Overall survival after definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a potentially curative therapy for esophageal cancer. As indications for dCRT differ widely, it is challenging to draw conclusions on outcomes and survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns according to indications for treatment. Patients who underwent dCRT (50.4 Gy concomitant with carboplatin/paclitaxel) for esophageal cancer between 2012 and 2022 were identified. Indications for dCRT were: cervical tumor, irresectable disease, unfit for surgery, and patient and/or physician preference. The primary endpoint was OS calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients that completed the dCRT regimen, 30- and 90-day mortality, and disease recurrence. One hundred and fifty-seven patients were included (72.6% esophageal squamous cell carcinoma) with a median follow-up of 20 months (IQR 10.0-43.9). The full dCRT regimen was completed by 116 patients (73.9%). Thirty- and 90-day mortality were 2.5% and 8.3%, respectively. Median and 5-year OS for all patients were 22.9 months (95% CI 18.0-27.9) and 31.4%, respectively. The median OS per indication was 23.7 months (95% CI 6.5-40.8) for patients with cervical tumors, 10.9 months (95% 0.0-23.2) for irresectable disease, 28.2 months (95% CI 12.3-44.0) for unfit patients, and 22.9 months (95% CI 15.4-30.5) for patients' preference for dCRT (P = 0.11). Disease recurrence was observed in 74 patients (46%), located locoregionally (46%), distant (19%), or combined (35%). Patients who underwent dCRT had a 5-year OS of 31.4%, but OS differed according to indications for treatment with patients who had irresectable disease having the worst prognosis.

Decision-making experiences of patients and partners opting for active surveillance in esophageal cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the decision-making experiences of patients and their partners or primary caregiver who opted for experimental active surveillance (instead of standard surgery) for the treatment of esophageal cancer. METHODS: Seventeen couples participated. Semi-structured interviews were conducted on couples' joint experiences as well as their individual experiences. Preferred and perceived role in the treatment decision-making process was assessed using the adjusted version of the Control Preferences Scale, and perceived influence on the treatment decision was measured using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Couples reflected on the decision-making process as a positive collaboration, where patients retain their autonomy by making the final decision, and partners offer emotional support. Couples reported about an overwhelming amount and sometimes conflicting information about treatments among different hospitals and healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Patients often involve their partner in decision-making, which they report to have enhanced their ability to cope with the disease. The amount and sometimes conflicting information during the decision-making process provide opportunities for improvement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Couples can benefit from an overview of what they can expect during treatment course. If active surveillance becomes an established treatment option in the future, provision of such overviews and consistent information should become more streamlined.

International Expert Consensus on Semantics of Multimodal Esophageal Cancer Treatment: Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent developments in esophageal cancer treatment, including studies exploring active surveillance following chemoradiotherapy, have led to a need for clear terminology and definitions regarding different multimodal treatment options. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reach worldwide consensus on the definitions and semantics of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. METHODS: In total, 72 experts working in the field of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment were invited to participate in this Delphi study. The study comprised three Delphi surveys sent out by email and one online meeting. Input for the Delphi survey consisted of terminology obtained from a systematic literature search. Participants were asked to respond to open questions and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements. Consensus was reached when there was ≥75% agreement among respondents. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 72 invited experts (68.1%) participated in the first online Delphi survey, 45 (62.5%) in the second survey, 21 (46.7%) of 45 in the online meeting, and 39 (86.7%) of 45 in the final survey. Consensus on neoadjuvant and definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery was reached for 27 of 31 items (87%). No consensus was reached on follow-up after treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSION(S): Consensus was reached on most statements regarding terminology and definitions of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Implementing uniform criteria facilitates comparison of studies and promotes international research collaborations.

The Effect of (Chemo)Radiotherapy on Enlarged Lateral Lymph Nodes in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard of care for most patients with locally advanced rectal cancer in The Netherlands consists of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by resection. Enlarged lateral lymph nodes (LLNs), especially in the iliac compartment, appears to be associated with an increased risk of local recurrence. Little is known about the risk of local recurrence after nCRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and enlarged LLNs on pretreatment MRI-scan located in the internal iliac, obturator, external iliac, or common iliac compartment. Patients were treated with nCRT and response to therapy was evaluated with MRI-scan. The primary endpoint was local lateral recurrence after nCRT. Secondary endpoints included overall survival and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Out of 260 patients treated for rectal cancer, a total of 46 patients with enlarged LLNs (18% of all patients) were included between 2012 and 2019 in 2 Dutch hospitals. No patients had lateral lymph node recurrence (LLNR) after nCRT. Only 1 patient had local recurrence of rectal cancer after radical resection during a median follow up of 3 years. Disseminated disease was seen in 12 patients and 9 patients died during follow-up, which result in an overall survival rate of 80.4%. Postoperative complications were seen in 41% of patients. There was no 90-days postoperative mortality. CONCLUSION: Enlarged LLNs are rare after nCRT and no LLNR was found after nCRT in our study population. This could suggest that nCRT only with or without an extra radiotherapeutic boost on enlarged LLNs already reduces the risk of LLNR.

Clinical Safety and Performance of GATT-Patch for Hemostasis in Minimal to Moderate Bleeding During Open Liver Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hemorrhage affect outcomes after liver resection. GATT-Patch is a new flexible, pliable hemostatic sealant patch comprising fibrous gelatin carrier impregnated with N-hydroxy-succinimide polyoxazoline. We evaluated safety and performance of the GATT-Patch for hemostasis at the liver resection plane. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing elective open liver surgery were recruited in three centers. GATT-Patch was used for minimal to moderate bleeding at the liver resection plane. The primary endpoint was hemostasis of the first-treated bleeding site at 3 min versus a prespecified performance goal of 65.4%. RESULTS: Two trial stages were performed: I (n = 8) for initial safety and II (n = 39) as the primary outcome cohort. GATT-Patch was applied in 47 patients on 63 bleeding sites. Median age was 60.0 (range 25-80) years and 70% were male. Most (66%) surgeries were for colorectal cancer metastases. The primary endpoint was met in 38 out of 39 patients (97.4%; 95% confidence interval: 84.6%-99.9%) versus 65.4% (P < 0.001). Of all the 63 bleeding sites, hemostasis was 82.7% at 30, 93.7% at 60, and 96.8% at 180 s. No reoperations for rebleeding or device-related issues occurred. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to a performance goal derived from state-of-the-art hemostatic agents, GATT-Patch for the treatment of minimal to moderate bleeding during liver surgery successfully and quickly achieved hemostasis with acceptable safety outcomes. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04819945).

Perioperative Chemotherapy for Gastro-Esophageal or Gastric Cancer: Anthracyclin Triplets versus FLOT.

Background: The FLOT4-AIO trial (2019) showed improved survival with perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) compared to anthracyclin triplets in gastric cancer treatment. It is unclear whether these results extend to real-world scenarios in the Netherlands. This study aimed to compare outcomes of perioperative FLOT to anthracyclin triplets in a real-world Dutch gastric cancer population. Methods: Patients diagnosed with resectable (cT2-4a/cTxN0-3/NxM0) gastric or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma between 2015-2021 who received neoadjuvant FLOT or anthracyclin triplets were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), analyzed through multivariable Cox regression. Secondary outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycle completion, surgical resection rates, and adjuvant therapy. Results: Adjusted OS showed no significant survival benefit (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.01, p = 0.07), even though the median OS was numerically improved by 8 months with FLOT compared to anthracyclin triplets (48.1 vs. 39.9 months, p = 0.16). FLOT patients were more likely to undergo diagnostic staging laparoscopies (74.2% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.001), had higher rates of completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.68, p = 0.007), receiving adjuvant therapy (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.66, p = 0.08), and achieving pCR (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.20, p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in (radical) resection rates. Conclusion(s): Real-world data showed no significant OS improvement for FLOT-treated patients compared to anthracyclin triplets, despite more staging laparoscopies. However, FLOT patients demonstrated higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy completion, proceeding to adjuvant therapy, and increased pCR rates. Therefore, we recommend the continued use of neoadjuvant FLOT therapy in the current clinical setting.

Induction chemotherapy followed by response evaluation and esophagectomy for advanced esophageal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with limited metastatic/advanced esophageal cancer not amenable for neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery have a poor prognosis and often receive palliative care. Alternatively, induction chemotherapy with response evaluation can be considered and in some patients surgery with curative intent may become feasible. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with induction chemotherapy and to identify patient and/or tumor characteristics associated with survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with esophageal or junctional cancer who underwent induction chemotherapy between 2005 and 2021 were identified from an institutional database of a tertiary referral center. Response to therapy was assessed by (18F-FDG PET)/CT. Response to therapy and treatment options, including surgery or palliation, were discussed in the multidisciplinary tumor board. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: 238 patients were identified. The majority had esophageal adenocarcinoma (68.9 %) and were treated with a taxane/platinum-based chemotherapy (79.4 %). Response evaluation was performed in 233 patients and 154 of 238 patients (64.7 %) underwent surgical exploration. Resection was performed in 127 patients (53.4 %) resulting in a median and 5-year OS of 26.3 months (95 % CI 18.8-33.8) and 29.6 %, respectively. Presence of T4b (HR = 2.01, 95 % CI 1.02-3.92) and poorly differentiated tumor (HR = 1.45, 95 % CI 1.02-2.10) was associated with worse survival (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In carefully selected patients with advanced disease not amenable for standard curative treatment, induction chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy may result in a 5-year overall survival of approximately 30 %.

18 F-FDG PET/MRI for restaging esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F-FDG) PET/MRI may potentially improve tumor detection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal cancer. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center feasibility study. At 6-12 weeks after nCRT, patients underwent standard 18 F-FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) followed by PET/MRI, and completed a questionnaire to evaluate burden. Two teams of readers either assessed the 18 F-FDG PET/CT or the 18 F-FDG PET/MRI first; the other scan was assessed 1 month later. Maximum standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SUL max ) and mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC mean ) were measured at the primary tumor location. Histopathology of the surgical resection specimen served as the reference standard for diagnostic accuracy calculations. When patients had a clinically complete response and continued active surveillance, response evaluations until 9 months after nCRT served as a proxy for ypT and ypN (i.e. 'ycT' and 'ycN'). RESULTS: In the 21 included patients [median age 70 (IQR 62-75), 16 males], disease recurrence was found in the primary tumor in 14 (67%) patients (of whom one ypM+, detected on both scans) and in locoregional lymph nodes in six patients (29%). Accuracy (team 1/team 2) to detect yp/ycT+ with 18 F-FDG PET/MRI vs. 18 F-FDG PET/CT was 38/57% vs. 76/61%. For ypN+, accuracy was 63/53% vs. 63/42%, resp. Neither SUL max (both scans) nor ADC mean were discriminatory for yp/ycT+ . Fourteen of 21 (67%) patients were willing to undergo a similar 18 F-FDG PET/MRI examination in the future. CONCLUSION: 18 F-FDG PET/MRI currently performs comparably to 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Improvements in the scanning protocol, increasing reader experience and performing serial scans might contribute to enhancing the accuracy of tumor detection after nCRT using 18 F-FDG PET/MRI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL9352.

Patients' Preferences Towards Decision Counseling for Active Surveillance After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decision counseling (DC) is offered to enable patients to reflect on their treatment preferences and to think through the consequences of alternative treatment options. However, the timing of DC is debatable. In this study, patients who underwent DC at different times were interviewed about their experiences, specifically focusing on the timing of DC. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer eligible for participation in a prospective cohort study on active surveillance (SANO-2 study) were offered DC either before or after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Structured interviews were conducted by phone 1 week after DC, and responses were analyzed using frequency counts for the answers to set response categories. The primary outcome was the preferred time to receive DC, while the secondary outcome was the overall experience of patients with DC. RESULTS: Overall, 40 patients were offered DC between 2021 and 2023. Patients who had counseling before the start of nCRT (n = 20) were satisfied with the timing of DC. Of the 20 patients who had DC after nCRT, 6 would have preferred counseling at an earlier time point. Patients who had DC both before or after the completion of nCRT reflected positively on DC. CONCLUSION: It is recommended to introduce the option of DC as early as possible and discuss with the patient at which moment during the decision-making process they prefer to discuss all treatment options more extensively.

Assessing real-world representativeness of prospective registry cohorts in oncology: insights from patients with esophagogastric cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the real-world representativeness of a prospective registry cohort with active accrual in oncology, applying a representativeness metric that is novel to health care. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP) registry and from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We used Representativeness-indicators (R-indicators) and overall survival to investigate the degree to which the POCOP cohort and clinically relevant subgroups were a representative sample compared to the NCR database. Calibration using inverse propensity score weighting was applied to correct differences between POCOP and NCR. RESULTS: The R-indicator of the entire POCOP registry was 0.72 95% confidence interval [0.71, 0.73]. Representativeness of palliative patients was higher than that of potentially curable patients (R-indicator 0.88 [0.85, 0.90] and 0.70 [0.68, 0.71], respectively). Stratification to clinically relevant subgroups based on treatment resulted in higher R-indicators of the respective subgroups. Both after stratification and calibration weighting survival estimates in the POCOP registry were more similar to that in the NCR population. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the assessment of real-world representativeness of patients who participated in a prospective registry cohort and showed that real-world representativeness improved when the variability in treatment was accounted for.

Esophageal cancer patients' need for information and support in making a treatment decision between standard surgery and active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: This study explores patients' need for information and support in deciding on esophageal cancer treatment, when experimental active surveillance and standard surgery are both feasible. METHODS: This psychological companion study was conducted alongside the Dutch SANO-trial (Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer). In-depth interviews and questionnaires were used to collect data from patients who declined participation in the trial because they had a strong preference for either active surveillance (n = 20) or standard surgery (n = 20). Data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative techniques. RESULTS: Patients prefer to receive information directly from their doctors and predominantly rely on this information to make a treatment decision. Other information resources are largely used to confirm their treatment decision. Patients highly value support from their loved ones and appreciate emphatic doctors to actively involve them in the decision-making process. Overall, patients' needs for information and support during decision-making were met. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of shared decision-making and the role doctors have in this process is underlined. The role of doctors is essential at the initial phase of decision-making: Once patients seem to have formed their treatment preference for either active surveillance or surgery, the influence of external resources (including doctors) may be limited.

Surgeon's steering behaviour towards patients to participate in a cluster randomised trial on active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised trial. The aim of this study is to assess if and how surgeons use steering behaviour in their information provision to patients in their choice to participate in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial investigating an organ sparing treatment in (curable) oesophageal cancer (SANO trial). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative study was performed. Thematic content analysis was applied to audiotaped and transcribed consultations of twenty patients with eight different oncological surgeons in three Dutch hospitals. Patients could choose to participate in a clinical trial in which an experimental treatment of 'active surveillance' (AS) was offered. Patients who did not want to participate underwent standard treatment: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy. RESULTS: Surgeons used various techniques to steer patients towards one of the two options, mostly towards AS. The presentation of pros and cons of treatment options was imbalanced: positive framing of AS was used to steer patients towards the choice for AS, and negative framing of AS to make the choice for surgery more attractive. Further, steering language, i.e. suggestive language, was used, and surgeons seemed to use the timing of the introduction of the different treatment options, to put more focus on one of the treatment options. CONCLUSION: Awareness of steering behaviour can help to guide physicians in more objectively informing patients on participation in future clinical trials.

A prospective cohort study on active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: protocol of Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer-2.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy is a standard treatment for potentially curable esophageal cancer. Active surveillance in patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) 12 weeks after nCRT is regarded as possible alternative to standard surgery. The aim of this study is to monitor the safety, adherence and effectiveness of active surveillance in patients outside a randomized trial. METHODS: This nationwide prospective cohort study aims to accrue operable patients with non-metastatic histologically proven adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Patients receive nCRT and response evaluation consists of upper endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan. When residue or regrowth of tumor in the absence of distant metastases is detected, surgical resection is advised. Patients with cCR after nCRT are suitable to undergo active surveillance. Patients can consult an independent physician or psychologist to support decision-making. Primary endpoint is the number and severity of adverse events in patients with cCR undergoing active surveillance, defined as complications from response evaluations, delayed surgery and the development of distant metastases. Secondary endpoints include timing and quality of diagnostic modalities, overall survival, progression-free survival, fear of cancer recurrence and decisional regret. DISCUSSION: Active surveillance after nCRT may be an alternative to standard surgery in patients with esophageal cancer. Similar to organ-sparing approaches applied in other cancer types, the safety and efficacy of active surveillance needs monitoring before data from randomized trials are available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SANO-2 study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04886635 (May 14, 2021) - Retrospectively registered.

Patient preferences for active surveillance vs standard surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer treatment: The NOSANO-study.

Active surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we gained insight in patients' motive to opt for either an experimental treatment called active surveillance or for standard immediate surgery. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses methods were used. Forty patients were interviewed about their treatment preference, 3 months after completion of nCRT (T1). Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed according to the principles of grounded theory. In addition, at T1 and T2 (12 months after completion of nCRT) questionnaires on health-related quality of life, coping, anxiety and decisional regret (only T2) were administered. Interview data analyses resulted in a conceptual model with 'dealing with threat of cancer' as the central theme. Patients preferring active surveillance tend to cope with this threat by confiding in their bodies and good outcomes. Their mind-set is one of 'enjoy life now'. Patients preferring surgery tend to cope by minimizing uncertainty and eliminating the source of cancer. Their mind-set is one of 'don't give up, act now'. Furthermore, questionnaire results showed that patients with a preference for standard surgery had a lower quality of life. Patient preferences are individualized and thus difficult to predict. Our model can help healthcare professionals to determine patient preferences for treatment. Coping style and mind-set seem to be determining factors here.

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.