Neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction.

AIM: The optimal treatment approach for adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction remains unclear. The aim of this work was to compare outcomes of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCR) and adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) treatment for cancer of the rectosigmoid junction. METHOD: This was a nationwide, retrospective cohort study (2004-2015) using hospital-based cancer outcomes data (National Cancer Database). All patients who underwent resection with curative intent for locally advanced [American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stages II and III] adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction were included. Exclusion criteria were age less than 18 or over 75 years, Charlson-Deyo score > 2, AJCC Stages I and IV and unstaged tumours. Treatment with NCR was compared with treatment with AC, the primary outcome being overall survival. Other end-points were resection margin status, the presence of lymphovascular invasion and postoperative length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 2828 patients were included in this study, of whom 1701 (59.7%) received NCR. NCR was more frequently utilized in patients who were black (10.3% vs 7.6%, P < 0.05) and underwent treatment at academic institutions (37.9% vs 22.5%, P < 0.05). Treatment with NCR did not differentially influence survival following risk adjustment (hazard ratio 1.17, CI 0.98-1.40; P = 0.085). NCR was independently associated with a decreased likelihood of a positive resection margin (OR 0.44, CI 0.33-0.58; P < 0.001) and lymphovascular invasion (OR 0.51, CI 0.40-0.67; P < 0.001). However, treatment with NCR was associated with the need for prolonged hospitalization compared with AC (7.3 days vs 6.5 days; P = 0.015). The study was limited by its retrospective design, external validity and risk of tumour misclassification. CONCLUSION: NCR currently seems to be favoured over AC for the management of locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction. This approach may not be justified as NCR is associated with prolonged hospitalization needs without a clear survival benefit when compared with AC. Prospective studies are warranted to definitively compare outcomes of NCR and AC in this patient population.

Outcomes of octogenarians with esophageal cancer: an analysis of the National Cancer Database.

The optimal treatment of esophageal cancer in octogenarians is controversial. While the safety of esophagectomy has been demonstrated in elderly patients, surgery and multimodality therapy are still offered to a select group. Additionally, the long-term outcomes in octogenarians have not been thoroughly compared to those in younger patients. We sought to compare the outcomes of esophageal cancer treatment between octogenarians and non-octogenarians in the National Cancer Database (2004-2014). The major endpoints were early postoperative mortality and long-term survival. A total of 107,921 patients were identified [octogenarian-16,388 (15.2%)]. Compared to non-octogenarians, octogenarians were more likely to be female, of higher socioeconomic status, and had more Charlson comorbidities (p < 0.001 for all). Octogenarians were significantly less likely to undergo esophagectomy (11.5% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.001) and multimodality therapy (2.0% vs. 18.5%; p < 0.001), a trend that persisted following stratification by tumor stage and Charlson comorbidities. Both 30-day and 90-day mortality were higher in the octogenarian group, even after multivariable adjustment (p ≤ 0.001 for both). Octogenarians who underwent multimodality therapy had worse long-term survival when compared to younger patients, except for those with stage III tumors and no comorbidities (HR: 1.29; p = 0.153). Within the octogenarian group, postoperative mortality was lower in academic centers, and the long-term survival was similar between multimodality treatment and surgery alone (HR: 0.96; p = 0.62). In conclusion, octogenarians are less likely to be offered treatment irrespective of tumor stage or comorbidities. Although octogenarians have higher early mortality and poorer overall survival compared to younger patients, outcomes may be improved when treatment is performed at academic centers. Multimodality treatment did not seem to confer a survival advantage compared to surgery alone in octogenarians, and more prospective studies are necessary to better elucidate the optimal treatment in this patient population.

Early Prophylactic Gastrectomy for the Management of Gastric Adenomatous Proximal Polyposis Syndrome (GAPPS).

Background: Gastric adenomatous proximal polyposis syndrome (GAPPS) is a recently described, rare, autosomal dominant condition characterized by the extensive involvement of the proximal stomach with hundreds of heterogeneous fundic gland polyps with antral and duodenal sparing. GAPPS is caused by a point mutation of the APC gene promoter 1B and is associated with a risk of malignant transformation, distant metastasis, and death. There are no surveillance, screening, or treatment guidelines for managing GAPPS. The few reported cases have been variably managed with endoscopic surveillance or prophylactic gastrectomy. However, there is no consensus on the optimal management approach. Summary: In this case series, we review the relevant literature on GAPPS and present two siblings who underwent early prophylactic total gastrectomies with good outcomes. Conclusion: Due to the poor correlation between the endoscopic findings on sampled polyps and the risk of harboring invasive gastric cancer, patients with GAPPS should be strongly considered for early prophylactic total gastrectomies in the absence of prohibitive comorbidities.