Chemotherapy aNd chemoradiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the OESophagus and esophagogastric junction with oligometastases: Protocol of the TNT-OES-1 trial.

Background: FLOT and CROSS are effective neoadjuvant regimens for esophageal cancer patients. Chemotherapy (FLOT) is aimed to have merely a systemic effect whereas neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CROSS) achieves good locoregional response with clinically complete response (cCR) rates up to 33% [1]. The aim of the present study is to assess safety and feasibility of dual therapy (FLOT-CROSS) in patients with oligometastases. Methods: This phase-II single-center, single-arm, intervention study includes patients with oligometastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Patients will be treated with four biweekly cycles of FLOT, consisting of intravenous fluorouracil (2600 mg/m2), leucovorin (200 mg/m2), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) and docetaxel (50 mg/m2). Response evaluation by CT-scan will be performed 4-6 weeks after completion of FLOT. In case of regression or stable disease according to RECIST criteria (v.1.1), patients will receive additional CROSS, consisting of five weekly cycles of intravenous carboplatin (AUC 2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m2), with concurrent 41.4 Gy radiotherapy, in 23 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy [2]. Response evaluation by endoscopy with biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography and CT-scan will be performed 4-6 weeks after completion of CROSS. Primary endpoint is tolerability of FLOT-CROSS, defined as the proportion of patients who complete the full regimen. Secondary endpoints include disease control rate, objective response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival. In total, 20 patients will be included. Discussion: If patients are able to complete and tolerate FLOT-CROSS, this regimen should be tested in a phase-III trial and as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with locally advanced non-metastatic esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma.

Effect of the Proton Pump Inhibitor Esomeprazole on the Systemic Exposure of Capecitabine: Results of A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Retrospective data suggest that gastric acid reduction by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) impairs the dissolution and subsequent absorption of capecitabine, and thus potentially reduces the capecitabine exposure. Therefore, we examined prospectively the effect of esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine. In this randomized crossover study, patients with cancer were assigned to 2 sequence groups, each consisting of 3 phases: capecitabine with esomeprazole administration 3 hours before (phase A), capecitabine alone (phase B), and capecitabine concomitant with cola and esomeprazole co-administration 3 hours before (phase C). The primary end point was the relative difference (RD) in exposure to capecitabine assessed by the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-inf ) and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model. Twenty-two evaluable patients were included in the analysis. After esomeprazole, there was a 18.9% increase in AUC0-inf of capecitabine (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.0% to 57.0%, P = 0.36). In addition, capecitabine half-life was significantly longer after esomeprazole (median 0.63 hours vs. 0.46 hours, P = 0.005). Concomitant cola did not completely reverse the effects observed after esomeprazole (RD 3.3% (95% CI -16.3 to 27.4%, P = 1.00). Capecitabine exposure is not negatively influenced by esomeprazole cotreatment. Therefore, altered capecitabine pharmacokinetics do not explain the assumed worse clinical outcome of PPI-cotreated patients with cancer.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus upfront surgery for carcinoma of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction.

INTRODUCTION: Which neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced thoracic oesophagus (TE) or gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma is best remains an open question. Randomised controlled trials variously accrued patients with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, making strong conclusions hard to obtain. The primary objective of this individual participant data meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible trials should have closed to accrual before 2016 and compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery (CS) to surgery alone. All relevant published and unpublished trials were identified via searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings and clinical trial registers. The main end-point was OS. Investigators were contacted to obtain the individual patient data, which was recorded, harmonised and checked. A random-effects Cox model, stratified by trial, was used for meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were preplanned. RESULTS: 16 trials were identified as eligible. Individual patient data were obtained from 12 trial and 2478 patients. CS was associated with an improved OS versus surgery, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.83 [0.72-0.96], p < 0.0001, translating to an absolute benefit of 5.7% at 5-years from 16.8% to 22.5%. Treatment effects did not vary substantially between adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.73 [0.62-0.87]) and squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 0.91 [0.76-1.08], interaction p = 0.26). A somewhat more pronounced effect was observed in gastro-oesophageal junction (HR = 0.68 [0.50-0.93]) versus TE (HR = 0.87 [0.75-1.00], interaction p = 0.07). CS was also associated with a greater disease-free survival (HR = 0.74 [0.64-0.85], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy conferred a better OS than surgery alone and should be considered in all anatomical location and histological subtypes.

Randomized Study on Dose Escalation in Definitive Chemoradiation for Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer (ARTDECO Study).

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of radiation dose escalation to the primary tumor on local tumor control in definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) for patients with esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with medically inoperable and/or irresectable esophageal carcinoma, referred for dCRT, were randomly assigned between a standard dose (SD) of 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy for 5.5 weeks to the tumor and regional lymph nodes and a high dose (HD) up to a total dose of 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor. Chemotherapy consisted of courses of concurrent carboplatin (area under the curve 2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) in both arms once a week for 6 weeks. The primary end point was local progression-free survival. RESULTS: Between September 2012 and June 2018, 260 patients were included. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was present in 61% of patients, and 39% had adenocarcinoma (AC). Radiation treatment was completed by 94%, and 85% had at least five courses of chemotherapy. The median follow-up time for all patients was 50 months. The 3-year local progression-free survival (LPFS) was 70% in the SD arm versus 73% in the HD arm (not significant). The LPFS for SCC and AC was 75% versus 79% and 61% versus 61% for SD and HD, respectively (not significant). The 3-year locoregional progression-free survival was 52% and 59% for the SD and HD arms, respectively (P = .08). Overall, grade 4 and 5 common toxicity criteria were 12% and 5% in the SD arm versus 14% and 10% in the HD arm, respectively (P = .15). CONCLUSION: In dCRT for esophageal cancer, radiation dose escalation up to 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor did not result in a significant increase in local control over 50.4 Gy. The absence of a dose effect was observed in both AC and SCC.

Updated protocol of the SANO trial: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial comparing surgery with active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer (SANO) trial compares active surveillance with standard oesophagectomy for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The last patient with a clinically complete response is expected to be included in May 2021. The purpose of this update is to present all amendments to the SANO trial protocol as approved by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) before accrual is completed. DESIGN: The SANO trial protocol has been published ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4034-1 ). In this ongoing, phase-III, non-inferiority, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial, patients with cCR (i.e. after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy no evidence of residual disease in two consecutive clinical response evaluations [CREs]) undergo either active surveillance or standard oesophagectomy. In the active surveillance arm, CREs are repeated every 3 months in the first year, every 4 months in the second year, every 6 months in the third year, and yearly in the fourth and fifth year. In this arm, oesophagectomy is offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant metastases. The primary endpoint is overall survival. UPDATE: Amendments to the study design involve the first cluster in the stepped-wedge design being partially randomised as well and continued accrual of patients at baseline until the predetermined number of patients with cCR is reached. Eligibility criteria have been amended, stating that patients who underwent endoscopic treatment prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy cannot be included and that patients who have highly suspected residual tumour without histological proof can be included. Amendments to the study procedures include that patients proceed to the second CRE if at the first CRE the outcome of the pathological assessment is uncertain and that patients with a non-passable stenosis at endoscopy are not considered cCR. The sample size was recalculated following new insights on response rates (34% instead of 50%) and survival (expected 2-year overall survival of 75% calculated from the moment of reaching cCR instead of 3-year overall survival of 67% calculated from diagnosis). This reduced the number of required patients with cCR from 264 to 224, but increased the required inclusions from 480 to approximately 740 patients at baseline. CONCLUSION: Substantial amendments were made prior to closure of enrolment of the SANO trial. These amendments do not affect the outcomes of the trial compared to the original protocol. The first results are expected late 2023. If active surveillance plus surgery as needed after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer leads to non-inferior overall survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, active surveillance can be implemented as a standard of care.

Ten-Year Outcome of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Plus Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: The Randomized Controlled CROSS Trial.

PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to the chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer followed by surgery study (CROSS) has become a standard of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer. We aimed to assess long-term outcome of this regimen. METHODS: From 2004 through 2008, we randomly assigned 366 patients to either five weekly cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week) followed by surgery, or surgery alone. Follow-up data were collected through 2018. Cox regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival, cause-specific survival, and risks of locoregional and distant relapse. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy beyond 5 years of follow-up was tested with time-dependent Cox regression and landmark analyses. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 147 months (interquartile range, 134-157). Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.89). The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on overall survival was not time-dependent (P value for interaction, P = .73), and landmark analyses suggested a stable effect on overall survival up to 10 years of follow-up. The absolute 10-year overall survival benefit was 13% (38% v 25%). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy reduced risk of death from esophageal cancer (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80). Death from other causes was similar between study arms (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.99). Although a clear effect on isolated locoregional (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.72) and synchronous locoregional plus distant relapse (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.72) persisted, isolated distant relapse was comparable (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.13). CONCLUSION: The overall survival benefit of patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer who receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to CROSS persists for at least 10 years.

Active Surveillance Versus Immediate Surgery in Clinically Complete Responders After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer and clinically complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) undergoing active surveillance or immediate surgery. BACKGROUND: Since nearly one-third of patients with esophageal cancer show pathologically complete response after nCRT according to CROSS regimen, the oncological benefit of immediate surgery in cCR is topic of debate. METHODS: Patients with cCR based on endoscopic biopsies and endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration initially declining or accepting immediate surgery after nCRT were identified between 2011 and 2018. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), rate and timing of distant dissemination, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Some 98 patients with cCR were identified: 31 in the active surveillance- and 67 in the immediate surgery group with median followup of survivors of 27.7 and 34.8 months, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 2 comparable groups (n = 29 in both groups). Patients undergoing active surveillance or immediate surgery had a 3-year OS of 77% and 55% (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.14-1.20, P = 0.104), respectively. The 3-year PFS was 60% and 54% (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.44-2.67, P = 0.871), respectively. Patients undergoing active surveillance or immediate surgery had a comparable distant dissemination rate (both groups 28%), radical resection rate (both groups 100%), and severity of postoperative complications (Clav- ien-Dindo grade ≥ 3: 43% vs 45%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, OS and PFS in patients with cCR undergoing active surveillance or immediate surgery were not significantly different. Active surveillance with postponed surgery for recurrent disease was not associated with a higher distant dissemination rate or more severe adverse postoperative outcomes.

Accuracy of detecting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (preSINO trial): a prospective multicenter diagnostic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal cancer, high pathologically complete response (pCR) rates are being achieved especially in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). An active surveillance strategy has been proposed for SCC patients with clinically complete response (cCR) after nCRT. To justify omitting surgical resection, patients with residual disease should be accurately identified. The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy of response evaluations after nCRT based on the preSANO trial, including positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT), endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in patients with potentially curable esophageal SCC. METHODS: Operable esophageal SCC patients who are planned to undergo nCRT according to the CROSS regimen and are planned to undergo surgery will be recruited from four Asian centers. Four to 6 weeks after completion of nCRT, patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-1) consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies. In patients without histological evidence of residual tumor (i.e. without positive biopsies), surgery will be postponed another 6 weeks. A second clinical response evaluation (CRE-2) will be performed 10-12 weeks after completion of nCRT, consisting of PET-CT, endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and EUS with FNA. Immediately after CRE-2 all patients without evidence of distant metastases will undergo esophagectomy. Results of CRE-1 and CRE-2 as well as results of the three single diagnostic modalities will be correlated to pathological response in the resection specimen (gold standard) for calculation of sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value. DISCUSSION: If the current study shows that major locoregional residual disease (> 10% residual carcinoma or any residual nodal disease) can be accurately (i.e. with sensitivity of 80.5%) detected in patients with esophageal SCC, a prospective trial will be conducted comparing active surveillance with standard esophagectomy in patients with a clinically complete response after nCRT (SINO trial). TRIAL REGISTRATION: The preSINO trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03937362 (May 3, 2019).

Efficacy and Toxicity of Weekly Carboplatin and Paclitaxel as Induction or Palliative Treatment in Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients.

Many patients have advanced esophageal cancer at diagnosis. However, the most optimal treatment has not been identified. Therefore, we evaluated a weekly regimen of carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC)) of 4 and paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 as an induction or palliative treatment. All patients with advanced (gastro)esophageal cancer treated with this regimen between 2002-2018 were included. Exclusion criteria were previous radiotherapy or treatment elsewhere. Data on toxicity, response, and survival were collected. Analyses were performed in two groups: induction (iCT) or palliative chemotherapy (pCT). Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. A total of 291 patients was included (iCT: 122; pCT: 169). Most patients had T3 carcinoma (iCT: 54%; pCT: 66%) and stage IV disease (iCT: 42%; pCT: 91%). A toxicity grade ≥3 occurred mainly as hematological toxicity (iCT: 71%; pCT: 73%) and gastrointestinal toxicity (iCT: 3%; pCT: 5%). Response rates were 48% (iCT) and 44% (pCT). Esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiotherapy followed in 42% of iCT, resulting in a PFS of 22.1 months (interquartile range (IQR): 12.4-114.2) and OS of 26.8 months (IQR: 15.4-91.7). For pCT, PFS was 8.2 months (IQR: 5.1-14.5) and OS 10.9 months (IQR: 6.5-18.3). This retrospective cohort study demonstrated that weekly carboplatin (AUC4) and paclitaxel (100 mg/m2) is a well-tolerated and effective induction or palliative treatment regimen for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Future research should directly compare this treatment regimen with other first-line treatment options to determine its true value for clinical practice.

The optimal neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Esophagectomy is the cornerstone of intentionally curative treatment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Neoadjuvant treatments have been introduced to minimize the risk of development of locoregional- and/or distant recurrences. Chemotherapy is used based on the results of the MAGIC- and the OEO2-trials and chemoradiotherapy became part of standard treatment after the publication of the CROSS-trial. Although several studies have compared the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, no robust evidence on the optimal neoadjuvant treatment has been obtained as yet. Several studies indirectly comparing both modalities suggest a benefit for chemoradiotherapy in the number of pathologically complete responders, radical resection rate and possibly even in overall survival. Large randomized controlled trials like the Neo-AEGIS-, ESOPEC- and NeXT-trials are currently addressing this topic. A relatively new aspect of esophageal cancer treatment is the administration of monoclonal antibodies. Several monoclonal antibodies have been tested in, mostly, advanced esophageal cancer treatment. Cetuximab has also been tested as addition to neoadjuvant- and definitive treatment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, showing mixed results. This review aims at providing an overview of the currently available neoadjuvant treatments in esophageal cancer.

Detection of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer (preSANO): a prospective multicentre, diagnostic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer, roughly half of the patients with squamous cell carcinoma and a quarter of those with adenocarcinoma have a pathological complete response of the primary tumour before surgery. Thus, the necessity of standard oesophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy should be reconsidered for patients who respond sufficiently to neoadjuvant treatment. In this study, we aimed to establish the accuracy of detection of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with different diagnostic approaches, and the optimal combination of diagnostic techniques for clinical response evaluations. METHODS: The preSANO trial was a prospective, multicentre, diagnostic cohort study at six centres in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had histologically proven, resectable, squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction, and were eligible for potential curative therapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (five weekly cycles of carboplatin [area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min] plus paclitaxel [50 mg/m2 of body-surface area] combined with 41·4 Gy radiotherapy in 23 fractions) followed by oesophagectomy. 4-6 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, patients had oesophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies and endoscopic ultrasonography with measurement of maximum tumour thickness. Patients with histologically proven locoregional residual disease or no-pass during endoscopy and without distant metastases underwent immediate surgical resection. In the remaining patients a second clinical response evaluation was done (PET-CT, oesophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography with measurement of maximum tumour thickness, and fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes), followed by surgery 12-14 weeks after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the correlation between clinical response during clinical response evaluations and the final pathological response in resection specimens, as shown by the proportion of tumour regression grade (TRG) 3 or 4 (>10% residual carcinoma in the resection specimen) residual tumours that was missed during clinical response evaluations. This study was registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4834), and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2013, and Dec 28, 2016, 219 patients were included, 207 of whom were included in the analyses. Eight of 26 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (31% [95% CI 17-50]) were missed by endoscopy with regular biopsies and fine-needle aspiration. Four of 41 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (10% [95% CI 4-23]) were missed with bite-on-bite biopsies and fine-needle aspiration. Endoscopic ultrasonography with maximum tumour thickness measurement missed TRG3 or TRG4 residual tumours in 11 of 39 patients (28% [95% CI 17-44]). PET-CT missed six of 41 TRG3 or TRG4 tumours (15% [95% CI 7-28]). PET-CT detected interval distant histologically proven metastases in 18 (9%) of 190 patients (one squamous cell carcinoma, 17 adenocarcinomas). INTERPRETATION: After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer, clinical response evaluation with endoscopic ultrasonography, bite-on-bite biopsies, and fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes was adequate for detection of locoregional residual disease, with PET-CT for detection of interval metastases. Active surveillance with this combination of diagnostic modalities is now being assessed in a phase 3 randomised controlled trial (SANO trial; Netherlands Trial Register NTR6803). FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.

Outcome of Patients Treated Within and Outside a Randomized Clinical Trial on Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Plus Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: Extrapolation of a Randomized Clinical Trial (CROSS).

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can provide a high level of evidence for medical decision making, but it is unclear if the results apply to patients treated outside such trials. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer treated within and outside an RCT. METHODS: All patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery for esophageal cancer between 2002 and 2008 (ChemoRadiotherapy for Esophageal cancer followed by Surgery Study [CROSS] cohort) who participated in multicenter, phase II-III trials were compared with patients who underwent the same treatment outside the trial between 2008 and 2013 (post-CROSS cohort). The differences between these cohorts were analyzed using t tests, while logistic regression models were used to evaluate adverse events. Overall and disease-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 208 CROSS patients and 173 post-CROSS patients were included in this study. Patients from the post-CROSS cohort were older, had more co morbidities, and had poorer performance status. Clinical N stage, but not cT stage, was worse in the post-CROSS cohort. There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events (pulmonary, cardiac, or anastomotic complications) or survival between the comparison cohorts. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of patients treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy for cancer have a high external consistency and can be extrapolated to the daily practice of physicians involved in the treatment and care of esophageal cancer patients.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. METHODS: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. DISCUSSION: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care.

Impact of Surgical Approach on Long-term Survival in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Patients With or Without Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare overall survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) with limited lymphadenectomy or transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) with extended lymphadenectomy with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). BACKGROUND: The application of neoadjuvant therapy might change the association between the extent of lymphadenectomy and survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. This may influence the choice of surgical approach in patients treated with nCRT. METHODS: Patients with potentially curable subcarinal esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with surgery alone or nCRT followed by surgery in 7 centers were included. The effect of surgical approach on overall survival, differentiated by the addition or omission of nCRT, was analyzed using a multivariable Cox regression model that included well-known prognostic factors and factors that might have influenced the choice of surgical approach. RESULTS: In total, 701 patients were included, of whom 318 had TTE with extended lymphadenectomy and 383 had THE with limited lymphadenectomy. TTE had differential effects on survival (P for interaction = 0.02), with a more favorable prognostic effect in patients who were treated with surgery alone [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.03]. This association was statistically significant in a subgroup of patients with 1 to 8 positive lymph nodes in the resection specimen (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.90). The favorable prognostic effect of TTE over THE was absent in the nCRT and surgery group (HR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.80-1.66) and in the subgroup of nCRT patients with 1 to 8 positive lymph nodes in the resection specimen (HR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.61-1.68). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surgery alone, the addition of nCRT may reduce the need for TTE with extended lymphadenectomy to improve long-term survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy on Health-Related Quality of Life in Esophageal or Junctional Cancer: Results From the Randomized CROSS Trial.

Purpose To compare pre-agreed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains in patients with esophageal or junctional cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery or surgery alone. Secondary aims were to examine the effect of nCRT on HRQOL before surgery and the effect of surgery on HRQOL. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to nCRT (carboplatin plus paclitaxel with concurrent 41.4-Gy radiotherapy) followed by surgery or surgery alone. HRQOL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and -Oesophageal Cancer Module (QLQ-OES24) questionnaires pretreatment and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postoperatively. The nCRT group also received preoperative questionnaires. Physical functioning (PF; QLQ-C30) and eating problems (EA; QLQ-OES24) were chosen as predefined primary end points. Predefined secondary end points were global QOL (GQOL; QLQ-C30), fatigue (FA; QLQ-C30), and emotional problems (EM; QLQ-OES24). Results A total of 363 patients were analyzed. No statistically significant differences in postoperative HRQOL were found between treatment groups. In the nCRT group, PF, EA, GQOL, FA, and EM scores deteriorated 1 week after nCRT (Cohen's d: -0.93, P < .001; 0.47, P < .001; -0.84, P < .001; 1.45, P < .001; and 0.32, P = .001, respectively). In both treatment groups, all end points declined 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline (Cohen's d: -1.00, 0.33, -0.47, -0.34, and 0.33, respectively; all P < .001), followed by a continuous gradual improvement. EA, GQOL, and EM were restored to baseline levels during follow-up, whereas PF and FA remained impaired 1 year postoperatively (Cohen's d: 0.52 and -0.53, respectively; both P < .001). Conclusion Although HRQOL declined during nCRT, no effect of nCRT was apparent on postoperative HRQOL compared with surgery alone. In addition to the improvement in survival, these findings support the view that nCRT according to the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study-regimen can be regarded as a standard of care.

Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: Almost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

P53 and SOX2 Protein Expression Predicts Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the association between p53, SOX2, and CD44 protein expression and tumor response, and to validate potential predictive biomarker(s) in an independent cohort. BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery has become a standard of care for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, the response to nCRT is highly variable among patients. METHODS: EAC patients who underwent nCRT and surgery, between January 2003 and December 2014 at the Erasmus University Medical Center, were included and divided into a primary (n = 77) and a validation cohort (n = 70). P53, SOX2, and CD44 expression was detected by immunohistochemistry in pretreatment tumor biopsies, and scored independently by 2 investigators. Response to nCRT was assessed based on tumor regression grade (TRG) in the resection specimen. RESULTS: Forty-one (53%) patients in the primary cohort and 33 (47%) patients in the validation cohort showed major response (TRG1 or TRG2) in the resection specimen. Aberrant p53 and absence of SOX2 were associated with major response in the primary cohort: adjusted odds ratio (OR) 6.3 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-30.1) and adjusted OR 4.1 (95% CI, 1.4-12.4), respectively. The same was true for the validation cohort (p53: adjusted OR 8.6; 95% CI, 0.93-80.9 and SOX2: adjusted OR 6.1; 95% CI, 1.6-23.4). The highest probability of a major response was seen in patients with concurrent aberrant p53 and absence of SOX2 expression, with an OR of 6.7 (95% CI, 2.1-21.4) and 6.2 (95% CI, 1.8-21.2) in the primary and validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Pattern of p53 and particularly SOX2 protein expression in EAC predicts response to nCRT. These biomarkers may help to individualize treatment in EAC patients.

Using the Comprehensive Complication Index to Assess the Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy on Complication Severity After Esophagectomy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery for patients with esophageal or junctional cancer has become a standard of care. The comprehensive complication index (CCI) has recently been developed and accounts for all postoperative complications. Hence, CCI better reflects the burden of all combined postoperative complications in surgical patients than the Clavien-Dindo score alone, which incorporates only the most severe complication. This study was designed to evaluate the severity of complications in patients treated with nCRT followed by esophagectomy versus in patients who underwent esophagectomy alone using the comprehensive complication index. STUDY-DESIGN: All patients included in the CROSS trial-a randomized, clinical trial on the value of nCRT followed by esophagectomy-were included. Complications were assessed and graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. CCI was derived from these scores, using the CCI calculator available online ( www.assessurgery.com ). CCI of patients who underwent nCRT followed by surgery was compared with the CCI of patients who underwent surgery alone. RESULTS: In both groups 161 patients were included. The median (and interquartile range) CCI of patients with nCRT and surgery was 26.22 (17.28-42.43) versus 25.74 (8.66-43.01) in patients who underwent surgery alone (p = 0.58). There also was no difference in CCI between subgroups of patients with anastomotic leakage, pulmonary complications, cardiac complications, thromboembolic events, chyle leakage, and wound infections. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy according to CROSS did not have a negative impact on postoperative complication severity expressed by CCI compared with patients who underwent surgery alone for potentially curable esophageal or junctional cancer.

National compliance to an evidence-based multidisciplinary guideline on pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated national compliance to selected quality indicators from the Dutch multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline on pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma and identified areas for improvement. METHODS: Compliance to 3 selected quality indicators from the guideline was evaluated before and after implementation of the guideline in 2011: 1) adjuvant chemotherapy after tumor resection for pancreatic carcinoma, 2) discussion of the patient within a multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting and 3) a maximum 3-week interval between final MDT meeting and start of treatment. RESULTS: In total 5086 patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma were included. In 2010, 2522 patients were included and in 2012, 2564 patients. 1) Use of adjuvant chemotherapy following resection for pancreatic carcinoma increased significantly from 45% (120 out of 268) in 2010 to 54% (182 out of 336) in 2012 which was mainly caused by an increase in patients aged <75 years. 2) In 2012, 64% (896 of 1396) of patients suspected of a pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma was discussed within a MDT meeting which was higher in patients aged <75 years and patients starting treatment with curative intent. 3) In 2012, the recommended 3 weeks between final MDT meeting and start of treatment was met in 39% (141 of 363) of patients which was not influenced by patient and tumor characteristics. CONCLUSION: Compliance to three selected quality indicators in pancreatic cancer care was low in 2012. Areas for improvement were identified. Future compliance will be investigated through structured audit and feedback from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit.