Total neoadjuvant therapy in oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma.

Adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction represent a large burden of cancer death in the Western World with an increasing incidence. In the past two decades, the overall survival of patients on a potentially curative treatment pathway has more than doubled due to the addition of perioperative oncological therapies to surgery. However, patients often fail to respond to oncological treatment or struggle to complete their treatment after surgery. In this review, we discuss the current evidence for total neoadjuvant therapy and options for assessment of treatment response.

Pathologic Lymph Node Regression After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Predicts Recurrence and Survival in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: There is limited evidence regarding the prognostic effects of pathologic lymph node (LN) regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma, and a definition of LN response is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate how LN regression influences survival after surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Multicenter cohort study of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgical resection at five high-volume centers in the United Kingdom. LNs retrieved at esophagectomy were examined for chemotherapy response and given a LN regression score (LNRS)-LNRS 1, complete response; 2, <10% residual tumor; 3, 10%-50% residual tumor; 4, >50% residual tumor; and 5, no response. Survival analysis was performed using Cox regression adjusting for confounders including primary tumor regression. The discriminatory ability of different LN response classifications to predict survival was evaluated using Akaike information criterion and Harrell C-index. RESULTS: In total, 17,930 LNs from 763 patients were examined. LN response classified as complete LN response (LNRS 1 ≥1 LN, no residual tumor in any LN; n = 62, 8.1%), partial LN response (LNRS 1-3 ≥1 LN, residual tumor ≥1 LN; n = 155, 20.3%), poor/no LN response (LNRS 4-5; n = 303, 39.7%), or LN negative (no tumor/regression; n = 243, 31.8%) demonstrated superior discriminatory ability. Mortality was reduced in patients with complete LN response (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.56), partial LN response (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.93) or negative LNs (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.42) compared with those with poor/no LN response. Primary tumor regression and LN regression were discordant in 165 patients (21.9%). CONCLUSION: Pathologic LN regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was a strong prognostic factor and provides important information beyond pathologic TNM staging and primary tumor regression grading. LN regression should be included as standard in the pathologic reporting of esophagectomy specimens.

Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study of Oesophageal Injuries and Related Clinical Outcomes (MUSOIC study).

OBJECTIVE: To identify prognostic factors associated with 90-day mortality in patients with oesophageal perforation (OP), and characterize the specific timeline from presentation to intervention, and its relation to mortality. BACKGROUND: OP is a rare gastro-intestinal surgical emergency with a high mortality rate. However, there is no updated evidence on its outcomes in the context of centralized esophago-gastric services; updated consensus guidelines; and novel non-surgical treatment strategies. METHODS: A multi-center, prospective cohort study involving eight high-volume esophago-gastric centers (January 2016 to December 2020) was undertaken. The primary outcome measure was 90-day mortality. Secondary measures included length of hospital and ICU stay, and complications requiring re-intervention or re-admission. Mortality model training was performed using random forest, support-vector machines, and logistic regression with and without elastic net regularisation. Chronological analysis was performed by examining each patient's journey timepoint with reference to symptom onset. RESULTS: The mortality rate for 369 patients included was 18.9%. Patients treated conservatively, endoscopically, surgically, or combined approaches had mortality rates of 24.1%, 23.7%, 8.7%, and 18.2%, respectively. The predictive variables for mortality were Charlson comorbidity index, haemoglobin count, leucocyte count, creatinine levels, cause of perforation, presence of cancer, hospital transfer, CT findings, whether a contrast swallow was performed, and intervention type. Stepwise interval model showed that time to diagnosis was the most significant contributor to mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Non-surgical strategies have better outcomes and may be preferred in selected cohorts to manage perforations. Outcomes can be significantly improved through better risk-stratification based on afore-mentioned modifiable risk factors.

Results of the ARROW survey of anti-reflux practice in the United Kingdom.

Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, significant health burden. United Kingdom guidance states that surgery should be considered for patients with a diagnosis of GERD not suitable for long-term acid suppression. There is no consensus on many aspects of patient pathways and optimal surgical technique, and an absence of information on how patients are currently selected for surgery. Further detail on the delivery of anti-reflux surgery (ARS) is required. A United Kingdom-wide survey was designed to gather surgeon opinion regarding pre-, peri- and post-operative practice of ARS. Responses were received from 155 surgeons at 57 institutions. Most agreed that endoscopy (99%), 24-hour pH monitoring (83%) and esophageal manometry (83%) were essential investigations prior to surgery. Of 57 units, 30 (53%) had access to a multidisciplinary team to discuss cases; case-loads were higher in those units (median 50 vs. 30, P < 0.024). The most popular form of fundoplication was a Nissen posterior 360° (75% of surgeons), followed by a posterior 270° Toupet (48%). Only seven surgeons stated they had no upper limit of body mass index prior to surgery. A total of 46% of respondents maintain a database of their practice and less than a fifth routinely record quality of life scores before (19%) or after (14%) surgery. While there are areas of consensus, a lack of evidence to support workup, intervention and outcome evaluation is reflected in the variability of practice. ARS patients are not receiving the same level of evidence-based care as other patient groups.

Identification of neoantigens in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) has a relatively poor long-term survival and limited treatment options. Promising targets for immunotherapy are short peptide neoantigens containing tumour mutations, presented to cytotoxic T-cells by human leucocyte antigen (HLA) molecules. Despite an association between putative neoantigen abundance and therapeutic response across cancers, immunogenic neoantigens are challenging to identify. Here we characterized the mutational and immunopeptidomic landscapes of tumours from a cohort of seven patients with OAC. We directly identified one HLA-I presented neoantigen from one patient, and report functional T-cell responses from a predicted HLA-II neoantigen in a second patient. The predicted class II neoantigen contains both HLA I and II binding motifs. Our exploratory observations are consistent with previous neoantigen studies in finding that neoantigens are rarely directly observed, and an identification success rate following prediction in the order of 10%. However, our identified putative neoantigen is capable of eliciting strong T-cell responses, emphasizing the need for improved strategies for neoantigen identification.

ELEVATE - evaluating Temozolomide and Nivolumab in patients with advanced unresectable previously treated oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma with MGMT methylation: study protocol for a single arm phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma, surgery is the only curative option and despite the use of multimodality therapy, which combines it with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, more than 50% of patients will relapse and die. Many UK patients present with advanced disease which is already inoperable or metastatic at diagnosis. For these patients, standard care chemotherapy only offers them survival of less than a year. Nivolumab, a checkpoint blockade inhibitor, has been found to work in some advanced cancers. It is proposed, for those where immunotherapy hasn't worked, that these immunologically evasive tumours need to be sensitized to immunotherapy drugs to allow them to act. METHODS: ELEVATE is a single arm phase II trial testing the overall response to nivolumab following temozolomide treatment in patients with advanced unresectable previously treated adenocarcinoma which is O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) methylated. 18 patients are being recruited from UK secondary care sites. To be eligible, participants must have been treated with at least 3 months of platinum and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Participants will receive 50 mg/m2 temozolomide continuously for 3 months. If their disease progresses during the 3 months, they will stop temozolomide and start nivolumab at a dose of 240mg every 2 weeks. If there is no progression after 3 months the participant will continue taking temozolomide in combination with nivolumab. All treatment will stop once the participant progresses on nivolumab. The primary endpoint is the best overall response to nivolumab, using both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and immunotherapy modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: ELEVATE will provide evidence for whether giving nivolumab after temozolomide in patients with previously treated advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma is safe and biologically effective prior to future randomised trials. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT Number: 2020-004771-41 (issued 01 October 2020); ISCRTN11398887 (registered 14 July 2021).

Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)/Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement on intraoperative and postoperative interventions to reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary complications are the most common morbidity after oesophagectomy, contributing to mortality and prolonged postoperative recovery, and have a negative impact on health-related quality of life. A variety of single or bundled interventions in the perioperative setting have been developed to reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications. Significant variation in practice exists across the UK. The aim of this modified Delphi consensus was to deliver clear evidence-based consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative care that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy. METHODS: With input from a multidisciplinary group of 23 experts in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal cancer, a modified Delphi method was employed. Following an initial systematic review of relevant literature, a range of anaesthetic, surgical, and postoperative care interventions were identified. These were then discussed during a two-part virtual conference. Recommendation statements were drafted, refined, and agreed by all attendees. The level of evidence supporting each statement was considered. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 12 statements on topics including operative approach, pyloric drainage strategies, intraoperative fluid and ventilation strategies, perioperative analgesia, postoperative feeding plans, and physiotherapy interventions. Seven additional questions concerning the perioperative management of patients undergoing oesophagectomy were highlighted to guide future research. CONCLUSION: Clear consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative interventions that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy are presented.

The first international Delphi consensus statement on Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has almost replaced open surgery in many areas of Gastro-Intestinal (GI) surgery. There is currently no published expert consensus statement on the principles of laparoscopic GI surgery. This may have affected the training of new surgeons. This exercise aimed to achieve an expert consensus on important principles of laparoscopic GI surgery. METHODS: A committee of 38 international experts in laparoscopic GI surgery proposed and voted on 149 statements in two rounds following a strict modified Delphi protocol. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved on 133 statements after two rounds of voting. All experts agreed on tailoring the first port site to the patient, whereas 84.2% advised avoiding the umbilical area for pneumoperitoneum in patients who had a prior midline laparotomy. Moreover, 86.8% agreed on closing all 15 mm ports irrespective of the patient's body mass index. There was a 100% consensus on using cartridges of appropriate height for stapling, checking the doughnuts after using circular staplers, and keeping the vibrating blade of the ultrasonic energy device in view and away from vascular structures. An 84.2% advised avoiding drain insertion through a ≥10 mm port site as it increases the risk of port-site hernia. There was 94.7% consensus on adding laparoscopic retrieval bags to the operating count and ensuring any surgical specimen left inside for later removal is added to the operating count. CONCLUSION: Thirty-eight experts achieved a consensus on 133 statements concerning various aspects of laparoscopic GI Surgery. Increased awareness of these could facilitate training and improve patient outcomes.

The Use of miRNAs in Predicting Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Oesophageal Cancer.

Oesophageal cancer (OC) is the ninth most common cancer worldwide. Patients receive neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) as standard of care, but less than 20% of patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or a third of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients, obtain a clinically meaningful response. Developing a method of determining a patient's response to NAT before treatment will allow rational treatment decisions to be made, thus improving patient outcome and quality of life. (1) Background: To determine the use and accuracy of microRNAs as biomarkers of response to NAT in patients with OAC or OSCC. (2) Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library were searched to identify studies investigating microRNAs in treatment naïve biopsies to predict response to NAT in OC patients. (3) Results: A panel of 20 microRNAs were identified as predictors of good or poor response to NAT, from 15 studies. Specifically, miR-99b, miR-451 and miR-505 showed the strongest ability to predict response in OAC patients along with miR-193b in OSCC patients. (4) Conclusions: MicroRNAs are valuable biomarkers of response to NAT in OC. Research is needed to understand the effects different types of chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy have on the predictive value of microRNAs; studies also require greater standardization in how response is defined.

Evaluation of postoperative surveillance strategies for esophago-gastric cancers in the UK and Ireland.

Esophago-gastric malignancies are associated with a high recurrence rate; yet there is a lack of evidence to inform guidelines for the standardization and structure of postoperative surveillance after curatively intended treatment. This study aimed to capture the variation in postoperative surveillance strategies across the UK and Ireland, and enquire the opinions and beliefs around surveillance from practicing clinicians. A web-based survey consisting of 40 questions was sent to surgeons or allied health professionals performing or involved in surgical care for esophago-gastric cancers at high-volume centers in the UK. Respondents from each center completed the survey on what best represented their center. The first section of the survey evaluated the timing and components of follow-ups, and their variation between centers. The second section evaluated respondents perspective on how surveillance can be structured. Thirty-five respondents from 27 centers consisting 28 consultants, 6 senior trainees and 1 specialist nurse had completed the questionnaire; 45.7% of responders arranged clinical follow-up at 2-4 weeks. Twenty responders had a specific postoperative surveillance protocol for their patients. Of these, 31.4% had a standardized protocol for all patients, while 25.7% tailored it to patient needs. Patient preference, comorbidities and chance of recurrence were considered as major factors for necessitating more intense surveillance than currently practiced. There is a significant variation in how patients are monitored after surgery between centers in the UK. Randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to both survival outcomes and quality of life of patients and to evaluate the prognostic value of different postoperative surveillance strategies.

Nasogastric tube drainage and pyloric intervention after oesophageal resection: UK practice variation and effect on outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Over 1500 patients with oesophageal cancer undergo a resection in the UK each year. At surgery, patients commonly have a nasogastric tube (NGT) placed and may undergo a pyloric intervention. There is conflicting evidence on the use of both NGTs and pyloric interventions during oesophageal resections. We performed a national survey of oesophageal centres and assessed practice variation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to all resection centres in England, Wales and Scotland. Variations in practice regarding NGTs and pyloric intervention were assessed, and compared to nationally reported centre volumes and length-of-stay data. RESULTS: Most centres (31/39, 79%) responded to the survey. All centres reported routine NGT use. The majority of centres (19/31, 61%) did not perform pyloric interventions. When used, surgical pyloroplasty was the most frequent strategy (8/31, 26%). Routine post-operative radiological assessment was utilised in 9/31 (29%) of centres. Criteria for NGT removal and dietary progression was highly variable, with every centre reporting different protocols. There were no significant differences in practice between high and low volume centres. There were also no trends seen when comparing centres above vs at-or-below the median length-of-stay. The majority (68%) of centres were willing to take part in a trial assessing NGT use and pyloric interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Pyloric intervention use varies widely, with no clear link to outcomes. NGT use remains standard practice despite evidence for safe omission. Surgeons require and recognise the need for a trial to assess requirement for NGTs and pyloric intervention after oesophageal resection.

Impact of postoperative chemotherapy on survival for oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma after preoperative chemotherapy and surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy is widely used in the treatment of oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (OGAC) with a substantial survival benefit over surgery alone. However, the postoperative part of these regimens is given in less than half of patients, reflecting uncertainty among clinicians about its benefit and poor postoperative patient fitness. This study estimated the effect of postoperative chemotherapy after surgery for OGAC using a large population-based data set. METHODS: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus, gastro-oesophageal junction or stomach diagnosed between 2012 and 2018, who underwent preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery, were identified from a national-level audit in England and Wales. Postoperative therapy was defined as the receipt of systemic chemotherapy within 90 days of surgery. The effectiveness of postoperative chemotherapy compared with observation was estimated using inverse propensity treatment weighting. RESULTS: Postoperative chemotherapy was given to 1593 of 4139 patients (38.5 per cent) included in the study. Almost all patients received platinum-based triplet regimens (4004 patients, 96.7 per cent), with FLOT used in 3.3 per cent. Patients who received postoperative chemotherapy were younger, with a lower ASA grade, and were less likely to have surgical complications, with similar tumour characteristics. After weighting, the median survival time after postoperative chemotherapy was 62.7 months compared with 50.4 months without chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.77 to 0.94; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study has shown that postoperative chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with OGAC treated with preoperative chemotherapy and surgery.

Genomic Analysis of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Unfortunately, response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is poor (20-37%), as is the overall survival benefit at five years (9%). The EAC genome is complex and heterogeneous between patients, and it is not yet understood whether specific mutational patterns may result in chemotherapy sensitivity or resistance. To identify associations between genomic events and response to NAC in EAC, a comparative genomic analysis was performed in 65 patients with extensive clinical and pathological annotation using whole-genome sequencing (WGS). We defined response using Mandard Tumor Regression Grade (TRG), with responders classified as TRG1-2 (n = 27) and non-responders classified as TRG4-5 (n =38). We report a higher non-synonymous mutation burden in responders (median 2.08/Mb vs. 1.70/Mb, p = 0.036) and elevated copy number variation in non-responders (282 vs. 136/patient, p < 0.001). We identified copy number variants unique to each group in our cohort, with cell cycle (CDKN2A, CCND1), c-Myc (MYC), RTK/PIK3 (KRAS, EGFR) and gastrointestinal differentiation (GATA6) pathway genes being specifically altered in non-responders. Of note, NAV3 mutations were exclusively present in the non-responder group with a frequency of 22%. Thus, lower mutation burden, higher chromosomal instability and specific copy number alterations are associated with resistance to NAC.

Risk Prediction Model of 90-Day Mortality After Esophagectomy for Cancer.

Importance: Ninety-day mortality rates after esophagectomy are an indicator of the quality of surgical oncologic management. Accurate risk prediction based on large data sets may aid patients and surgeons in making informed decisions. Objective: To develop and validate a risk prediction model of death within 90 days after esophagectomy for cancer using the International Esodata Study Group (IESG) database, the largest existing prospective, multicenter cohort reporting standardized postoperative outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic/prognostic study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients from 39 institutions in 19 countries between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Patients with esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to development and validation cohorts. A scoring system that predicted death within 90 days based on logistic regression ß coefficients was conducted. A final prognostic score was determined and categorized into homogeneous risk groups that predicted death within 90 days. Calibration and discrimination tests were assessed between cohorts. Exposures: Esophageal resection for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause postoperative 90-day mortality. Results: A total of 8403 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [9.0] years; 6641 [79.0%] male) were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 164), and the 90-day mortality rate was 4.2% (n = 353). Development (n = 4172) and validation (n = 4231) cohorts were randomly assigned. The multiple logistic regression model identified 10 weighted point variables factored into the prognostic score: age, sex, body mass index, performance status, myocardial infarction, connective tissue disease, peripheral vascular disease, liver disease, neoadjuvant treatment, and hospital volume. The prognostic scores were categorized into 5 risk groups: very low risk (score, ≥1; 90-day mortality, 1.8%), low risk (score, 0; 90-day mortality, 3.0%), medium risk (score, -1 to -2; 90-day mortality, 5.8%), high risk (score, -3 to -4: 90-day mortality, 8.9%), and very high risk (score, ≤-5; 90-day mortality, 18.2%). The model was supported by nonsignificance in the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72) in the development cohort and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69) in the validation cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, on the basis of preoperative variables, the IESG risk prediction model allowed stratification of an individual patient's risk of death within 90 days after esophagectomy. These data suggest that this model can help in the decision-making process when esophageal cancer surgery is being considered and in informed consent.

Protocol for LAsting Symptoms after Oesophageal Resectional Surgery (LASORS): multicentre validation cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the primary curative treatment for oesophageal cancer, with considerable recent improvements in long-term survival. However, surgery has a long-lasting impact on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Through a multicentre European study, our research group was able to identify key symptoms that affect patient's HRQOL. These symptoms were combined to produce a tool to identify poor HRQOL following oesophagectomy (LAsting Symptoms after Oesophageal Resection (LASOR) tool). The objective of this multicentre study is to validate a six-symptom clinical tool to identify patients with poor HRQOL for use in everyday clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Included patients will: (1) be aged 18 years or older, (2) have undergone an oesophagectomy for cancer between 2015 and 2019, and (3) be at least 12 months after the completion of adjuvant oncological treatments. Patients will be given the previously created LASOR questionnaire. Each symptom from the LASOR questionnaire will be graded according to impact on quality of life and frequency of the symptom, with a composite score from 0 to 5. The previously developed LASOR symptom tool will be validated against HRQOL as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30 and OG25. SAMPLE SIZE: With a predicted prevalence of poor HRQOL of 45%, based on the previously generated LASOR clinical symptom tool, to validate this tool with a sensitivity and specificity of 80%, respectively, a minimum of 640 patients will need to be recruited to the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS Health Research Authority (North East-York Research Ethics Committee) approval was gained 8 November 2019 (REC reference 19/NE/0352). Multiple platforms will be used for the dissemination of the research data, including international clinical and patient group presentations and publication of research outputs in a high impact clinical journal.

A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery.

BACKGROUND: With rapid advancement in the genomics of oesophagogastric (OG) cancer and raised expectations in clinical outcomes from patients and clinicians alike there is a clear need to determine the current research priorities in OG cancer surgery. The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities among OG cancer surgeons in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high priority research questions. All questions submitted and subsequently ranked were analysed on an anonymised basis. RESULTS: In total, 427 questions were submitted in phase I and 75 with an OG cancer focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Phase III produced a final list of 12 high priority questions with an emphasis on tailored or personalised treatment strategies in OG cancer surgery. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi process produced a list of 12 high priority research questions in OG cancer surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research across multiple centres.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.

Aspirin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: feasibility results from the Add-Aspirin randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical, epidemiological, and randomised data indicate that aspirin might prevent tumour development and metastasis, leading to reduced cancer mortality, particularly for gastro-oesophageal and colorectal cancer. Randomised trials evaluating aspirin use after primary radical therapy are ongoing. We present the pre-planned feasibility analysis of the run-in phase of the Add-Aspirin trial to address concerns about toxicity, particularly bleeding after radical treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer. METHODS: The Add-Aspirin protocol includes four phase 3 randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of daily aspirin on recurrence and survival after radical cancer therapy in four tumour cohorts: gastro-oesophageal, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. An open-label run-in phase (aspirin 100 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, aspirin 300 mg, aspirin 100 mg, or matched placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; for patients aged 75 years or older, aspirin 100 mg or matched placebo in a 2:1 ratio). A preplanned analysis of feasibility, including recruitment rate, adherence, and toxicity was performed. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN74358648) and remains open to recruitment. FINDINGS: After 2 years of recruitment (October, 2015, to October, 2017), 3494 participants were registered (115 in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort, 950 in the colorectal cancer cohort, 1675 in the breast cancer cohort, and 754 in the prostate cancer cohort); 2719 (85%) of 3194 participants who had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohorts. End of run-in data were available for 2253 patients; 2148 (95%) of the participants took six or seven tablets per week. 11 (0·5%) of the 2253 participants reported grade 3 toxicity during the run-in period, with no upper gastrointestinal bleeding (any grade) in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicity overall was dyspepsia (246 [11%] of 2253 participants). INTERPRETATION: Aspirin is well-tolerated after radical cancer therapy. Toxicity has been low and there is no evidence of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer cohorts. Trial recruitment continues to determine whether aspirin could offer a potential low cost and well tolerated therapy to improve cancer outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, The MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

Population-based observational study of acute pancreatitis in southern England.

INTRODUCTION: Acute pancreatitis is a common surgical emergency. Identifying variations in presentation, incidence and management may assist standardisation and optimisation of care. The objective of the study was to document the current incidence management and outcomes of acute pancreatitis against international guidelines, and to assess temporal trends over the past 20 years. METHODS: A prospective four-month audit of patients with acute pancreatitis was performed across the Wessex region. The Atlanta 2012 classifications were used to define cases, severity and complications. Outcomes were recorded using validated systems and correlated against guideline standards. Case ascertainment was validated with clinical coding and hospital episode statistics data. RESULTS: A total of 283 patient admissions with acute pancreatitis were identified. Aetiology included 153 gallstones (54%), 65 idiopathic (23%), 29 alcohol (10%), 9 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (3%), 6 drug related (2%), 5 tumour (2%) and 16 other (6%). Compliance with guidelines had improved compared with our previous regional audit. Results were 6.5% mortality, 74% severity stratification, 23% idiopathic cases, 65% definitive treatment of gallstones within 2 weeks, 39% computed tomography within 6-10 days of severe pancreatitis presentation and 82% severe pancreatitis critical care admission. The Atlanta 2012 severity criteria significantly correlated with critical care stay, length of stay, development of complications and mortality (2% vs 6% vs 36%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of acute pancreatitis in southern England has risen substantially. The Atlanta 2012 classification identifies patients with severe pancreatitis who have a high risk of fatal outcome. Acute pancreatitis management is seen to have evolved in keeping with new evidence and updated clinical guidelines.