The impact of sex on treatment and outcome in relation to histological subtype in patients with resectable gastric cancer: Results from the randomized CRITICS trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the impact of sex on outcome measures stratified by histological subtype in patients with resectable gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of the CRITICS-trial, in which patients with resectable GC were treated with perioperative therapy, was performed. Histopathological characteristics and survival were evaluated for males and females stratified for histological subtype (intestinal/diffuse). Additionally, therapy-related toxicity and compliance were compared. RESULTS: Data from 781 patients (523 males) were available for analyses. Female sex was associated with a distal tumor localization in intestinal (p = 0.014) and diffuse tumors (p < 0.001), and younger age in diffuse GC (p = 0.035). In diffuse GC, tumor-positive resection margins were also more common in females than males (21% vs. 10%; p = 0.020), specifically at the duodenal margin. During preoperative chemotherapy, severe toxicity occurred in 327 (63%) males and 184 (71%) females (p = 0.015). Notwithstanding this, relative dose intensities were not significantly different between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Positive distal margin rates were higher in females with diffuse GC, predominantly at the duodenal site. Females also experience more toxicity, but this neither impacts dose intensities nor surgical resection rates. Clinicians should be aware of these different surgical outcomes when treating males and females with GC.

High Incidence of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Oesophageal Cancer-A Registry-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden among patients with oesophageal cancer (EC) treated with curative intent is unclear. AIM: To determine CVD incidence and all-cause mortality in patients with EC. METHOD: Danish national health registries were used to identify patients diagnosed with primary EC between 2008 and 2018. Each EC patient was matched with 10 individuals from the general population. The primary endpoint was a CVD hospital contact (CVD-HC), either admission or outpatient contact. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to compare the risk of incident CVD-HCs between the cohorts. RESULTS: The study included 1,525 patients with EC and 15,250 individuals from the general population. Patients with EC had a post-diagnosis one-year adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of CVD-HC of 6.1 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 5.6-6.8) compared with the general population. During the next nine years, the risk of CVD-HC was comparable between the two cohorts, with an adjusted HR of 1.0 (95% CI 0.9-1.3). Patients with EC, and particularly those with prevalent CVD, had a high risk of atrial fibrillation, ischaemic heart disease, and venous thromboembolism within the first year after EC diagnosis. Prevalent CVD among patients with EC was not associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: CVD morbidity was transiently increased in the first year following EC diagnosis compared with the general population. All-cause mortality risks were high but did not appear to be affected by prevalent CVD. The very high risk of CVD in patients with primary EC to be treated with curative intent calls for healthcare initiatives to advance preventive and post-treatment strategies.

Reduction in myocardial function and oxygen consumption after chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may induce myocardial dysfunction, congestive heart failure, and impaired physical performance in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). We aimed to investigate left ventricular (LV) function at rest and during stress, using echocardiography (echo) and a cardiopulmonary exercise (CPX) test both before and immediately after completing CRT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive EC patients referred for curative treatment were enrolled. Patients attended either definitive CRT or neoadjuvant CRT with subsequent surgery. The evaluation included cardiac biomarkers, electrocardiogram, echo, and CPX test. The primary endpoint was changes in left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) at rest. Secondary endpoints were LV ejection fraction (LVEF), LV diastolic function, LVEF and GLS at peak exercise, and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max). The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03619317). RESULTS: Among 47 patients enrolled (94% male; median age 67 years, range 50-86 years), cardiac examinations were performed a median of three days [Interquartile range (IQR (1-5))] before CRT and one day [IQR (0-6)] after CRT. At rest, GLS and LVEF decreased, 17.6 vs. 16.4% and 56.4 vs. 55.1%, respectively (p = 0.004; p = 0.030). Furthermore, an absolute decrease of at least 5% in LVEF and 2.5% in GLS was noted in 21% of the patients. Signs of LV diastolic dysfunction increased from 13 to 21% (p = ns). VO2max significantly decreased; 21.2 ml/kg/min vs. 18.8 ml/kg/min (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: LV function and physical performance decreased in EC patients after CRT, and the LV systolic reserve capacity declined. This study highlighted that EC treatment was associated with early cardiac side effects, which may have clinical and prognostic implications.

Prognostic value of tumor markers and ctDNA in patients with resectable gastric cancer receiving perioperative treatment: results from the CRITICS trial.

AIM: To evaluate the prognostic value of tumor markers in a European cohort of patients with resectable gastric cancer. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the CRITICS trial, in which 788 patients received perioperative therapy. Association between survival and pretreatment CEA, CA 19-9, alkaline phosphatase, neutrophils, hemoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase were explored in uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Likelihoods to receive potentially curative surgery were investigated for patients without elevated tumor markers versus one of the tumor markers elevated versus both tumor markers elevated. The association between tumor markers and the presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was explored in 50 patients with available ctDNA data. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, in which we corrected for allocated treatment and other baseline characteristics, elevated pretreatment CEA (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.85, p < 0.001) and CA 19-9 (HR 1.79; 95% CI 1.42-2.25, p < 0.001) were associated with worse OS. Likelihoods to receive potentially curative surgery were 86%, 77% and 60% for patients without elevated tumor marker versus either elevated CEA or CA 19-9 versus both elevated, respectively (p < 0.001). Although both preoperative presence of ctDNA and tumor markers were prognostic for survival, no association was found between these two parameters. CONCLUSION: CEA and CA 19-9 were independent prognostic factors for survival in a large cohort of European patients with resectable gastric cancer. No relationship was found between tumor markers and ctDNA. These factors could potentially guide treatment choices and should be included in future trials to determine their definitive position. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00407186. EudraCT number: 2006-00413032.

Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in molecular subtypes of resectable gastric cancer: a post hoc analysis of the D1/D2 and CRITICS trials.

BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus positivity (EBV+) and microsatellite instability (MSI-high) are positive prognostic factors for survival in resectable gastric cancer (GC). However, benefit of perioperative treatment in patients with MSI-high tumors remains topic of discussion. Here, we present the clinicopathological outcomes of patients with EBV+, MSI-high, and EBV-/MSS GCs who received either surgery only or perioperative treatment. METHODS: EBV and MSI status were determined on tumor samples collected from 447 patients treated with surgery only in the D1/D2 trial, and from 451 patients treated perioperatively in the CRITICS trial. Results were correlated to histopathological response, morphological tumor characteristics, and survival. RESULTS: In the D1/D2 trial, 5-year cancer-related survival was 65.2% in 47 patients with EBV+, 56.7% in 47 patients with MSI-high, and 47.6% in 353 patients with EBV-/MSS tumors. In the CRITICS trial, 5-year cancer-related survival was 69.8% in 25 patients with EBV+, 51.7% in 27 patients with MSI-high, and 38.6% in 402 patients with EBV-/MSS tumors. Interestingly, all three MSI-high tumors with moderate to complete histopathological response (3/27, 11.1%) had substantial mucinous differentiation. No EBV+ tumors had a mucinous phenotype. 115/402 (28.6%) of EBV-/MSS tumors had moderate to complete histopathological response, of which 23/115 (20.0%) had a mucinous phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: In resectable GC, MSI-high had favorable outcome compared to EBV-/MSS, both in patients treated with surgery only, and in those treated with perioperative chemo(radio)therapy. Substantial histopathological response was restricted to mucinous MSI-high tumors. The mucinous phenotype might be a relevant parameter in future clinical trials for MSI-high patients.

Oncological results and morbidity following intended curative resection and free jejunal graft reconstruction of cervical esophageal cancer: a retrospective Danish consecutive cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The role of surgery in treatment of locally advanced cervical esophageal cancer (CEC) remains debated. In the European and American treatment guidelines, definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is preferred over surgery, while in the Danish guidelines, the two treatment modalities are equally recommended. Surgical treatment of CEC is centralized at our center in Denmark. We present our outcomes following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) when possible and resection as first-line therapy for CEC and compare with recent published dCRT results. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients treated for cervical esophageal cancer at Aarhus University Hospital from 2001-2018 with nCRT when possible and pharyngolaryngectomy followed by reconstruction with a free jejunal graft. RESULTS: Forty consecutive patients were included. About, 45% received nCRT. The median survival was 21 months. The overall, disease-specific and disease-free 5-year survival was 43.6%, 53.2%, and 47.4%, respectively. The rate of microscopically radical resection was 85%. The recurrence rate was 47% and 81% of recurrences were locoregional. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality rate was 0%. Major complications occurred in 27.9%. Anastomotic leakage, graft failure, fistulas and strictures occurred in 10%, 7.5%, 30%, and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our treatment offers equal oncological results compared to the best internationally published results for dCRT for CEC. Results vary considerably between dCRT studies. Morbidity appears more pronounced following surgery. Future studies are warranted to investigate the Danish national outcomes following dCRT as first-line treatment for curable locally advanced CEC.

Chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy after surgery and preoperative chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS): an international, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Both perioperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy improve survival in patients with resectable gastric cancer from Europe and North America. To our knowledge, these treatment strategies have not been investigated in a head to head comparison. We aimed to compare perioperative chemotherapy with preoperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had stage IB- IVA resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma (as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer, sixth edition), with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate cardiac, bone marrow, liver, and kidney function. Patients were enrolled from 56 hospitals in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, and were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computerised minimisation programme with a random element to either perioperative chemotherapy (chemotherapy group) or preoperative chemotherapy with postoperative chemoradiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy group). Randomisation was done before patients were given any preoperative chemotherapy treatment and was stratified by histological subtype, tumour localisation, and hospital. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Surgery consisted of a radical resection of the primary tumour and at least a D1+ lymph node dissection. Postoperative treatment started within 4-12 weeks after surgery. Chemotherapy consisted of three preoperative 21-day cycles and three postoperative cycles of intravenous epirubicin (50 mg/m2 on day 1), cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on day 1) or oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2 on day 1), and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally as tablets twice daily for 14 days in combination with epirubicin and cisplatin, or 625 mg/m2 orally as tablets twice daily for 21 days in combination with epirubicin and oxaliplatin), received once every three weeks. Chemoradiotherapy consisted of 45 Gy in 25 fractions of 1·8 Gy, for 5 weeks, five daily fractions per week, combined with capecitabine (575 mg/m2 orally twice daily on radiotherapy days) and cisplatin (20 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of each 5 weeks of radiation treatment). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. The CRITICS trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00407186; EudraCT, number 2006-004130-32; and CKTO, 2006-02. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2007, and April 17, 2015, 788 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=393) or chemoradiotherapy (n=395). After preoperative chemotherapy, 372 (95%) of 393 patients in the chemotherapy group and 369 (93%) of 395 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group proceeded to surgery, with a potentially curative resection done in 310 (79%) of 393 patients in the chemotherapy group and 326 (83%) of 395 in the chemoradiotherapy group. Postoperatively, 233 (59%) of 393 patients started chemotherapy and 245 (62%) of 395 started chemoradiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 61·4 months (IQR 43·3-82·8), median overall survival was 43 months (95% CI 31-57) in the chemotherapy group and 37 months (30-48) in the chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio from stratified analysis 1·01 (95% CI 0·84-1·22; p=0·90). After preoperative chemotherapy, in the total safety population of 781 patients (assessed together), there were 368 (47%) grade 3 adverse events; 130 (17%) grade 4 adverse events, and 13 (2%) deaths. Causes of death during preoperative treatment were diarrhoea (n=2), dihydropyrimidine deficiency (n=1), sudden death (n=1), cardiovascular events (n=8), and functional bowel obstruction (n=1). During postoperative treatment, grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 113 (48%) and 22 (9%) of 233 patients in the chemotherapy group, respectively, and in 101 (41%) and ten (4%) of 245 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group, respectively. Non-febrile neutropenia occurred more frequently during postoperative chemotherapy (79 [34%] of 233) than during postoperative chemoradiotherapy (11 [4%] of 245). No deaths were observed during postoperative treatment. INTERPRETATION: Postoperative chemoradiotherapy did not improve overall survival compared with postoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric cancer treated with adequate preoperative chemotherapy and surgery. In view of the poor postoperative patient compliance in both treatment groups, future studies should focus on optimising preoperative treatment strategies. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, and Hoffmann-La Roche.

A prognostic profile of hypoxia-induced genes for localised high-grade soft tissue sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: For decades, tumour hypoxia has been pursued as a cancer treatment target. However, prognostic and predictive biomarkers are essential for the use of this target in the clinic. This study investigates the prognostic value of a hypoxia-induced gene profile in localised soft tissue sarcoma (STS). METHODS: The hypoxia-induced gene quantification was performed by real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples. The gene expression cut-points were determined in a test cohort of 55 STS patients and used to allocate each patient into a more or a less hypoxic group. The cut-points found in the test cohort were applied to a cohort of 77 STS patients for validation. RESULTS: For patients with localised high-grade STS treated with surgery with or without postoperative radiation therapy, the prognostic value of the hypoxia-induced gene profile was proved in the test cohort and confirmed in the validation cohort. After adjustment for confounders, the hazard ratio (HR) was 3.2 (95% CI: 1.5; 7.0) for patients with more hypoxic tumours compared with patients with less hypoxic tumours regarding disease-specific survival. Moreover, for the development of metastatic disease, the HR was 2.61 (95% CI: 1.27; 5.33). CONCLUSIONS: The hypoxia-induced gene profile is a validated independent prognostic marker that may help identify STS patients needing more aggressive or different adjuvant treatment.

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Dosimetric evaluation of anatomical changes during treatment to identify criteria for adaptive radiotherapy in oesophageal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Some oesophageal cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and concomitant radiotherapy (chemoRT) show large interfractional anatomical changes during treatment. These changes may modify the dose delivered to the target and organs at risk (OARs). The aim of the presenwt study was to investigate the dosimetric consequences of anatomical changes during treatment to obtain criteria for an adaptive RT decision support system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients were treated with chemoRT for oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer and set up according to daily cone beam computed tomography (CBCTs) scans. All patients had an additional replanning CT scan at median fraction number 10 (9-14), which was deformably registered to the original planning CT. Gross tumour volumes (GTVs), clinical target volumes (CTVs) and OARs were transferred to the additional CT and corrected by an exwperienced physician. Treatment plans were recalculated and dose to targets and OARs was evaluated. Treatment was adapted if the volume receiving 95% of the prescribed dose (V95%) coverage of CTV decreased > 1% or planning target volume (PTV) decreased by > 3%. RESULTS: In total, nine adaptive events were observed: All nine were triggered by PTV V95% decrease > 3% [median 11% (5-41%)] and six of these were additionally triggered by CTV V95% decrease > 1% [median 5% (2-35%)]. The largest discrepancies were caused by interfractional baseline or amplitude shifts in diaphragm position (n = 5). Mediastinal (n = 6), oesophageal (n = 6) and bowel filling changes (n = 2) caused the remainder of the changes. For patients with dosimetric changes exceeding the adaptation limits, the discrepancies were confirmed by inspecting the daily CBCTs. In 31% of all patients, heart V30Gy increased more than 2% (maximum 5%). Only minor changes in lung dose or liver dose were seen. CONCLUSION: Target coverage throughout the course of chemoRT treatment is compromised in some patients due to interfractional anatomical changes. Dose to the heart may increase as well.

Evaluation of miR-21 and miR-375 as prognostic biomarkers in esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have been associated with prognosis in esophageal cancer, suggesting a role for miRNAs to help guide treatment decisions. Especially, miR-21 and miR-375 have been investigated as prognostic biomarkers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic potential of miR-21 and miR-375 in primary esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCC) and esophagogastric adenocarcinomas (EAC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pre-therapeutic tumor specimens from 195 patients with loco-regional esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant or definitive chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy were analyzed. Expression levels of miR-21 and miR-375 were quantified using Affymetrix GeneChip miRNA 1.0 Array. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the correlation of miR-21 and miR-375 with disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS). Forest plots were performed to evaluate the prognostic impact of miR-21 and miR-375 in the present study and previously published reports. RESULTS: In ESCC, patients with miR-21 expression levels above median showed a trend towards poorer DSS and OS. When dividing miR-21 expression by tertiles, high levels of miR-21 significantly correlated with shortened DSS [HR 1.76 (95% CI 1.05-2.97) but not OS. Similarly for EAC, a significant association between miR-21 expression above median and DSS was observed [HR 3.37 (95% CI 1.41-8.05)], in addition to a trend towards poorer OS for patients with miR-21 expression above median. Multivariate analyses identified miR-21 as an independent prognostic marker for DSS in EAC [HR 3.52 (95% CI 1.06-11.69)]. High miR-375 was not correlated with improved prognosis in either histology. However, Forest plots demonstrated that both miR-21 and miR-375 were of prognostic impact in ESCC. CONCLUSION: In this study, miR-21 was identified as an independent prognostic biomarker for DSS in patients with EAC whereas miR-21 failed to show independent prognostic significance in ESCC. High miR-375 was not associated with enhanced survival in either histology.

TRIFLURIDINE/TIPIRACIL (FTD/TPI) with or without bevacizumab in previously treated patients with esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, a randomised phase III trial.

Background: Trifluridine-tipiracil has shown a survival benefit compared with placebo in patients with chemorefractory metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy of trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab vs trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy in pre-treated patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. Methods: This investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized trial enrolled patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. The main inclusion criteria were patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, and WHO performance status 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral trifluridine-tipiracil (35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 every 28 days) alone or combined with bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient decision to withdraw. Randomisation was stratified by sex and treatment line. The primary endpoint was investigator-evaluated progression-free survival. All analyses were based on intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004845-18. Findings: From Oct 1, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 103 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to trifluridine-tipiracil (n = 53) or trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab (n = 50). The clinical cut-off date was March 1st, 2023, after a median follow-up of 36.6 months. Median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI 2.0-4.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 3.9 months (3.0-6.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-1.02; p = 0.058). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse event was neutropenia, observed in 26 (49%) patients in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 23 patients (46%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. At least one hospitalization was observed in 21 patients (40%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group and 22 patients (44%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. No deaths were deemed treatment related. Interpretation: In patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric cancer, trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab, compared to trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy, did not significantly prolong progression-free survival. The combination of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab was well tolerated without increase in severe neutropenia and no new safety signals. Funding: Servier, Roche.

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4).

INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

Hypoxia-regulated gene expression and prognosis in loco-regional gastroesophageal cancer.

UNLABELLED: Gastroesophageal cancers are heterogeneous diseases with a poor outcome. Prognostic and predictive factors are needed to improve patient survival. Hypoxia is an adverse prognostic factor and is associated with resistance to chemo- and radiotherapy in various cancers. However, knowledge on the impact of hypoxia in gastroesophageal cancer is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential prognostic factors in terms of a subset of hypoxia-responsive genes and clinicopathological parameters in patients with gastroesophageal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-five patients with loco-regional gastroesophageal cancer treated with curative intent were retrospectively analyzed. Based on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded diagnostic biopsies gene expressions of 15 hypoxia-induced and pH-independent genes from a previously described hypoxia gene expression classifier was quantified. The prognostic impact was evaluated for overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify hypoxia-responsive gene expression and clinicopathological parameters as prognostic markers. RESULTS: An unsupervised hierarchical clustering of hypoxia regulated genes showed two well-differentiated patient clusters: One cluster of tumors with high gene expression and another with low gene expression, indicating a more hypoxic genotype versus a less hypoxic genotype respectively. As the group of esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCC) alone showed intra-group heterogeneity this group was ranked according to the gene expression of the 15 genes. The most hypoxic third showed a trend towards a poorer outcome in terms of OS [HR = 0.48 (CI 0.21-1.07), p = 0.07] and DSS [HR = 0.48 (CI 0.18-1.24), p = 0.13]. Treatment response was identified as an independent prognostic factor for DSS in the group of ESCC [HR = 0.21 (CI 0.05-0.95), p = 0.04]. CONCLUSION: Gene expression analysis of 15 hypoxia-responsive genes was identified as a promising prognostic marker in patients with ESCC. Further studies confirming these results in larger patient cohorts are needed.

PET imaging of tumor hypoxia using 18F-labeled pimonidazole.

BACKGROUND: Tumor hypoxia contributes to loco-regional failure, and for optimal treatment planning, knowledge about tumor hypoxia in individual patients is required. Nitroimidazole-based tracers, which are retained in hypoxic cells, allow PET-based assessment of tumor hypoxia, but current tracers are characterized by slow tracer retention and clearance, resulting in low inter-tissue contrast. Pimonidazole is an immune detectable hypoxia marker widely used for detection of hypoxia in tumor samples. Pimonidazole has excellent chemical properties for hypoxia imaging, but labeling for non- invasive assay has not been attempted. Here we labeled pimonidazole with (18)F ([(18)F]FPIMO). MATERIAL AND METHODS: [(18)F]FPIMO was produced by fluorination of 1-[2-O-tosyl-3-(2-nitroimidazole-1-yl)-propyl]-piperidine, which resulted in two isomeric interchangeable forms (named "5" and "6") with a radiochemical purity of 91-100%. [(18)F]FPIMO was tested by incubation of two different tumor cell lines at high and low oxygen levels. [(18)F]FPIMO was also administered to tumor-bearing mice and tracer retention in tumors, non-hypoxic reference tissues and tissues involved in drug metabolism/clearance was evaluated by various techniques. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Retention of [(18)F]FPIMO was strongly hypoxia-driven in vitro, but isomeric form "5" was particularly promising and reached impressive anoxic-to-oxic retention ratios of 36 and 102, in FaDuDD and SiHa cells, respectively, following three hours of tracer incubation. This was equal to or higher than ratios measured using the established hypoxia tracer [(18)F]FAZA. [(18)F]FPIMO also accumulated in tumors grown in mice, and reached tumor levels that were two to six-fold higher than in muscle three hours post-administration. Furthermore, the intra-tumoral distribution of [(18)F]FPIMO (autoradiography) and unlabeled pimonidazole (immunohistochemistry) was largely identical. Nonetheless, [(18)F]FPIMO proved inferior to [(18)F]FAZA, since absolute tumor signal and intra-tumoral contrast was low, thus compromising PET imaging. Low tumor signal was coupled to extensive tracer accumulation in liver and kidneys, and analysis of blood metabolites revealed that [(18)F]FPIMO was metabolized rapidly, with little parent compound remaining 15 minutes post-administration. Ongoing work focuses on the possibility of labeling pimonidazole in different positions with (18)F to improve tracer stability in vivo.

Study protocol for the OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project: A multidisciplinary European consensus project on the definition and treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: A uniform definition and treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer is currently lacking. However, a comprehensive definition of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer is necessary to initiate studies on local treatment strategies (e.g. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy) and new systemic therapy agents in this group of patients. For this purpose, the OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project was established. The OMEC-project aims to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer and provide a framework for prospective studies to improve outcomes of these patients. METHODS: The OMEC-project consists of five studies, including 1) a systematic review on definitions and outcomes of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer; 2) real-life clinical scenario discussions in multidisciplinary expert teams to determine the variation in the definition and treatment strategies; 3) Delphi consensus process through a starting meeting, two Delphi questionnaire rounds, and a consensus meeting; 4) publication of a multidisciplinary European consensus statement; and 5) a prospective clinical trial in patients with oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer. DISCUSSION: The OMEC project aims to establish a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer and aims to initiate a prospective clinical trial to improve outcomes for these patients. Recommendations from OMEC can be used to update the relevant guidelines on treatment for patients with (oligometastatic) esophagogastric cancer.

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials.

Triplet Chemotherapy with Cisplatin versus Oxaliplatin in the CRITICS Trial: Treatment Compliance, Toxicity, Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with Resectable Gastric Cancer.

(1) Background: Perioperative chemotherapy is the current standard treatment for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Based on studies in patients with metastatic gastric cancer, oxaliplatin has replaced cisplatin in the curative setting as well. However, evidence to prefer oxaliplatin over cisplatin in the curative setting is limited. (2) Methods: We compared patient-related and tumor-related outcomes for cisplatin versus oxaliplatin in patients with resectable gastric cancer treated with perioperative chemotherapy in the CRITICS trial. (3) Results: Preoperatively, 632 patients received cisplatin and 149 patients received oxaliplatin. Preoperative severe toxicity was encountered in 422 (67%) patients who received cisplatin versus 89 (60%) patients who received oxaliplatin (p = 0.105). Severe neuropathy was observed in 5 (1%) versus 6 (4%; p = 0.009) patients, respectively. Postoperative severe toxicity occurred in 109 (60%) versus 26 (51%) (p = 0.266) patients; severe neuropathy in 2 (1%) versus 2 (4%; p = 0.209) for patients who received cisplatin or oxaliplatin, respectively. Diarrhea impacted the quality of life more frequently in patients who received oxaliplatin compared to cisplatin. Complete or near-complete pathological response was achieved in 94 (21%) versus 16 (15%; p = 0.126) patients who received cisplatin or oxaliplatin, respectively. Overall survival was not significantly different in both groups (p = 0.300). (4) Conclusions: Both cisplatin and oxaliplatin are legitimate options as part of systemic treatment in patients with resectable gastric cancer.

Treatment planning comparison in the PROTECT-trial randomising proton versus photon beam therapy in oesophageal cancer: Results from eight European centres.

PURPOSE: To compare dose distributions and robustness in treatment plans from eight European centres in preparation for the European randomized phase-III PROTECT-trial investigating the effect of proton therapy (PT) versus photon therapy (XT) for oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All centres optimized one PT and one XT nominal plan using delineated 4DCT scans for four patients receiving 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions. Target volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95%iCTVtotal) should be >99%. Robustness towards setup, range, and respiration was evaluated. The plans were recalculated on a surveillance 4DCT (sCT) acquired at fraction ten and robustness evaluation was performed to evaluate the effect of respiration and inter-fractional anatomical changes. RESULTS: All PT and XT plans complied with V95%iCTVtotal >99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTVtotal >97% for all respiratory and robustness scenarios. Lung and heart dose varied considerably between centres for both modalities. The difference in mean lung dose and mean heart dose between each pair of XT and PT plans was in median [range] 4.8 Gy [1.1;7.6] and 8.4 Gy [1.9;24.5], respectively. Patients B and C showed large inter-fractional anatomical changes on sCT. For patient B, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal in the worst-case robustness scenario was 45% and 94% for XT and PT, respectively. For patient C, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was 57% and 72% for XT and PT, respectively. Patient A and D showed minor inter-fractional changes and the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was >85%. CONCLUSION: Large variability in dose to the lungs and heart was observed for both modalities. Inter-fractional anatomical changes led to larger target dose deterioration for XT than PT plans.

Definitions and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer according to multidisciplinary tumour boards in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oesophagogastric cancer expert centres in Europe. However, high practice variability in treatment strategies exists.