Peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer in a nationwide cohort: Incidence, treatment and survival.

The aims of this study were to investigate incidence, risk factors and treatment of synchronous or metachronous peritoneal metastases (PM) from gastric cancer and to estimate survival of these patients using population-based data. Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer in 2015 to 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The incidence of synchronous and metachronous PM were calculated. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the occurrence of PM. Treatment and survival were compared between patients with synchronous and metachronous PM. Of 2206 patients with gastric cancer, 741 (34%) were diagnosed with PM. Of these, 498 (23%) had synchronous PM. The cumulative incidence of metachronous PM in patients who underwent potentially curative treatment (n = 675) was 22.8% at 3 years. A factor associated with synchronous and metachronous PM was diffuse type histology. Patients diagnosed with synchronous PM more often received systemic treatment than patients with metachronous PM (35% vs 18%, respectively, P < .001). Median overall survival was comparable between synchronous and metachronous PM (3.2 vs 2.3 months, respectively, P = .731). Approximately one third of all patients with gastric cancer are diagnosed with PM, either at primary diagnosis or during 3-year follow-up after potentially curative treatment. Patients with metachronous PM less often received systemic treatment than those with synchronous PM but survival was comparable between both groups. Future trials are warranted to detect gastric cancer at an earlier stage and to examine strategies that lower the risk of peritoneal dissemination. Also, specific treatment options for patients with gastric PM should be further investigated.

Long-term health-related quality of life in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer receiving first-line systemic therapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of systemic therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer in daily clinical practice. This study assessed the HRQoL of patients with esophagogastric cancer during first-line systemic therapy, at disease progression, and after progression in a real-world context. METHODS: Patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer (2014-2021) receiving first-line systemic therapy registered in the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Oesophageal-gastric cancer (POCOP) were included (n = 335). HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25. Outcomes of mixed-effects models were presented as adjusted mean changes. RESULTS: Results of the mixed-effect models showed the largest significant improvements during systemic therapy for odynophagia (- 18.9, p < 0.001), anxiety (- 18.7, p < 0.001), and dysphagia (- 13.8, p < 0.001) compared to baseline. After progression, global health status (- 6.3, p = 0.002) and cognitive (- 6.2, p = 0.001) and social functioning (- 9.7, p < 0.001) significantly worsened. At and after progression, physical (- 9.0, p < 0.001 and - 8.8, p < 0.001) and role functioning (- 15.2, p = 0.003 and - 14.7, p < 0.001) worsened, respectively. Trouble with taste worsened during systemic therapy (11.5, p < 0.001), at progression (12.0, p = 0.004), and after progression (15.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In general, HRQoL outcomes in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer improved during first-line therapy. Deterioration in outcomes was mainly observed at and after progression. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Identification of HRQoL aspects is important in shared decision-making and to inform patients on the impact of systemic therapy on their HRQoL.

A population-based comparison of patients with metastatic esophagogastric carcinoma between Japan and the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: Differences exist between Asian and Western patients with esophagogastric cancer, for example in terms of histological subtype and treatment strategies. This study aimed to compare characteristics and treatment between patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer from Japan and the Netherlands using nationwide cancer registry data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer were included from the nationwide national cancer registry of Japan (2016-2019) and the Netherlands (2015-2020). Treatment strategies were analyzed using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with metastatic esophageal (16.0% vs 34.2%) and gastric cancer (14.9% vs 45.2%) were lower in Japan compared to the Netherlands. Japanese patients with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) or gastric cancer (GC) were more often male and older compared to Dutch patients. Proportion of patients with metastatic disease who received surgical resection was higher in Japan compared to the Netherlands (EAC 9.3 vs 1.4%, p < 0.001; ESCC 10.7% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001; GC 12.0% vs 3.6% p < 0.001). Proportion of patients who received systemic therapy was also higher (EAC 44.8% vs 30.4%, p < 0.001; ESCC 26.6% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001; GC 50.7% vs 35.8% p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Japanese patients less often presented with metastatic esophagogastric cancer and more often underwent surgical resection or received systemic therapy compared to Dutch patients. Further investigation should elucidate what the deliberations are in both Japan and the Netherlands and if more patients in the Netherlands could benefit from surgical resection or systemic therapy and whether this would translate in better survival and quality of life.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In trials evaluating perioperative chemotherapy for gastric cancer, which serve as the basis for treatment guidelines, patients are selected. The generalizability of these trial findings to older patients is uncertain. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study compared the survival outcomes of patients ≥ 75 years with gastric adenocarcinoma treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 2015 and 2019. Additionally, the percentage of patients < 75 years and ≥ 75 years who did not proceeded to surgery after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1995 patients, of whom 1249 aged < 75 years and 746 aged ≥ 75 years, were included. In the group of patients ≥ 75 years, 275 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 471 patients were directly scheduled for gastrectomy. Patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy differed significantly from one and another in characteristics. Overall survival of patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not significantly different (median 34.9 vs. 32.3 months; P = 0.506), also after adjusting for potential confounders (HR 0.87; P = 0.263). Of patients ≥ 75 years who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 43 (15.6%) did not proceed to surgery compared to 111 (8.9%) patients < 75 years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without chemotherapy were highly selected, and overall survival was not significantly different between both groups. Nonetheless, the proportion of patients who did not proceed to surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was higher in patients ≥ 75 years compared to patients < 75 years. Therefore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered with more caution in patients ≥ 75 years, while identifying those who may benefit.

Late Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Definitive Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a treatment option with curative intent for patients with esophageal cancer that could result in late toxicities and affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to investigate the effect of dCRT on late toxicities and HRQoL in esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO. Prospective phase II and III clinical trials, population-based studies, and retrospective chart reviews investigating late toxicity or HRQoL after dCRT (≥50 Gy) were included. The HRQoL outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models with restricted cubic spline transformation. Any HRQoL changes of ≥10 points were considered clinically relevant. The risk of toxicities was calculated using the number of events and the total study population. RESULTS: Among 41 included studies, 10 assessed HRQoL and 31 late toxicity. Global health status remained stable over time and improved after 36 months compared with baseline (mean change, +11). Several tumor-specific symptoms, including dysphagia, eating restrictions, and pain, improved after 6 months compared with baseline. Compared with baseline, dyspnea worsened after 6 months (mean change, +16 points). The risk of any late toxicity was 48% (95% CI, 33%-64%). Late toxicity risk of any grade for the esophagus was 17% (95% CI, 12%-21%), pulmonary 21% (95% CI, 11%-31%), cardiac 12% (95% CI, 6%-17%), and any other organ 24% (95% CI, 2%-45%). CONCLUSIONS: Global health status remained stable over time, and tumor-specific symptoms improved within 6 months after dCRT compared with baseline, with the exception of dyspnea. In addition, substantial risks of late toxicity were observed.

Trends in best-case, typical and worst-case survival scenarios of patients with non-metastatic esophagogastric cancer between 2006 and 2020: A population-based study.

New treatment options and centralization of surgery have improved survival for patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. It is unknown, however, which patients benefitted the most from treatment advances. The aim of this study was to identify best-case, typical and worst-case scenarios in terms of survival time, and to assess if survival associated with these scenarios changed over time. Patients with non-metastatic potentially resectable esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Best-case (20th percentile), upper-typical (40th percentile), typical (median), lower-typical (60th percentile) and worst-case (80th percentile) survival scenarios were defined, and regression analysis was used to investigate the change in survival time for each scenario across years. For patients with esophageal cancer (N = 24 352) survival time improved on average 12.0 (until 2011), 1.5 (until 2018), 0.7, 0.4 and 0.2 months per year for the best-case, upper-typical, median, lower-typical and worst-case scenario, respectively. For patients with gastric cancer (N = 9993) survival time of the best-case scenario remained constant, whereas the upper-typical, median, lower-typical and worst-case scenario improved on average with 1.0 (until 2018), 0.5, 0.2 and 0.2 months per year, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that, survival scenarios improved for nearly all patients across treatment groups and for patients with squamous cell carcinomas or adenocarcinomas. Survival improved for almost all patients suggesting that in clinical practice the vast majority of patients benefitted from treatment advances. The clinically most meaningful survival advantage was observed for the best-case scenario of esophageal cancer.

Comparing treatment and outcomes in advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinomas: a population-based study.

Background: Treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) follows the guidelines for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJC) and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC), but patients with EAC are often excluded from clinical studies of GEJC/GAC. Objectives: Here we describe treatment and survival of patients with advanced EAC, GEJC, and GAC to provide population-based evidence on distinctions and similarities between these populations. Design: Retrospective cohort study of patients with unresectable advanced (cT4b) or metastatic (cM1) EAC, GEJC, or GAC (2015-2020) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Methods: Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression. Results: In all, 7391 patients were included (EAC: n = 3346, GEJC: n = 1246, and GAC: n = 2798). Patients with EAC were more often males and more often had ⩾2 metastatic locations. First-line systemic therapy was received by 42%, 47%, and 36% of patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively. Median OS was 5.0, 5.1, and 4.0 months for all patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively (p < 0.001). Median OS from start of first-line therapy of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative adenocarcinomas was 7.6, 7.8, and 7.5 months (p = 0.12) and of patients with HER2-positive carcinoma receiving first-line trastuzumab-containing therapy was 11.0, 13.3, and 9.5 months (p = 0.37) in EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, no difference in OS for patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC was observed. Conclusion: Despite differences in clinical characteristics and treatment strategies, survival between patients with advanced EAC, GEJC, and GAC was similar. We advocate that EAC patients should not be excluded from clinical trials for patients with molecularly similar GEJC/GAC.

Conditional relative survival in nonmetastatic esophagogastric cancer between 2006 and 2020: A population-based study.

Conditional relative survival (CRS) is useful for communicating prognosis to patients as it provides an estimate of the life expectancy after having survived a certain time after treatment. Our study estimates the 3-year relative survival conditional on having survived a certain period for patients with esophageal or gastric cancer. Patients with nonmetastatic esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 treated with curative intent (resection with or without [neo]adjuvant therapy, or chemoradiotherapy) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. CRS was calculated since resection or last day of chemoradiotherapy. The probability of surviving an additional 3 years (ie, 3-year CRS), if the patients survived 1, 3 and 5 years after diagnosis was 62%, 79%, 87% and 69%, 84%, 90% for esophageal and gastric cancer, respectively. The 3-year CRS after having survived 3 years for patients with esophageal cancer who underwent a resection (n = 12 204) was 91%, 88%, 77% and 60% for pathological Stage 0, I, II and III, and for patients with esophageal cancer who received chemoradiotherapy (n = 4158) was 51% and 66% for clinical Stage II and III, respectively. The 3-year CRS after having survived 3 years for patients with gastric cancer who underwent a resection (n = 6531) was 99%, 90%, 73% and 59% for pathological Stage 0, I, II and III, respectively. Despite poor prognosis of patients with esophageal or gastric cancer, life expectancy increases substantially after patients have survived several years after treatment. Our study provides valuable information for communication of prognosis to patients during follow-up after treatment.

SOURCE beyond first-line: A survival prediction model for patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after failure of first-line palliative systemic therapy.

Prior models have been developed to predict survival for patients with esophagogastric cancer undergoing curative treatment or first-line chemotherapy (SOURCE models). Comprehensive clinical prediction models for patients with esophagogastric cancer who will receive second-line chemotherapy or best supportive care are currently lacking. The aim of our study was to develop and internally validate a new clinical prediction model, called SOURCE beyond first-line, for survival of patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after failure of first-line palliative systemic therapy. Patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal or gastric adenocarcinoma (2015-2017) who received first-line systemic therapy (N = 1067) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics at primary diagnosis and at progression of disease were used to develop the model. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was developed through forward and backward selection using Akaike's Information Criterion. The model was internally validated through 10-fold cross-validations to assess performance. Model discrimination (C-index) and calibration (slope and intercept) were used to evaluate performance of the complete and cross-validated models. The final model consisted of 11 patient tumor and treatment characteristics. The C-index was 0.75 (0.73-0.78), calibration slope 1.01 (1.00-1.01) and calibration intercept 0.01 (0.01-0.02). Internal cross-validation of the model showed that the model performed adequately on unseen data: C-index was 0.79 (0.77-0.82), calibration slope 0.93 (0.85-1.01) and calibration intercept 0.02 (-0.01 to 0.06). The SOURCE beyond first-line model predicted survival with fair discriminatory ability and good calibration.

Beyond Median Overall Survival: Estimating Trends for Multiple Survival Scenarios in Patients With Metastatic Esophagogastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, clinical trials have shown improved survival of patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. The number of patients participating in clinical trials is limited, and survival improvements observed from clinical trials are unrepresentative for the full population. The aim of our study was to assess trends in survival for the best-case, typical, and worst-case scenarios in patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. METHODS: We selected patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Survival was calculated for different percentiles of the survival curve for each incidence year (eg, the 10th percentile [p10] represents the top 10% of patients with the best survival): p10 (best-case), p25 (upper-typical), p50 (median), p75 (lower-typical), and p90 (worst-case). Weighted linear regression analyses were performed to test whether changes in survival were significant. RESULTS: The overall median survival between 2006 and 2020 remained unchanged for patients with esophageal cancer (n=10,448; from 5.2 to 5.2 months, respectively; P=.06) and improved for patients with gastric cancer (n=10,512; from 3.5 to 4.3 months, respectively; P=.001). For patients with esophageal cancer, survival for the best-case scenario (p10; best 10% of patients) significantly improved from 17.2 to 21.0 months (P=.006). For patients with gastric cancer, survival significantly improved for the best-case scenario (p10) from 15.9 to 23.5 months (P<.001) and the upper-typical scenario (p25) scenario improved from 7.9 to 9.9 months (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant survival improvements in clinical trials, survival improvements were not observed for the majority of patients treated in daily clinical practice. An increase in survival was only observed for patients with the best prognosis.

Population-based study of treatment and outcome of recurrent oesophageal or junctional cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction have a high risk of recurrence after treatment with curative intent. The aim of this study was to analyse the site of recurrence, treatment, and survival in patients with recurrent disease. METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic oesophageal or junctional carcinoma treated with curative intent between January 2015 and December 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on recurrence were collected in the second half of 2019. Overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: In total, 862 of 1909 patients (45.2 per cent) for whom information on follow-up was available had disease recurrence, and 858 patients were included. Some 161 of 858 patients (18.8 per cent) had locoregional recurrence only, 415 (48.4 per cent) had distant recurrence only, and 282 (32.9 per cent) had combined locoregional and distant recurrence. In all, 518 of 858 patients (60.4 per cent) received best supportive care only and 315 (39.6 per cent) underwent tumour-directed therapy. Patients with locoregional recurrence alone more often received chemoradiotherapy than those with distant or combined locoregional and distant recurrence (19.3 per cent versus 0.7 and 2.8 per cent), and less often received systemic therapy (11.2 per cent versus 30.1 and 35.8 per cent). Median OS was 7.6, 4.2, and 3.3 months for patients with locoregional, distant, and combined locoregional and distant recurrence respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Disease recurred after curative treatment in 45.2 per cent of patients. Locoregional recurrence developed in only 18.8 per cent. The vast majority of patients presented with distant or combined locoregional and distant recurrence, and received best supportive care.

A population-based study in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer aligned with CheckMate 577.

BACKGROUND: Results of CheckMate 577 show an improved disease-free survival for patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer treated with adjuvant nivolumab compared with placebo (22.4 versus 11.0 months). Population-based data can provide insights in outcomes from clinical practice. The aim of our study was to investigate disease-free and overall survival in a nationwide population aligned with the inclusion criteria of CheckMate 577. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Resected patients with stage II/III esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (2015-2016) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with cervical esophageal cancer, irradical resection, or complete pathological response were excluded. Disease-free and overall survival were assessed from 12 weeks after resection using Kaplan-Meier methods. In addition, to adjust for differences in characteristics between CheckMate 577 and our population-based cohort, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison was performed for pathological lymph node status and pathological tumor status. RESULTS: We identified 634 patients. Sixty percent of patients were diagnosed with recurrence or were deceased at the end of follow-up. Median disease-free survival was 19.7 months and median overall survival was 32.2 months. After the matching procedure, the median disease-free survival was 17.2 months and median overall survival was 28.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Disease-free survival in our population-based study was considerably longer than the placebo population of CheckMate-577 (19.7 versus 11.0 months). Possible explanations are differences in characteristics, quality of esophageal cancer care, or differential strategies for evaluation of recurrence. In the Netherlands postoperative imaging is not part of the standard follow-up as opposed to the standard postoperative imaging in the CheckMate 577 trial. The difference in postoperative imaging could partially explain the longer disease-free survival observed in our study. Quality and optimization of current treatment modalities remain important aspects of esophageal cancer care.

A population-based study in synchronous versus metachronous metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

Background: Real-world data on treatment and outcomes in patients with synchronous metastatic disease compared with patients with metachronous metastatic disease in esophagogastric cancer have not been published before. The aim of our study was to explore treatment, overall survival (OS), and time to treatment fialure (TTF) in patients with synchronous and metachronous metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients with synchronous metastatic disease (2015-2017) and patients with metachronous metastatic disease initially treated with curative intent for nonmetastatic disease (2015-2016) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS and TTF were assessed from metastatic diagnosis for patients with synchronous, early metachronous (⩽6 months) or late metachronous (>6 months) metastatic disease using Kaplan-Meier curves with two-sided log-rank test. Results: Median OS was 4.2, 2.1, and 4.4 months in patients with synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving systemic treatment was 41.3%, 21.5%, and 32.5% for synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively (p = 0.001). Among patients receiving systemic treatment, median OS was 8.8, 4.5, and 9.1 months (p < 0.001) and median TTF was 6.1, 3.8, and 5.7 months (p < 0.001) in synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively. Conclusion: Patients with early metachronous metastatic disease have a worse survival compared with patients with synchronous or late metachronous metastatic disease. These patients less often receive systemic treatment, and even when treated, survival is worse compared with patients with synchronous or late metachronous metastatic disease, suggesting a more aggressive tumor behavior.

Treatment patterns and survival in advanced unresectable esophageal squamous cell cancer: A population-based study.

Data on treatment and survival of patients with advanced unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from Western populations are limited. Here we describe treatment and survival in patients with advanced unresectable ESCC: patients with cT4b disease without metastases (cT4b), metastases limited to the supraclavicular lymph nodes (SCLNM) or distant metastatic ESCC at the population level. All patients with unresectable (cT4b) or synchronous metastatic ESCC at primary diagnosis (2015-2018) or patients with metachronous metastases after primary non-metastatic diagnosis in 2015-2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Fifteen percent of patients had cT4b disease (n = 146), 12% SCLNM (n = 118) and 72% distant metastases (n = 681). Median overall survival (OS) time was 6.3, 11.2, and 4.4 months in patients with cT4b, SCLNM, and distant metastases, respectively (P < .001). Multivariable Cox regression showed that patients with cT4b (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-1.99) and patients with distant metastases (hazard ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.12-1.80) had a worse survival time compared with patients with SCLNM. Among patients who received chemoradiotherapy and/or underwent resection (primary tumor and/or metastases), median OS was 11.9, 16.1, and 14.0 months in patients with cT4b, SCLNM, and distant metastases, respectively (P = .76). Patients with SCLNM had a better survival time compared with patients with cT4b and patients with distant metastases. Survival of patients with advanced unresectable ESCC in clinical practice was poor, even in patients treated with curative intent.

The association between effectiveness of first-line treatment and second-line treatment in gastro-oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population-based predictive factors for the effectiveness of second-line palliative systemic therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer are not available. This study investigates the predictive value of effectiveness of first-line treatment for second-line treatment outcomes in gastro-oesophageal cancer in a real-world setting. METHODS: Patients with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer diagnosed in 2010-2017 who were treated with second-line therapy after disease progression on first-line therapy were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into four groups as per duration of time to treatment failure (TTF) of the first line (0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months), and the association with overall survival (OS) and second-line TTF was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and two-sided multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Median OS since the start of the second line of patients (n = 611) with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 4.0, 4.1, 5.5 and 7.1 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Median second-line TTF of patients with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 2.8, 2.4, 3.0 and 4.5 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with first-line TTF of >9 months showed a longer OS than patients with first-line TTF of 0-3 months (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.47), 3-6 months (adjusted HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.47-2.39) and 6-9 months (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.04-1.65). Results for second-line TTF were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a positive correlation between effectiveness of first-line therapy and outcomes of second-line therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer. Physicians should take duration of the first line into account when considering second-line palliative systemic therapy.

Hospital volume and beyond first-line palliative systemic treatment in metastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Beyond first-line palliative systemic treatment can be beneficial to selected oesophagogastric cancer patients, but experience with its administration may be limited and vary among hospitals. In a population-based study, we analysed the association between hospital systemic treatment volume and administration of beyond first-line treatment in oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma, as well as the effect on overall survival (OS). METHODS: Synchronous metastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma patients (2010-2017) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were categorised in volumes quartiles. The association between hospital systemic treatment volume and the use of beyond first-line treatment was assessed using trend and multivariable logistic regression analyses. OS was compared between hospitals with high and low beyond first-line treatment administration and treatment strategies using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: Beyond first-line treatment was administered in 606 of 2,466 patients who received first-line treatment, and increased from 20% to 31% between 2010 and 2017 (P < 0.001). The lowest hospital volumes were independently associated with lower beyond first-line treatment administration compared to the highest volume (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.95). Median OS was higher in all patients treated in hospitals with a high versus low beyond first-line treatment administration (7.9 versus 6.2 months, P < 0.001). Second-line paclitaxel/ramucirumab was administered most frequently and independently associated with longer OS compared to taxane monotherapy (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.92). CONCLUSION: Higher hospital volume was associated with increased beyond first-line treatment administration in oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Second-line paclitaxel/ramucirumab resulted in longer survival compared to taxane monotherapy.

The N-terminal domain of the thermo-regulated surface protein PrpA of Enterococcus faecium binds to fibrinogen, fibronectin and platelets.

Enterococcus faecium is a commensal of the mammalian gastrointestinal tract, but is also found in non-enteric environments where it can grow between 10 °C and 45 °C. E. faecium has recently emerged as a multi-drug resistant nosocomial pathogen. We hypothesized that genes involved in the colonization and infection of mammals exhibit temperature-regulated expression control and we therefore performed a transcriptome analysis of the clinical isolate E. faecium E1162, during mid-exponential growth at 25 °C and 37 °C. One of the genes that exhibited differential expression between 25 °C and 37 °C, was predicted to encode a peptidoglycan-anchored surface protein. The N-terminal domain of this protein is unique to E. faecium and closely related enterococci, while the C-terminal domain is homologous to the Streptococcus agalactiae surface protein BibA. This region of the protein contains proline-rich repeats, leading us to name the protein PrpA for proline-rich protein A. We found that PrpA is a surface-exposed protein which is most abundant during exponential growth at 37 °C in E. faecium E1162. The heterologously expressed and purified N-terminal domain of PrpA was able to bind to the extracellular matrix proteins fibrinogen and fibronectin. In addition, the N-terminal domain of PrpA interacted with both non-activated and activated platelets.