR was able to clear all known disease, there were no recurrences or cancer-related deaths. Although all the patients were staged as cT2N0 by EUS, many patients were identified by EMR to have superficial disease. There were no perforations or other adverse events related to EMR. Furthermore, EMR cleared all known disease among 17 patients with no known recurrences or cancer-related deaths. The results indicate that EMR for cT2N0 esophageal cancer is a safe diagnostic option that is therapeutic for some.

Influence of induction chemotherapy in trimodality therapy-eligible oesophageal cancer patients: secondary analysis of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A randomised phase 2 trial of trimodality with or without induction chemotherapy (IC) in oesophageal cancer (EC) patients showed no advantage in overall survival (OS) or pathologic complete response rate. To identify subsets that might benefit from IC, a secondary analysis was done. METHODS: The trial had accrued 126 patients (NCT 00525915). Recursive partitioning and proportional hazards regression with interactions were performed. RESULTS: The median follow-up of surviving patients was 6.7 years and the median OS duration was 3.8 years (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-5.8 years). OS was associated with tumour length (P=0.03), cT (P=0.02), cN (P=0.04), clinical stage (P=0.01), and tumour grade (P<0.001). The effect of IC differed according to tumour grade. Among patients with well or moderately differentiated (WMD) ECs (n=59), the 5-year survival rate was 74% with IC and 50% without IC, P=0.001. IC had no effect on OS of patients with poorly differentiated (PD) ECs (31% and 28%, respectively; interaction, P=0.04; IC, P=0.03). In the multivariate reduced model, WMD with IC was an independent prognosticator for better OS (HR=0.41, 95% CI, 0.25-0.67; P=<0.001). The following four EC phenotypes emerged for OS: (1) very high risk (PD, cN2/N3), (2) high risk (PD, cN0/N1, stage cIII), (3) moderate risk (PD, cN0/N1, stage cI/II or WMD without IC), and (4) low risk (WMD with IC). The 5-year survival rates were 11%, 27%, 48%, and 74%, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that IC significantly prolonged OS of WMD EC patients who undergo trimodality; prospective evaluation is needed.

Actionable Locoregional Relapses after Therapy of Localized Esophageal Cancer: Insights from a Large Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of surveillance after therapy of localized esophageal cancer (LEC) is to identify actionable relapses amenable to salvage; however, the current surveillance algorithms are not optimized. We report on a large cohort of LEC patients with actionable locoregional relapses (LRRs). METHODS: Between 2000 and 2013, 127 (denominator = 752) patients with actionable LRR were identified. Histologic/cytologic confirmation was the gold standard. All surveillance tools (imaging, endoscopy, fine needle aspiration) were assessed. RESULTS: Most patients were men (89%), had adenocarcinoma (79%), and had no new symptoms (72%) when diagnosed with LRR. In trimodality patients, endoscopic confirmation of positron emission tomography-computed tomography-suspected LRR occurred in only 44%, and 56% required additional tools (e.g., fine needle aspiration). Alternatively, in bimodality patients, endoscopy confirmed LRRs in 81%. Trimodality patients had a higher risk of subsequent LRR/distant metastases after the first LRR than the bimodality patients (p = 0.03). In all patients, 78% of the subsequent relapses were distant. For patients who were salvaged, survival was significantly prolonged (50.6 vs. 25.1 months, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients live longer after successful salvage of the LRR than if salvage is not possible. After LRR, patients have a high risk of subsequent distant metastasis and whether the second relapse is local or distant, survival is uniformly poor.

Repeat staging laparoscopy for gastric cancer after preoperative therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Staging laparoscopy is recommended before preoperative therapy in patients with locoregional gastric cancer, but yield of repeated diagnostic laparoscopy at the time of resection is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospective database of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (1994-2016) who had negative staging laparoscopy followed by preoperative therapy and subsequent attempted resection. Primary outcome was positive exploration (peritoneal or unresectable disease) at the time of resection. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with positive exploration. RESULTS: Of the 451 patients with attempted resection, 54 (12.0%) had positive explorations, including 48 with peritoneal disease. Patients with positive explorations were more likely to be female and have poorly differentiated tumors, linitis features, and signet-ring morphology. There was no significant difference by exploration results in age, race, clinical stage, or delayed definitive surgery. Positive explorations were independently associated with poor differentiation (OR 4.6, 95%CI 1.4-15.3; P = 0.01) and linitis (OR 4.2, 95%CI 1.9-9.2; P < 0.001). Positive explorations were seen in 14.0% of patients with poor differentiation, 36.6% of patients with linitis, and 5.8% of patients with neither linitis nor poor differentiation. CONCLUSION: Despite negative pretreatment laparoscopy, post-treatment repeat laparoscopy may prevent non-therapeutic laparotomies. At a minimum, we recommend selective repeat laparoscopy for patients with linitis features.

Evaluation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition staging system for gastric cancer patients after preoperative therapy.

BACKGROUND: The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) recently released its 8th edition staging system, which created a separate staging system for gastric cancer patients who have undergone preoperative therapy (ypStage). The objective of this retrospective study was to apply the new ypStage to patients who have undergone preoperative therapy and potentially curative gastrectomy. METHODS: We collected data from a prospectively maintained institutional database of gastric cancer patients who underwent potentially curative gastrectomy after preoperative therapy (1995-2015). Kaplan-Meier survival estimations and log-rank tests were performed to compare survival. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine risk factors for overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients met our criteria. Most patients completed planned preoperative therapy (94%; 332/354) and received chemoradiation therapy (75%; 265/354). Although clinical stage (cStage) provided a poor discrimination of survival, postneoadjuvant pathological stage (ypStage) identified significant variation in survival (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed the following factors were associated with survival after adjustment for ypStage: Asian race (HR 0.52; p = 0.028), linitis plastica (HR 1.66; p = 0.037), and R1 resection (HR 1.91; p = 0.016). Survival was not longer in ypT0N0 patients than in ypStage I patients (HR 1.29; p = 0.377). CONCLUSIONS: The AJCC 8th edition staging system for gastric cancer demonstrated reasonable survival prediction by ypStage, but not cStage, in patients who had undergone preoperative therapy. ypT0N0 patients, although not defined in the 8th edition, may be considered for inclusion in the ypStage I group.

Lessons learned from a phase II clinical trial of laparoscopic HIPEC for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, intraperitoneal chemotherapy has been found to have activity for select subgroups of patients with carcinomatosis from colon, ovarian, appendiceal, and recently, gastric origins. However, there is little data to support an aggressive surgical approach of cytoreduction (debulking) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal perfusion with chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with gastric cancer and positive cytology or carcinomatosis. The morbidity and mortality rates of cytoreduction and HIPEC, in combination with gastrectomy, are significant and the survival rates of this approach may not extend beyond that of treatment with systemic chemotherapy. The objective of this clinical trial, therefore, was to perform HIPEC in a neoadjuvant fashion via a minimally invasive approach without cytoreduction for patients with gastric cancer and positive cytology or low volume carcinomatosis. Patients found to have resolution of all extra-gastric disease are then candidates for gastrectomy. METHODS: Patients with gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and positive peritoneal cytology or radiologically-occult carcinomatosis that have completed treatment with systemic chemotherapy were offered participation in the study. RESULTS: We have performed 38 laparoscopic HIPEC procedures in 19 patients. Laparoscopic HIPEC consists of Mitomycin C 30 mg and Cisplatin 200 mg in 3-7 L of infusate circulated using an extracorporeal circulation device at a flow rate of 700-1500 mL/minute for 60 min. The Laparoscopic HIPEC procedure may be performed up to five times. In this video, we sought to present the surgical technique refined during our development and completion of this Phase II clinical trial (NCT02092298). CONCLUSION: The purpose of this presentation is to (1) demonstrate the technique of laparoscopic HIPEC and (2) review the surgical lessons learned from performing multiple HIPEC procedures prior to attempted gastrectomy.