Clinical variation in the organization of clinical pathways in esophagogastric cancer, a mixed method multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Among esophagogastric cancer patients, the probability of having undergone treatment with curative intent has been shown to vary, depending on the hospital of diagnosis. However, little is known about the factors that contribute to this variation. In this study, we sought to understand the organization of clinical pathways and their association with variation in practice. METHODS: A mixed-method study using quantitative and qualitative data was conducted. Quantitative data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (e.g., outpatient clinic consultations and diagnostic procedures). For qualitative data, thematic content analysis was performed using semi-structured interviews (n = 30), observations of outpatient clinic consultations (n = 26), and multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM, n = 16) in eight hospitals, to assess clinicians' perspectives regarding the clinical pathways. RESULTS: Quantitative analyses showed that patients more often underwent surgical consultation prior to the MDTM in hospitals associated with a high probability of receiving treatment with curative intent, but more often consulted with a geriatrician in hospitals associated with a low probability of such treatment. The organization of clinical pathways was analyzed quantitatively at three levels: regional, local, and patient levels. At a regional level, hospitals differed in terms of the number of patients discussed during the MDTM. At the local level, the revision of radiological images and restaging after neoadjuvant treatment varied. At the patient level, some hospitals routinely conduct fitness tests, whereas others estimated the patient's physical fitness during an outpatient clinic consultation. Few clinicians performed a standard geriatric consultation in older patients to assess their mental fitness and frailty. CONCLUSION: Surgical consultation prior to MDTM was more often conducted in hospitals associated with a high probability of receiving treatment with curative intent, whereas a geriatrician was consulted more often in hospitals associated with a low probability of receiving such treatment.

Prognostic value of patient-reported quality of life for survival in oesophagogastric cancer: analysis from the population-based POCOP study.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence of trials demonstrates that patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at diagnosis is prognostic for overall survival (OS) in oesophagogastric cancer. However, real-world data are lacking. Moreover, differences in disease stages and tumour-specific symptoms are usually not taken into consideration. The aim of this population-based study was to assess the prognostic value of HRQoL, including tumour-specific scales, on OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: Data were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the patient reported outcome registry (POCOP). Patients included in POCOP between 2016 and 2018 were stratified for potentially curable (cT1-4aNallM0) or advanced (cT4b or cM1) disease. HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the tumour-specific OG25 module. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the impact of HRQoL, sociodemographic and clinical factors (including treatment) on OS. RESULTS: In total, 924 patients were included. Median OS was 38.9 months in potentially curable patients (n = 795) and 10.6 months in patients with advanced disease (n = 129). Global Health Status was independently associated with OS in potentially curable patients (HR 0.89, 99%CI 0.82-0.97), together with several other HRQoL items: appetite loss, dysphagia, eating restrictions, odynophagia, and body image. In advanced disease, the Summary Score was the strongest independent prognostic factor (HR 0.75, 99%CI 0.59-0.94), followed by fatigue, pain, insomnia and role functioning. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, HRQoL was prognostic for OS in patients with potentially curable and advanced oesophagogastric cancer. Several HRQoL domains, including the Summary Score and several OG25 items, could be used to develop or update prognostic models.

Optimal first-line chemotherapeutic treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophagogastric carcinoma: triplet versus doublet chemotherapy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

There is a debate whether triplet or doublet chemotherapy should be used as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic esophagogastric cancer. Therefore, here we will review the available literature to assess the efficacy and safety of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) between 1980 and March 2015 for randomized controlled phase II and III trials comparing triplet with doublet chemotherapy and abstracts of major oncology meetings from 1990 to 2014. Twenty-one studies with a total of 3475 participants were included in the meta-analysis for overall survival. An improvement in overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.97) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) was observed in favor of triplet. In addition, the use of triplet was associated with better objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.44) compared to doublet. The risks of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (6.2 vs 3.8%), infection (10.2 vs 6.4%), and mucositis (9.7 vs 4.7%) were statistically significantly increased with triplet compared to doublet. This review shows that first-line triplet therapy is superior to doublet therapy in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. However, the survival benefit is limited and the risks of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia, infection, and mucositis are increased.

Prognosis and Treatment After Diagnosis of Recurrent Esophageal Carcinoma Following Esophagectomy with Curative Intent.

BACKGROUND: Strategies for the treatment of recurrence after initial curative esophagectomy are increasingly being recognized. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors that affect survival in patients with recurrence and to evaluate treatment strategies. METHODS: A prospective database (2003-2013) was used to collect consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma treated with initial curative esophagectomy. Locations, symptoms, and treatment of recurrence were registered. Post-recurrence survival was defined as the time between the first recurrence and death or last follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 335 selected patients, 171 (51 %) developed recurrence. Multivariable analysis identified distant recurrence as opposed to locoregional recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 2.15, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.27-3.65; p = 0.005], more than three recurrent locations (HR 2.42, 95 % CI 1.34-4.34; p = 0.003), and treatment (HR 0.29, 95 % CI 0.20-0.44; p < 0.001) as independent prognostic factors associated with post-recurrence survival. Primary tumor characteristics, including neoadjuvant therapy, histological type, pTN stage, and radicality, did not independently influence post-recurrence survival. Treatment was initiated in 62 patients (37 %) and included chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery. Median post-recurrence survival of all patients was 3.0 months (range 0-112). In total, six patients (4 %) were still disease-free following treatment, indicating cure. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated for esophageal cancer at curative intent, distant recurrence and more than three recurrent locations were independent prognostic factors associated with worse post-recurrence survival, irrespective of primary tumor characteristics. Although survival after recurrence was poor, treatment can prolong survival and can even lead to cure in selected patients.

Recurrent disease detection after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using a recurrence-focused surveillance strategy (RADAR-PANC): protocol of an international randomized controlled trial according to the Trials within Cohorts design.

BACKGROUND: Disease recurrence remains one of the biggest concerns in patients after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy, most patients experience local and/or distant PDAC recurrence within 2 years. High-level evidence regarding the benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is missing, and the impact of early detection and treatment of recurrence on survival and quality of life is unknown. In most European countries, recurrence-focused follow-up after surgery for PDAC is currently lacking. Consequently, guidelines regarding postoperative surveillance are based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. The recent emergence of more potent local and systemic treatment options for PDAC recurrence has increased interest in early diagnosis. To determine whether early detection and treatment of recurrence can lead to improved survival and quality of life, we designed an international randomized trial. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial is nested within an existing prospective cohort in pancreatic cancer centers in the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) and the United Kingdom (UK) (Pancreas Cancer: Observations of Practice and survival; PACOPS) according to the "Trials within Cohorts" (TwiCs) design. All PACAP/PACOPS participants with a macroscopically radical resection (R0-R1) of histologically confirmed PDAC, who provided informed consent for TwiCs and participation in quality of life questionnaires, are included. Participants randomized to the intervention arm are offered recurrence-focused surveillance, existing of clinical evaluation, serum cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 testing, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of chest and abdomen every three months during the first 2 years after surgery. Participants in the control arm of the study will undergo non-standardized clinical follow-up, generally consisting of clinical follow-up with imaging and serum tumor marker testing only in case of onset of symptoms, according to local practice in the participating hospital. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include quality of life, patterns of recurrence, compliance to and costs of recurrence-focused follow-up, and the impact on recurrence-focused treatment. DISCUSSION: The RADAR-PANC trial will be the first randomized controlled trial to generate high level evidence for the current clinical equipoise regarding the value of recurrence-focused postoperative surveillance with serial tumor marker testing and routine imaging in patients after PDAC resection. The Trials within Cohort design allows us to study the acceptability of recurrence-focused surveillance among cohort participants and increases the generalizability of findings to the general population. While it is strongly encouraged to offer all trial participants treatment at time of recurrence diagnosis, type and timing of treatment will be determined through shared decision-making. This might reduce the potential survival benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance, although insights into the impact on patients' quality of life will be obtained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04875325 . Registered on May 6, 2021.

ypT0N+ status in oesophageal cancer patients: Location of residual metastatic lymph nodes with regard to the neoadjuvant radiation field.

INTRODUCTION: A subset of oesophageal cancer patients has residual nodal disease despite complete pathologic response of the primary tumour after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and resection. The aim of this study was to determine the exact location of metastatic nodes with regard to the neoadjuvant radiation field and to assess progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in this group of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2010 to January 2017, complete tumour responders (ypT0) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy were identified from a prospective database and grouped according to residual nodal disease (ypT0N + or ypT0N0). Radiation fields were analysed for location of the metastatic nodes and PFS and OS were determined. RESULTS: In a total of 192 patients, 53 complete responders (ypT0) were identified. Of those, 11 patients (20.8%) were ypT0N+ with a total of 12 metastatic nodes: 8 (66.7%) located within the neoadjuvant radiation field and 4 (33.3%) located outside this field. Although not statistically significant, 1- and 2-year PFS were worse in ypT0N + patients (ypT0N+ 64.3% vs. ypT0N0 84.4%; ypT0N+ 48.2% vs. ypT0N0 80.7%, respectively; p = 0.051), just as 1- and 2-year OS rates, however, to a lesser extent (ypT0N+ 75.0% vs. ypT0N0 76.3%; ypT0N+ 75.0% vs. ypT0N0 72.9%, respectively; p = 0.956). CONCLUSION: Most ypT0N + lymph nodes are located within the neoadjuvant radiation field. Although a small heterogeneous population was included, this might be due to an inadequate response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy leading to a trend towards worse PFS and OS in ypT0N + patients. Larger studies need to validate our findings.

Postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to collect the best available evidence for diagnostic modalities, frequency, and duration of surveillance after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: PDAC guidelines published after 2015 were collected. Furthermore, a systematic search of the literature on postoperative surveillance was performed in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Articles comparing different diagnostic modalities and frequencies of postoperative surveillance in PDAC patients with regard to survival, quality of life, morbidity and cost-effectiveness were selected. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 570 articles. A total of seven guidelines and twelve original clinical studies were eventually evaluated. PDAC guidelines increasingly recommend a combination of tumor marker testing and computed tomography (CT) imaging every three to six months during the first two years after resection. These guidelines are, however, based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. Prospective studies comparing different surveillance strategies are lacking. According to recent studies, surveillance with tumor markers and imaging at regular intervals results in the detection of PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms and more frequent administration of further therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Current evidence for recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is limited and contradictory. Consequently, recommendations on surveillance are conflicting. To define the clinical merit of recurrence-focused surveillance, patients who are most likely to benefit from early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence need to be identified. To this purpose, well-designed prospective studies are needed, accounting for both economical and psychosocial implications of surveillance.