Health-related quality of life in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: results from the SPOTLIGHT and GLOW clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: First-line zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy (SPOTLIGHT, mFOLFOX6; GLOW, CAPOX) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma whose tumors were claudin 18 isoform 2-positive in the phase III SPOTLIGHT (NCT03504397) and GLOW (NCT03653507) studies. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from these studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured in the full analysis sets using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life of Cancer Patients Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and Oesophago-Gastric Module (QLQ-OG25), Global Pain, and 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires. Analyses focused on key PRO domains: global health status (GHS)/QoL, physical functioning, abdominal pain and discomfort, and nausea/vomiting. Least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline and time to first definitive deterioration (TTDD) were evaluated combined across SPOTLIGHT and GLOW and for individual studies. Time to confirmed deterioration (TTCD) was evaluated independently for SPOTLIGHT and GLOW. RESULTS: The combined analysis set included 1072 patients (zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy, 537; placebo plus chemotherapy, 535). Compliance rates were similar between treatment arms. Similar trends were observed in the zolbetuximab versus placebo arms for LSM changes from baseline in key PRO domains, with no clinically meaningful deterioration. Nausea/vomiting worsened during the first few zolbetuximab cycles but later returned to baseline levels. Overall TTCD and TTDD results were similar between arms in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in SPOTLIGHT and GLOW maintained measured HRQoL relative to baseline when treated with first-line zolbetuximab added to chemotherapy. Zolbetuximab plus chemotherapy improved PFS and OS without negatively affecting HRQoL in key PRO domains compared with placebo plus chemotherapy.

Analysis of trimodal and bimodal therapy in a selective-surgery paradigm for locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Long-term survival outcomes of trimodal therapy (TMT; chemoradiation plus surgery) and bimodal therapy (BMT; chemoradiation) have seldom been analysed. In a selective-surgery paradigm, the benefit of TMT in patients with a complete clinical response is controversial. Factors associated with survival in patients with a clinical complete response to chemoradiation were evaluated. METHODS: Patients with stage II-III oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with TMT or BMT from 2002 to 2017 were evaluated. The BMT group consisted of patients who were otherwise eligible for surgery but underwent chemoradiation alone followed by observation. This group included patients who later had salvage oesophagectomy. Survival was evaluated and compared between TMT and BMT groups. Elastic net regularization was performed to select co-variables for Cox multivariable survival analysis in patients with a clinical complete response. RESULTS: Of 143 patients, 60 (41.9 per cent) underwent TMT and 83 (58.0 per cent) BMT. Patients who underwent TMT had longer median overall survival than those who had BMT (77 versus 33 months; P = 0.019). For patients with a clinical complete response, TMT achieved longer median overall survival than BMT (123 versus 55 months; P = 0.04). BMT had a high locoregional recurrence rate (48 versus 6 per cent; P < 0.001); 26 of 29 patients with locoregional recurrence in the BMT groupunderwent salvage resection. Cox multivariable analysis demonstrated that upper-mid oesophageal tumour location (hazard ratio (HR) 2.04; P = 0.024) and tumour length (HR 1.18; P = 0.046) were associated with worse survival. Although TMT was not associated with survival, it was a predictor of reduced recurrence (HR 0.28; P = 0.028). The maximum standardized uptake value after chemoradiation also predicted recurrence (HR 1.33; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients who achieve a clinical complete response, TMT reduces locoregional recurrence but may not prolong survival. The differences in survival outcomes may be due to patient selection; therefore, a selective-surgery strategy in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma is a reasonable approach.

Morbidity following salvage esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma: the MD Anderson experience.

The survival advantage associated with the addition of surgical therapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients who demonstrate a complete clinical response to chemoradiotherapy is unclear, and many institutions have adopted an organ-preserving strategy of selective surgery in this population. We sought to characterize our institutional experience of salvage esophagectomy (for failure of definitive bimodality therapy) and planned esophagectomy (as a component of trimodality therapy) by retrospectively analyzing patients with ESCC of the thoracic esophagus and GEJ who underwent esophagectomy following chemoradiotherapy between 2004 and 2016. Of 76 patients who met inclusion criteria, 46.1% (35) underwent salvage esophagectomy. Major postoperative complications (major cardiovascular and pulmonary events, anastomotic leak [grade ≥ 2], and 90-day mortality) were frequent and occurred in 52.6% of the cohort (planned resection: 36.6% [15/41]; salvage esophagectomy: 71.4% [25/35]). Observed rates of 30- and 90-day mortality for the entire cohort were 7.9% (planned: 7.3% [3/41]; salvage: 8.6% [3/35]) and 13.2% (planned: 9.8% [4/41]; salvage: 17.1% [6/35]), respectively. In summary, esophagectomy following chemoradiotherapy for ESCC at our institution has been associated with frequent postoperative morbidity and considerable rates of mortality in both planned and salvage settings. Although a selective approach to surgery may permit organ preservation in many patients with ESCC, these results highlight that salvage esophagectomy for failure of definitive-intent treatment of ESCC may also constitute a difficult clinical undertaking in some cases.

A phase II, randomised study of mFOLFOX6 with or without the Akt inhibitor ipatasertib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: Akt activation is common in gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) and is associated with chemotherapy resistance. Treatment with ipatasertib, a pan-Akt inhibitor, may potentiate the efficacy of chemotherapy in GC/GEJC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase II trial, patients with locally advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC not amenable to curative therapy were randomised 1:1 to receive ipatasertib or placebo, plus mFOLFOX6 (modified regimen of leucovorin, bolus and infusional 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], and oxaliplatin). The co-primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)-low patients. Secondary end-points included PFS in patients with PI3K/Akt pathway-activated tumours; overall survival, investigator-assessed objective response rate and duration of response in the ITT population; and safety assessments. RESULTS: In 153 enrolled patients, the median PFS (ITT) was 6.6 months (90% confidence interval [CI], 5.7-7.5) with ipatasertib/mFOLFOX6 versus 7.5 months (90% CI, 6.2-8.1) with placebo/mFOLFOX6 (hazard ratio, 1.12; 90% CI, 0.81-1.55; P = 0.56). No statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in biomarker-selected patient subgroups (PTEN-low and PI3K/Akt pathway-activated tumours) with ipatasertib/mFOLFOX6 versus placebo/mFOLFOX6. Other secondary end-points did not favour the ipatasertib/mFOLFOX6 treatment arm. The percentages of patients with ≥1 adverse event (AE, 100% versus 98%) and grade ≥3 AEs (79% versus 74%) were similar between arms. Higher rates of AEs leading to treatment withdrawal (16% versus 6%) and serious AEs were reported in the ipatasertib arm (54% versus 43%). Thirty-nine and 29 deaths occurred in the ipatasertib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ipatasertib/mFOLFOX6 compared with placebo/mFOLFOX6 did not improve PFS in unselected or biomarker-selected patients. No unexpected safety concerns were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01896531).

Pyloroplasty may reduce weight loss 1 year after esophagectomy.

Weight loss after esophagectomy is common and is associated with unfavorable prognosis. However, the clinical features and surgical methods that influence postesophagectomy weight loss are not well characterized. This study aims to determine those features (especially the surgical methods) that may affect postoperative weight loss. We reviewed 221 esophageal cancer patients who had undergone esophagectomy at Kumamoto University Hospital (Kumamoto, Japan) between November 2012 and June 2015. Among these, we recruited 106 patients who had undergone transthoracic esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction, had no cancer recurrence within 1 year, and no missing follow-up data. We tabulated the body weight changes and risk factors associated with weight loss exceeding 10% at 1-year postesophagectomy. The mean body weights at baseline and 1-year postsurgery were 60.3 kg (standard error (SE): 0.91) and 52.6 (SE: 0.91), respectively. One year postsurgery, the body weights had changed as follows: mean: -12.2%; median: -12.9%; standard deviation: 9.06; range: -36.1-18.56%; interquartile range: -10.5 to -14.0%. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the absence of pyloroplasty was the sole risk factor for more than 10% weight loss (OR: 3.22; 95% CI: 1.08-11.9; P = 0.036). Our data suggest that pyloroplasty with esophagectomy can overcome the post-surgical weight loss.

A phase III trial comparing oral S-1/cisplatin and intravenous 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin in patients with untreated diffuse gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The effect of histology-based treatment regimen on diffuse gastric adenocarcinoma has not been evaluated in clinical trials. This international phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of S-1 (a contemporary oral fluoropyrimidine)/cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/cisplatin in chemotherapy-naïve patients with diffuse-type adenocarcinoma involving the gastroesophageal junction or stomach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included untreated, measurable, advanced diffuse adenocarcinoma confirmed by central pathology and performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomized (2 : 1) to receive S-1/cisplatin or 5-FU/cisplatin. Primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points were progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, overall response rate, and safety. A multivariable analysis was also carried out. RESULTS: Overall, 361 patients were randomized (S-1/cisplatin, n = 239; 5-FU/cisplatin, n = 122); half (51%) were men, and median age was 56.0 years. In each group, median number of treatment cycles per patient was 4 (range, S-1/cisplatin: 1-20; 5-FU/cisplatin: 1-30), and dose intensity was >95%. OS was not different in the two groups {median OS with S-1/cisplatin, 7.5 [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.7, 9.3]; 5-FU/cisplatin, 6.6 [95% CI: 5.7, 8.1] months; hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI: 0.76, 1.28]; P = 0.9312}. Overall response rate was significantly higher in the S-1/cisplatin than 5-FU/cisplatin group (34.7% versus 19.8%; P = 0.01), but progression-free survival and time to treatment failure were not different. Safety was similar between the 2 groups; however, fewer patients treated with S-1/cisplatin than 5-FU/cisplatin had ≥1 grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event or ≥1 adverse event resulting in treatment discontinuation. One treatment-related death occurred in each group. Slow accrual led to early termination. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that S-1/cisplatin and 5-FU/cisplatin are similar in efficacy and safety in untreated patients with advanced diffuse adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction or stomach. The primary end point was not met. CLINICALTRIAL.GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01285557.

How health-related quality of life assessment should be used in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials.

Traditionally, the efficacy of cancer treatment in patients with advance or metastatic disease in clinical studies has been studied using overall survival and more recently tumor-based end points such as progression-free survival, measurements of response to treatment. However, these seem not to be the relevant clinical end points in current situation if such end points were no validated as surrogate of overall survival to demonstrate the clinical efficacy. Appropriate, meaningful, primary patient-oriented and patient-reported end points that adequately measure the effects of new therapeutic interventions are then crucial for the advancement of clinical research in metastatic colorectal cancer to complement the results of tumor-based end points. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is effectively an evaluation of quality of life and its relationship with health over time. HRQoL includes the patient report at least of the way a disease or its treatment affects its physical, emotional and social well-being. Over the past few years, several phase III trials in a variety of solid cancers have assessed the incremental value of HRQoL in addition to the traditional end points of tumor response and survival results. HRQoL could provide not only complementary clinical data to the primary outcomes, but also more precise predictive and prognostic value. This end point is useful for both clinicians and patients in order to achieve the dogma of precision medicine. The present article examines the use of HRQoL in phase III metastatic colorectal cancer clinical trials, outlines the importance of HRQoL assessment methods, analysis, and results presentation. Moreover, it discusses the relevance of including HRQoL as a primary/co-primary end point to support the progression-free survival results and to assess efficacy of treatment in the advanced disease setting.

Ramucirumab for the treatment of gastroesophageal cancers.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ramucirumab for use in the second line setting of advanced or metastatic, gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEAC) based on the result of Phase III clinical trials; REGARD and RAINBOW. AREAS COVERED: We briefly review the mechanisms of angiogenesis, anti-angiogenic therapy, and current status of advanced GEAC treatment then highlight the challenges and future prospects of novel molecular targeted agents. EXPERT OPINION: Although both the REGARD and RAINBOW trials met their primary endpoints of significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), the magnitude of the difference is still relatively modest. Given that ramucirumab alone has a marginal effect, a combination of paclitaxel and ramucirumab is strongly preferred as a second line therapy. To maximize the impact of ramucirumab in patients with GEAC, we can leverage the recent pharmacokinetics (PK) data of ramucirumab from the REGARD and RAINBOW trials. In addition, the quest for identifying biomarkers to select patients who are likely to benefit the most should continue. It is our firm belief that taxanes should no longer be added to the frontline regimens in most cases, given the success of the taxane/ramucirumab in the second line setting.

ALDH-1 expression levels predict response or resistance to preoperative chemoradiation in resectable esophageal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Operable thoracic esophageal/gastroesophageal junction carcinoma (EC) is often treated with chemoradiation and surgery but tumor responses are unpredictable and heterogeneous. We hypothesized that aldehyde dehydrogenase-1 (ALDH-1) could be associated with response. METHODS: The labeling indices (LIs) of ALDH-1 by immunohistochemistry in untreated tumor specimens were established in EC patients who had chemoradiation and surgery. Univariate logistic regression and 3-fold cross validation were carried out for the training (67% of patients) and validation (33%) sets. Non-clinical experiments in EC cells were performed to generate complimentary data. RESULTS: Of 167 EC patients analyzed, 40 (24%) had a pathologic complete response (pathCR) and 27 (16%) had an extremely resistant (exCRTR) cancer. The median ALDH-1 LI was 0.2 (range, 0.01-0.85). There was a significant association between pathCR and low ALDH-1 LI (p ≤ 0.001; odds-ratio [OR] = 0.432). The 3-fold cross validation led to a concordance index (C-index) of 0.798 for the fitted model. There was a significant association between exCRTR and high ALDH-1 LI (p ≤ 0.001; OR = 3.782). The 3-fold cross validation led to the C-index of 0.960 for the fitted model. In several cell lines, higher ALDH-1 LIs correlated with resistant/aggressive phenotype. Cells with induced chemotherapy resistance upregulated ALDH-1 and resistance conferring genes (SOX9 and YAP1). Sorted ALDH-1+ cells were more resistant and had an aggressive phenotype in tumor spheres than ALDH-1- cells. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical and non-clinical data demonstrate that ALDH-1 LIs are predictive of response to therapy and further research could lead to individualized therapeutic strategies and novel therapeutic targets for EC patients.

Obesity and outcomes in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma.

Body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for comorbid illnesses and cancer development. It was hypothesized that obesity status affects disease outcomes and treatment-related toxicities in esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT). From March 2002 to April 2010, 405 patients with non-metastatic esophageal carcinoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center treated with either definitive or neoadjuvant CRT were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized as either obese (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2) ) or nonobese (BMI < 25 kg/m(2) ). Progression-free survival and overall survival times were examined using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. One hundred fifteen (28.4%) patients were classified as nonobese and 290 (71.6%) as obese. Obese patients were more likely than others to have several comorbid diseases (P < 0.001), adenocarcinoma located distally (P < 0.001), and have undergone surgery (P = 0.004). Obesity was not associated with either worse operative morbidity/mortality (P > 0.05) or worse positron emission tomography tumor response (P = 0.46) on univariate analysis, nor with worse pathologic complete response (P = 0.98) on multivariate analysis. There was also no difference in overall survival, locoregional control, or metastasis-free survival between obese and nonobese patients (P = 0.86). However, higher BMI was associated with reduced risk of chemoradiation-induced high-grade esophagitis (P = 0.021), esophageal stricture (P < 0.001), and high-grade hematologic toxicity (P < 0.001). In esophageal cancer patients treated with CRT, obesity is not predictive of poorer disease outcomes or operative morbidities; instead, data suggest it may be associated with decreased risk of acute chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-related treatment toxicities.

Results of the baseline positron emission tomography can customize therapy of localized esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who achieve a clinical complete response after chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) who achieve a clinical complete response (clinCR) after preoperative chemoradiation (trimodality therapy; TMT) or definitive chemoradiation (bimodality therapy; BMT) live longer than those who achieve a

A phase II randomized trial of induction chemotherapy versus no induction chemotherapy followed by preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of induction chemotherapy (IC) before preoperative chemoradiation for esophageal cancer (EC) is not known. We hypothesized that IC would increase the rate of pathologic complete response (pathCR). METHODS: Trimodality-eligibile patients were randomized to receive no IC (Arm A) or IC (oxaliplatin/FU; Arm B) before oxaliplatin/FU/radiation. Surgery was attempted ∼5-6 weeks after chemoradiation. The pathCR rate, post-surgery 30-day mortality, overall survival (OS), and toxic effects were assessed. Bayesian methods and Fisher's exact test were used. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six patients were randomized dynamically to balance the two arms for histology, baseline stage, gender, race, and age. Fifty-five patients in Arm A and 54 in Arm B underwent surgery. The median actuarial OS for all patients (54 deaths) was 45.62 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 27.63-NA], with median OS 45.62 months (95% CI 25.56-NA) in Arm A and 43.68 months (95% CI 27.63-NA) in Arm B (P = 0.69). The pathCR rate in Arm A was 13% (7 of 55) and 26% (14 of 54) in Arm B (two-sided Fisher's exact test, P = 0.094). Safety was similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that IC produces non-significant increase in the pathCR rate and does not prolong OS. Further development of IC before chemoradiation may not be beneficial. Clinical trial no.: NCT 00525915 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Combination of cisplatin/S-1 in the treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: Results of noninferiority and safety analyses compared with cisplatin/5-fluorouracil in the First-Line Advanced Gastric Cancer Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of developing oral fluorouracil (5-FU) is to provide a more convenient administration route with similar efficacy and the best achievable tolerance. S-1, a novel oral fluoropyrimidine, was specifically designed to overcome the limitations of intravenous fluoropyrimidine therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken to compare S-1/cisplatin (CS) with infusional 5-FU/cisplatin (CF) in 1053 patients with untreated, advanced gastric/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. This report discusses a post-hoc noninferiority overall survival (OS) and safety analyses. RESULTS: Results (1029 treated; CS = 521/CF = 508) revealed OS in CS (8.6 months) was statistically noninferior to CF (7.9 months) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.92 (two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80-1.05)] for any margin equal to or greater than 1.05. Statistically significant safety advantages for the CS arm were observed [G3/4 neutropenia (CS, 18.6%; CF, 40.0%), febrile neutropenia (CS, 1.7%; CF, 6.9%), G3/4 stomatitis (CS, 1.3%; CF, 13.6%), diarrhoea (all grades: CS, 29.2%; CF, 38.4%) and renal adverse events (all grades: CS, 18.8%; CF, 33.5%)]. Hand-foot syndrome, infrequently reported, was mainly grade 1/2 in both arms. Treatment-related deaths were significantly lower in the CS arm than the CF arm (2.5% and 4.9%, respectively; P<0.047). CONCLUSION: CS is noninferior to CF with a better safety profile and provides a new treatment option for patients with advanced gastric carcinoma.

Utilization of surgery in trimodality-eligible patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma in a nonprotocol setting.

Trimodality therapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery significantly improves the survival of locally advanced (clinical stage IIA-III) esophageal cancer patients compared to treatment with surgery alone. This has resulted in an increased use of neoadjuvant therapy in recent years, yet little is known regarding how this increase has impacted the utilization of surgery in the treatment of locally advanced disease. Although previous reports of experimental protocols suggest that 90-95% of patients complete trimodality therapy including a surgical resection, trimodality therapy completion among adenocarcinoma patients eligible for curative resection has not been evaluated in a nonprotocol setting. We sought to (i) assess the completion of trimodality therapy among locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma patients; (ii) characterize the reasons for avoiding surgery; and (iii) identify factors associated with failure to complete trimodality therapy. We identified 296 patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma eligible for trimodality therapy at our institution. All patients were evaluated in a multidisciplinary setting and considered eligible for curative resection after initial staging and physiologic assessment. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with failure to complete trimodality therapy. Of 296 trimodality-eligible patients, 33% (97/296) did not complete trimodality therapy. Reasons for not undergoing surgery included patient choice (27.8%, 27/97), distant progression of disease during chemoradiation (23.7%, 23/97), and physician preference for surveillance (23.7%, 23/97). In addition, 17.5% (17/97) of patients had physical deterioration in performance status, and treatment-related deaths occurred in 7.2% (7/97) prior to surgery. In the total study population (n = 296), multivariable logistic regression identified older age (≥70 years: odds ratio [OR] = 6.611, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.900-15.071), pretreatment standard uptake value (6.8-10.1: OR = 2.393, 95% CI: 1.050-5.455; ≥15.8: OR = 3.623, 95% CI: 1.604-8.186), and a radiation dose of 50.4 Gy (OR = 5.312, 95% CI: 2.365-11.929) as being significantly associated with failure to complete trimodality therapy. Among the subgroup of patients that successfully completed chemoradiation (n = 266), older patients (≥70 years: OR = 9.606, 95% CI: 3.637-25.372), those with a comorbidity score of 2 or higher (OR = 4.059, 95% CI: 1.257-13.103), and those that received a radiation dose of 50.4 Gy (OR = 4.878, 95% CI: 1.974-12.054) were at a significantly higher risk of not completing trimodality therapy. Trimodality therapy completion among patients with locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma in a nonprotocol setting is considerably lower than what has previously been reported in clinical trials. Our findings suggest that a selective approach to surgery is commonly utilized in clinical practice. Trimodality-eligible patients that are older and have a higher comorbidity score are at risk for not completing trimodality therapy.

Association between clinical complete response and pathological complete response after preoperative chemoradiation in patients with gastroesophageal cancer: analysis in a large cohort.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiation followed by surgery is the preferred treatment of localized gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). Surgery causes considerable life-altering consequences and achievement of clinical complete response (clinCR; defined as postchemoradiation [but presurgery] endoscopic biopsy negative for cancer and positron emission tomographic (PET) scan showing physiologic uptake) is an enticement to avoid/delay surgery. We examined the association between clinCR and pathologic complete response (pathCR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eighty-four patients with GEC underwent chemoradiation and esophagectomy. The chi-square test, Fisher exact test, t-test, Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test were used. RESULTS: Of 284 patients, 218 (77%) achieved clinCR. However, only 67 (31%) of the 218 achieved pathCR. The sensitivity of clinCR for pathCR was 97.1% (67/69), but the specificity was low (29.8%; 64/215). Of the 66 patients who had less than a clinCR, only 2 (3%) had a pathCR. Thus, the rate of pathCR was significantly different in patients with clinCR than in those with less than a clinCR (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: clinCR is not highly associated with pathCR; the specificity of clinCR for pathCR is too low to be used for clinical decision making on delaying/avoiding surgery. Surgery-eligible GEC patients should be encouraged to undergo surgery following chemoradiation despite achieving a clinCR.

Clinical parameters model for predicting pathologic complete response following preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 25% of patients with esophageal cancer (EC) who undergo preoperative chemoradiation, achieve a pathologic complete response (pathCR). We hypothesized that a model based on clinical parameters could predict pathCR with a high (≥60%) probability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 322 patients with EC who underwent preoperative chemoradiation. All the patients had baseline and postchemoradiation positron emission tomography (PET) and pre- and postchemoradiation endoscopic biopsy. Logistic regression models were used for analysis, and cross-validation via the bootstrap method was carried out to test the model. RESULTS: The 70 (21.7%) patients who achieved a pathCR lived longer (median overall survival [OS], 79.76 months) than the 252 patients who did not achieve a pathCR (median OS, 39.73 months; OS, P = 0.004; disease-free survival, P = 0.003). In a logistic regression analysis, the following parameters contributed to the prediction model: postchemoradiation PET, postchemoradiation biopsy, sex, histologic tumor grade, and baseline (EUS)T stage. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.662-0.787); after the bootstrap validation with 200 repetitions, the bias-corrected AU-ROC was 0.70 (95% CI 0.643-0.728). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the logistic regression model can predict pathCR with a high probability. This clinical model could complement others (biomarkers) to predict pathCR.

Patients with high body mass index tend to have lower stage of esophageal carcinoma at diagnosis.

High body mass index (H-BMI; ≥25 kg/m(2) ) is common in US adults. In a small cohort of esophageal cancer (EC) patients treated with surgery, H-BMI and diagnosis of early stage EC appeared associated. We evaluated a much larger cohort of EC patients. From a prospectively maintained database, we analyzed 925 EC patients who had surgery with or without adjunctive therapy. Various statistical methods were used. Among 925 patients, 69% had H-BMI, and 31% had normal body mass index (<25 kg/m(2) ; N-BMI). H-BMI was associated with men (P<0.001), Caucasians (P=0.064; trend), lower esophageal localization (P<0.001), adenocarcinoma histology (P<0.001), low baseline cT-stage (P=0.003), low baseline overall clinical stage (P=0.003), coronary artery disease (P=0.036), and diabetes (P<0.001). N-BMI was associated with weight loss (P<0.001), alcohol abuse (P=0.056; trend), ever/current smoking (P=0.014), and baseline cN+ (P=0.018). H-BMI patients with cT1 tumors (n=110) had significantly higher rates of gastresophageal reflux disease symptoms (P<0.001), gastresophageal reflux disease history (P<0.001), and Barrett's esophagus history (P<0.001) compared with H-BMI patients with cT2 tumors (n=114). Median survival of N-BMI patients was 36.66 months compared with 53.20 months for H-BMI patients (P=0.005). In multivariate analysis, older age (P<0.001), squamous histology (P=0.002), smoking (P=0.040), weight loss (P=0.002), high baseline stage (P<0.001), high number of ypN+ (P=0.005), high surgical stage (P<0.001), and American Society of Anesthesia scores, three out of four (P<0.001) were independent prognosticators for poor overall survival. We were able to perform propensity-based analysis of surgical complications between H-BMI and N-BMI patients. A comparison of fully matched 376 patients (188 with H-BMI and 188 with N-BMI) found no significant differences in the rate of complications between the two groups. This larger data set confirms that a fraction of H-BMI patients with antecedent history is diagnosed with early baseline EC. Upon validation of our data in an independent cohort, refinements in surveillance of symptomatic H-BMI patients are warranted and could be implemented. Our data also suggest that H-BMI patients do not experience higher rate of surgical complications compared with N-BMI patients.

A phase II study of pegylated-camptothecin (pegamotecan) in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Combination chemotherapy results in a significant survival advantage in patients with advanced gastric cancer compared to best supportive care. Nevertheless, the prognosis remains poor with a median survival of 8-10 months. Topoisomerase-I inhibitors such as irinotecan have activity in advanced gastric cancer. Pegamotecan may offer significant advantages over other topoisomerase-I inhibitors due to its prolonged circulating half-life, tolerability and passive tumour accumulation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a non-randomised, multi-centre, two-step Fleming design phase II study. Eligible patients with locally advanced (inoperable) or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma, with measurable disease, ECOG performance status < or =2, with adequate haematological, renal and hepatic function, who had received < or =1 prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease, were treated with 7,000 mg/m(2) of pegamotecan as a 1-h infusion every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary efficacy measure was the objective response rate. RESULTS: Five of the 35 patients recruited into this study had a partial response (14.3%), with a median time to progression of 11.9 weeks (95% CI: 6.6, 13.1), and median overall survival of 38.1 weeks (95% CI: 29.0, 47.3). Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia in 6 (17.1%) patients, thrombocytopenia in 4 (11.4%), fatigue in 8 (22.9%), nausea in 6 (17%), vomiting in 6 (17%) and anorexia in 4 (11.4%) patients. There were no episodes of febrile neutropenia and no toxic deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Pegamotecan has activity in this patient population and was generally well-tolerated. The favourable rate of haematological toxicities and diarrhoea compared with irinotecan in similar studies suggests that pegamotecan could be combined with other active agents in further studies in this disease.

Therapy-induced expression of NF-kappaB portends poor prognosis in patients with localized esophageal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiation.

Activated nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappaB) in the pretreatment cancer tissue of patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (LEA) undergoing preoperative chemoradiation is associated with poor prognosis. It is known that constitutively activated NF-kappaB prior to any therapy portends poor prognosis, and it is also known that activated NF-kappaB in the treated specimen is associated with poor prognosis. However, the prognosis of patients who have treatment-induced activation of NF-kappaB (meaning their cancers activate NF-kappaB during or after therapy) is not been reported. We hypothesized that the treatment-induced activation of NF-kappaB would impart poor prognosis similar to that imparted by constitutively activated NF-kappaB cancer. Patients with LEA who had undergone preoperative chemoradiation plus surgery and had pre- and post-therapy cancer tissue available were selected. Pre- and post-therapy cancer tissues were stained by immunohistochemistry for nuclear staining of NF-kappaB. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival were assessed and compared for patients who had intrinsic constitutively activated NF-kappaB cancer with those who had induced activation of NF-kappaB only post-therapy. A total of 41 patients with LEA were investigated. Twenty-five patients had NF-kappaB positive cancer at baseline, and 16 had NF-kappaB negative cancer at baseline but became positive post-therapy. There was no difference in the location, histology grade, clinical stage, or the curative resection (RO) resection rate in the two populations. OS (P = 0.71), disease-free survival (P = 0.86), and median survivals (Converters: 24 months [95% confidence intervals: 7.78 to 40.22]vs. Nonconverters: 34.13 months [95% confidence intervals: 3.54 to 64.27]) were not different between the two groups. Our data suggest that activation of NF-kappaB in response to stress/injury of therapy leads to poor OS. These results need to be confirmed in a larger number of patients. It may be that only pre-therapy evaluation of NF-kappaB is insufficient to assess prognosis of patients with LEA. Additional implications include that when effective anti-NF-kappaB therapies become available, they may have to be considered in patients whose cancers do not have constitutively activated NF-kappaB or cancer may have to be monitored during therapy with biomarker assessments.

Adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus with Barrett's esophagus or without Barrett's esophagus: differences in patients' survival after preoperative chemoradiation.

It remains unclear whether the overall survival (OS) of patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (LEA) with Barrett's esophagus (BE) (Barrett's-positive) and those with LEA without BE (Barrett's-negative) following preoperative chemoradiation is different. Based on the published differences in the molecular biology of the two entities, we hypothesized that the two groups will have a different clinical biology (and OS). In this retrospective analysis, all patients with LEA had surgery following preoperative chemoradiation. Apart from age, gender, baseline clinical stage, location, class of cytotoxics, post-therapy stage, and OS, LEAs were divided up into Barrett's-positive and Barrett's-negative groups based on histologic documentation of BE. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analytic methods were used. We analyzed 362 patients with LEA (137 Barrett's-positive and 225 Barrett's-negative). A higher proportion of Barrett's-positive patients had (EUS)T2 cancers (27%) than those with Barrett's-negative cancer (17%). More Barrett's-negative LEAs involved gastroesophageal junction than Barrett's-positive ones (P = 0.001). The OS was significantly shorter for Barrett's-positive patients than that for Barrett's-negative patients (32 months vs. 51 months; P = 0.04). In a multivariate analysis for OS, Barrett's-positive LEA (P = 0.006), old age (P = 0.016), baseline positive nodes (P = 0.005), more than 2 positive (yp)N (P = 0.0001), higher (yp)T (P = 0.003), and the use of a taxane (0.04) were the independent prognosticators. Our data demonstrate that the clinical biology (reflected in OS) is less favorable for patients with Barrett's-positive LEA than for patients with Barrett's-negative LEA. Our intriguing findings need confirmation followed by in-depth molecular study to explain these differences.