Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of peritoneal metastasis of gastric origin treated with a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy procedure in the PERISCOPE I trial.

INTRODUCTION: The PERISCOPE I (Treatment of PERItoneal dissemination in Stomach Cancer patients with cytOreductive surgery and hyPErthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy) study was conducted to investigate the safety and feasibility of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination. In this study, tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of the patients treated in the PERISCOPE I trial were investigated. METHODS: Patients who had undergone the full study protocol were selected; that is, preoperative systemic chemotherapy, followed by a surgical procedure consisting of a (sub)total gastrectomy, cytoreductive surgery, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2 ) and docetaxel (in escalating doses). RESULTS: Twenty-five PERISCOPE I patients underwent the full study protocol. Most patients had an ypT3-4 tumor (96%) and the diffuse-type histology was predominant (64%). Seven patients (28%) had a microscopically irradical (R1) resection. In all patients, a complete cytoreduction was achieved. Median follow-up was 37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-39) months. Disease recurrence was detected in 17 patients (68%). Median disease-free and overall survival were 12 and 15 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this series of gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination who underwent HIPEC surgery, unfavorable tumor characteristics were common. Survival might be encouraging but disease recurrence was frequent. The efficacy of an HIPEC procedure in improving prognosis is currently being investigated in the PERISCOPE II trial.

Effect of Hospital Volume With Respect to Performing Gastric Cancer Resection on Recurrence and Survival: Results From the CRITICS Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between surgical hospital volume and both overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) using data obtained from the international CRITICS (ChemoRadiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach) trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In the CRITICS trial, patients with resectable gastric cancer were randomized to receive preoperative chemotherapy followed by adequate gastrectomy and either chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: Patients in the CRITICS trial who underwent a gastrectomy with curative intent in a Dutch hospital were included in the analysis. The annual number of gastric cancer surgeries performed at the participating hospitals was obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry; the hospitals were then classified as low-volume (1-20 surgeries/year) or high-volume (≥21 surgeries/year) and matched with the CRITICS trial data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were then performed to evaluate the hazard ratio (HR) between hospital volume and both OS and DFS. RESULTS: From 2007 through 2015, 788 patients were included in the CRITICS trial. Among these 788 patients, 494 were eligible for our study; the median follow-up was 5.0 years. Five-year OS was 59.2% and 46.1% in the high-volume and low-volume hospitals, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that undergoing surgery in a high-volume hospital was associated with higher OS [HR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.94, P = 0.020] and DFS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: In the CRITICS trial, hospitals with a high annual volume of gastric cancer surgery were associated with higher overall and DFS. These findings emphasize the value of centralizing gastric cancer surgeries in the Western world.

Perioperative systemic therapy and cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC versus upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study (CAIRO6)

BACKGROUND: Upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (CRS-HIPEC) is the standard treatment for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in the Netherlands. This study investigates whether addition of perioperative systemic therapy to CRS-HIPEC improves oncological outcomes. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study is performed in nine Dutch tertiary referral centres. Eligible patients are adults who have a good performance status, histologically or cytologically proven resectable PM of a colorectal adenocarcinoma, no systemic colorectal metastases, no systemic therapy for colorectal cancer within six months prior to enrolment, and no previous CRS-HIPEC. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1) to perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC (experimental arm) or upfront CRS-HIPEC alone (control arm) by using central randomisation software with minimisation stratified by a peritoneal cancer index of 0-10 or 11-20, metachronous or synchronous PM, previous systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. At the treating physician's discretion, perioperative systemic therapy consists of either four 3-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), six 2-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), or six 2-weekly neoadjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by four 3-weekly (capecitabine) or six 2-weekly (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) adjuvant cycles of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Bevacizumab is added to the first three (CAPOX) or four (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. The first 80 patients are enrolled in a phase II study to explore the feasibility of accrual and the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of perioperative systemic therapy. If predefined criteria of feasibility and safety are met, the study continues as a phase III study with 3-year overall survival as primary endpoint. A total of 358 patients is needed to detect the hypothesised 15% increase in 3-year overall survival (control arm 50%; experimental arm 65%). Secondary endpoints are surgical characteristics, major postoperative morbidity, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, health-related quality of life, costs, major systemic therapy related toxicity, and objective radiological and histopathological response rates. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised study that prospectively compares oncological outcomes of perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC with upfront CRS-HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal PM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT02758951 , NTR/ NTR6301 , ISRCTN/ ISRCTN15977568 , EudraCT/ 2016-001865-99 .

Chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy after surgery and preoperative chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS): an international, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Both perioperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy improve survival in patients with resectable gastric cancer from Europe and North America. To our knowledge, these treatment strategies have not been investigated in a head to head comparison. We aimed to compare perioperative chemotherapy with preoperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had stage IB- IVA resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma (as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer, sixth edition), with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate cardiac, bone marrow, liver, and kidney function. Patients were enrolled from 56 hospitals in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, and were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computerised minimisation programme with a random element to either perioperative chemotherapy (chemotherapy group) or preoperative chemotherapy with postoperative chemoradiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy group). Randomisation was done before patients were given any preoperative chemotherapy treatment and was stratified by histological subtype, tumour localisation, and hospital. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Surgery consisted of a radical resection of the primary tumour and at least a D1+ lymph node dissection. Postoperative treatment started within 4-12 weeks after surgery. Chemotherapy consisted of three preoperative 21-day cycles and three postoperative cycles of intravenous epirubicin (50 mg/m2 on day 1), cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on day 1) or oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2 on day 1), and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally as tablets twice daily for 14 days in combination with epirubicin and cisplatin, or 625 mg/m2 orally as tablets twice daily for 21 days in combination with epirubicin and oxaliplatin), received once every three weeks. Chemoradiotherapy consisted of 45 Gy in 25 fractions of 1·8 Gy, for 5 weeks, five daily fractions per week, combined with capecitabine (575 mg/m2 orally twice daily on radiotherapy days) and cisplatin (20 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of each 5 weeks of radiation treatment). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. The CRITICS trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00407186; EudraCT, number 2006-004130-32; and CKTO, 2006-02. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2007, and April 17, 2015, 788 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=393) or chemoradiotherapy (n=395). After preoperative chemotherapy, 372 (95%) of 393 patients in the chemotherapy group and 369 (93%) of 395 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group proceeded to surgery, with a potentially curative resection done in 310 (79%) of 393 patients in the chemotherapy group and 326 (83%) of 395 in the chemoradiotherapy group. Postoperatively, 233 (59%) of 393 patients started chemotherapy and 245 (62%) of 395 started chemoradiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 61·4 months (IQR 43·3-82·8), median overall survival was 43 months (95% CI 31-57) in the chemotherapy group and 37 months (30-48) in the chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio from stratified analysis 1·01 (95% CI 0·84-1·22; p=0·90). After preoperative chemotherapy, in the total safety population of 781 patients (assessed together), there were 368 (47%) grade 3 adverse events; 130 (17%) grade 4 adverse events, and 13 (2%) deaths. Causes of death during preoperative treatment were diarrhoea (n=2), dihydropyrimidine deficiency (n=1), sudden death (n=1), cardiovascular events (n=8), and functional bowel obstruction (n=1). During postoperative treatment, grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 113 (48%) and 22 (9%) of 233 patients in the chemotherapy group, respectively, and in 101 (41%) and ten (4%) of 245 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group, respectively. Non-febrile neutropenia occurred more frequently during postoperative chemotherapy (79 [34%] of 233) than during postoperative chemoradiotherapy (11 [4%] of 245). No deaths were observed during postoperative treatment. INTERPRETATION: Postoperative chemoradiotherapy did not improve overall survival compared with postoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric cancer treated with adequate preoperative chemotherapy and surgery. In view of the poor postoperative patient compliance in both treatment groups, future studies should focus on optimising preoperative treatment strategies. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, and Hoffmann-La Roche.

CRITICS-II: a multicentre randomised phase II trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in resectable gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although radical surgery remains the cornerstone of cure in resectable gastric cancer, survival remains poor. Current evidence-based (neo)adjuvant strategies have shown to improve outcome, including perioperative chemotherapy, postoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. However, these regimens suffer from poor patient compliance, particularly in the postoperative phase of treatment. The CRITICS-II trial aims to optimize preoperative treatment by comparing three treatment regimens: (1) chemotherapy, (2) chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and (3) chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre phase II non-comparative study, patients with clinical stage IB-IIIC (TNM 8th edition) resectable gastric adenocarcinoma are randomised between: (1) 4 cycles of docetaxel+oxaliplatin+capecitabine (DOC), (2) 2 cycles of DOC followed by chemoradiotherapy (45Gy in combination with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin) or (3) chemoradiotherapy. Primary endpoint is event-free survival, 1 year after randomisation (events are local and/or regional recurrence or progression, distant recurrence, or death from any cause). Secondary endpoints include: toxicity, surgical outcomes, percentage radical (R0) resections, pathological tumour response, disease recurrence, overall survival, and health related quality of life. Exploratory endpoints include translational studies on predictive and prognostic biomarkers. DISCUSSION: The aim of this study is to select the most promising among three preoperative treatment arms in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. This treatment regimen will subsequently be compared with the standard therapy in a phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02931890 ; registered 13 October 2016. Date of first enrolment: 21 December 2017.

Timing of Systemic Chemotherapy in Patients With Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Treated With Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Timing of systemic chemotherapy in patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is controversial. Preoperative systemic chemotherapy may offer benefits. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of timing of systemic chemotherapy on survival. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy from January 2004 until June 2015 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The influence of patient-related, tumor-related, and treatment-related factors on survival were investigated using Cox regression models. Main outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 280 consecutive patients underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In group A, 78 patients (28%) were treated with preoperative or perioperative chemotherapy, cytoreductive surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In group B, 169 patients (60%) were intentionally treated with cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy. In group C, 33 patients (12%) had received their chemotherapy before peritoneal carcinomatosis was diagnosed. Median overall survival was 36.9 months (interquartile range, 20.6-79.7 mo) in group A, 43.1 months (interquartile range, 25.7-95.9 mo) in group B, and 34.0 months (interquartile range, 20.0-53.7 mo) in group C (p = 0.19). The extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis (region count of 3-5, HR = 1.58 (95% CI, 1.02-2.45), and 6-7, HR = 3.34 (95% CI, 1.66-6.72) vs 1-2 regions), a higher lymph node ratio (HR = 7.96 (95% CI, 2.16-29.31)), and cycles of systemic chemotherapy (0 cycles, HR = 2.52 (95% CI, 1.48-4.29)) and partial chemotherapy (HR = 2.15 (95% CI, 1.27-3.65) vs complete chemotherapy) were associated with poorer overall survival. LIMITATIONS: Selection bias is present because of the retrospective design of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of systemic chemotherapy does not appear to have impact on survival in patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Trastuzumab and bevacizumab combined with docetaxel, oxaliplatin and capecitabine as first-line treatment of advanced HER2-positive gastric cancer: a multicenter phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of bevacizumab and trastuzumab combined with docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (B-DOCT) as first-line treatment of advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: In this multicentre, single-arm, phase II study, tumor HER2 status was determined centrally prior to treatment. Patients with advanced HER2-positive adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction (immunohistochemistry 3+ or immunohistochemistry 2+/silver in-situ hybridization positive) were treated with six cycles of bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (day 1), docetaxel 50 mg/m(2) (day 1), oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) (day 1), capecitabine 850 mg/m(2) b.i.d. (days 1-14), and trastuzumab 6 mg/kg (day 1) every three weeks, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab, capecitabine, and trastuzumab until disease progression. The primary objective was to demonstrate an improvement of progression-free survival (PFS) to >7.6 months (observed in the ToGA trial) determined according to the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval (CI). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with HER2-positive tumors were treated with B-DOCT between March 2011 and September 2014. At a median follow-up of 17 months, median PFS was 10.8 months (95%CI: 9.0-NA), OS was 17.9 months (95%CI: 12.4-NA). One-year PFS and OS were 52 % and 79 %, respectively. The ORR was 74 % (95%CI: 52-90 %). Two patients became resectable during treatment with B-DOCT and achieved a pathological complete response. The most common treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events were: neutropenia (16 %), diarrhoea (16 %), and hypertension (16 %). CONCLUSIONS: B-DOCT is a safe and active combination in HER2-positive GC, supporting further investigations of DOC with HER2/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition in HER2-positive GC.

Does adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improve the prognosis of gastric cancer after an r1 resection? Results from a dutch cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on survival of non-metastatic gastric cancer patients who had undergone an R1 resection. METHODS: We compared the survival of patients after an R1 gastric cancer resection from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry who did not receive adjuvant CRT (no-CRT group) with the survival of resected patients who had been treated with adjuvant CRT (CRT group) at our institute. Patients who had a resection between 2002 and 2011 were included. CRT consisted of radiotherapy (45 Gy) combined with concurrent cisplatin- or 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. The impact of CRT treatment on overall survival was assessed using multivariable Cox regression and stratified propensity score analysis. RESULTS: A series of 409 gastric cancer patients who had undergone an R1 resection were studied (no-CRT, N = 369; CRT, N = 40). In the no-CRT group, median age was higher (70 vs. 57 years; p < 0.001) and the percentage of patients with diffuse-type tumors was lower (43 vs. 80 %; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in pathological T- and N-classification. There was a significant difference in median overall survival between the no-CRT and CRT group (13 vs. 24 months; p = 0.003). In a multivariable analysis, adjuvant CRT was an independent prognostic factor for improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.54; 95 % confidence interval 0.35-0.84). This effect of CRT was further supported by propensity score analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant CRT was associated with an improved survival in patients who had undergone an R1 resection for gastric cancer.

Recent trends and predictors of multimodality treatment for oesophageal, oesophagogastric junction, and gastric cancer: A Dutch cohort-study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, evidence supporting multimodality treatment for oesophageal, oesophagogastric junction (OGJ), and gastric cancer has accumulated. This population-based cohort-study investigates trends and predictors of utilisation of multimodality treatment for oesophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry regarding patients with oesophageal (n = 5450), OGJ (n = 2168) and gastric cancer (n = 6683) without distant metastases who had undergone R0 or R1 surgery diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. Follow-up was completed until February 2014. Preoperative/postoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy combined with surgery were considered multimodality treatment. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyse the association of age, gender, socioeconomic status, clinical T and N classification, hospital type, comprehensive cancer centre network region, and year of diagnosis, with multimodality treatment receipt. Additional analyses were performed to explore differences in trends of utilisation of multimodality treatment between academic and non-academic hospitals. RESULTS: Multimodality treatment utilisation for oesophageal, OGJ and gastric cancer increased significantly to 90%, 85% and 56% in 2012, respectively. In oesophageal and OGJ cancer patients, preoperative chemoradiotherapy was most frequently administered (85% and 47% in 2012, respectively), and in gastric cancer patients preoperative chemotherapy (47% in 2012). Lower age, higher clinical T and N classification, and diagnosis in more recent years were significantly associated with more frequent multimodality treatment receipt. The adoption of most types of multimodality treatment in academic hospitals preceded non-academic hospitals by a year. CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, the utilisation of multimodality treatment for oesophagogastric cancer has significantly increased during the past decade, especially in oesophageal and OGJ cancer. Multimodality treatment utilisation was especially dependent on patient and tumour characteristics and year of diagnosis, but multimodality treatment trends seem to be related to the publication of landmark studies, participation in nationally running clinical trials, and hospital type, preceding national guidelines.

The prognostic significance of an R1 resection in gastric cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A microscopically irradical (R1) resection is a well-known adverse prognostic factor after gastric cancer surgery. However, the prognostic significance of an R1 resection in gastric cancer patients who are treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after the operation has been poorly studied. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an R1 resection on (recurrence-free) survival in gastric cancer patients who were treated with CRT after surgery. METHODS: Gastric cancer patients who had undergone a resection with curative intent followed by adjuvant CRT at our institute between 2001 and 2011 were included. CRT consisted of radiotherapy (45 Gy/25 fractions) combined with concurrent capecitabine (with or without cisplatin) or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. RESULTS: A consecutive series of 110 patients was studied, including 80 (73 %) patients who had undergone an R0 resection and 30 (27 %) patients with an R1 resection. Pathologic T-classification (p = 0.26), N-classification (p = 0.77), and histologic subtype according to Laurén (p = 0.071) were not significantly different between these groups. Three-year recurrence-free survival (45 vs. 35 %, p = 0.34) and overall survival (47 vs. 48 %, p = 0.58) did not significantly differ between patients who had undergone an R0 or R1 resection. In a multivariate analysis, pathologic T-classification and N-classification were independent prognostic factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: A R1 resection was not an adverse prognostic factor in gastric cancer patients who had undergone CRT after the operation.

A new fully covered metal stent with anti-migration features for the treatment of malignant dysphagia.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A new esophageal stent with two anti-migration features was developed to minimize migration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of this stent in patients with malignant dysphagia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 40 patients with dysphagia due to a malignant obstruction of the esophagus were prospectively enrolled in this cohort study. RESULTS: Stent placement was technically successful in 39 patients (98 %). The median dysphagia-free time after stent placement was 220 days (95 % confidence interval 94 - 345 days). Nine patients (23 %) experienced recurrent dysphagia due to tissue overgrowth (n = 2), stent fracture (n = 1), and partial (n = 5) or complete (n = 1) stent migration. A total of 16 serious adverse events occurred in 14 patients (36 %), with hemorrhage (n = 3) and severe nausea or vomiting (n = 3) being the most common causes. CONCLUSIONS: This new stent design was effective for the palliation of malignant dysphagia and had a low rate of recurrent dysphagia. However, despite the anti-migration features, stent migration was still a major cause of recurrent dysphagia. Furthermore, treatment was associated with a high adverse event rate. Dutch Trial Registration (NTR 3313).

Comparison of 2 expandable stents for malignant esophageal disease: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) provide effective palliation in patients with malignant dysphagia. However, although life expectancy is generally limited, reintervention rates because of stent dysfunction are significant. New SEMSs are being designed to overcome this drawback. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the results of SEMS placement could be improved with a new SEMS design. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with dysphagia or leakage caused by malignant esophageal disease. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized clinical trial, consecutive patients with dysphagia or leakage because of malignant esophageal disease were randomized to placement of a conventional stent or the new stent. Patients were followed up by scheduled telephone calls 1 and 3 months after SEMS insertion. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients (73% male; median age, 67 years [range, 40-92 years]) were included. One patient refused follow-up. Technical success was 100% in both groups. The reintervention rate was 15/40 (38%) for the conventional stent and 4/39 (10%) for the new stent (P = .004). Major complications, including aspiration pneumonia and bleeding, occurred more frequently with the conventional stent (10/40, 25%) than with the new stent (3/39, 8%, P = .04). There was no difference in overall survival between the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: Inclusion of patients with a perforation or fistula. CONCLUSIONS: The conventional stent and the new stent were equally effective in the relief of malignant dysphagia and sealing fistulae. The conventional stent was associated with more stent dysfunction and a significantly higher rate of major complications. Patients treated with the new stent also needed significantly fewer reinterventions than did those treated with a conventional stent. This sets the preference for the new stent over the conventional stent for patients with malignant esophageal disease.

Can adjuvant chemoradiotherapy replace extended lymph node dissection in gastric cancer?

Surgical resection remains the essential part in the curative treatment of gastric cancer. However, with surgery only, long-term survival is poor (5-year survival <25 % in Europe). Randomized studies, which compared limited (D1) lymph node dissection with more extended (D2) resections in the Western world, failed to show a survival benefit for more extensive surgery. A substantial increase in survival was found with perioperative chemotherapy in the MAGIC study. In addition, the SWOG/Intergroup 0116 study showed that postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) prolonged 5-year overall survival compared to surgery only. However, it has been argued that surgical undertreatment undermined survival in this trial. In a randomized Korean study, patients with advanced stage gastric cancer who received postoperative CRT had better outcome after a D2 dissection. At our institute phase I-II studies with adjuvant cisplatin and capecitabine-based CRT have been performed in over 120 patients with resected gastric cancer. Retrospective comparison of patients treated in these studies with those that had surgery only in the D1D2 study, demonstrated that postoperative CRT was associated with better outcome, especially after D1 or a R1 resection. For daily practice, it remains unclear whether patients after optimal (D2) gastric surgery will benefit from postoperative CRT. This is currently being tested in prospective randomized phase III trials (CRITICS; TOPGEAR).

One to 2-year surveillance intervals reduce risk of colorectal cancer in families with Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Two percent to 4% of all cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) are associated with Lynch syndrome. Dominant clustering of CRC (non-Lynch syndrome) accounts for 1%-3% of the cases. Because carcinogenesis is accelerated in Lynch syndrome, an intensive colonoscopic surveillance program has been recommended since 1995. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. METHODS: The study included 205 Lynch syndrome families with identified mutations in one of the mismatch repair genes (745 mutation carriers). We also analyzed data from non-Lynch syndrome families (46 families, 344 relatives). Patients were observed from January 1, 1995, until January 1, 2009. End points of the study were CRC or date of the last colonoscopy. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 7.2 years, 33 patients developed CRC under surveillance. The cumulative risk of CRC was 6% after the 10-year follow-up period. The risk of CRC was higher in carriers older than 40 years and in carriers of MLH1 and MSH2 mutations. After a mean follow-up of 7.0 years, 6 cases of CRC were detected among non-Lynch syndrome families. The risk of CRC was significantly higher among families with Lynch syndrome, compared with those without. CONCLUSIONS: With surveillance intervals of 1-2 years, members of families with Lynch syndrome have a lower risk of developing CRC than with surveillance intervals of 2-3 years. Because of the low risk of CRC in non-Lynch syndrome families, a less intensive surveillance protocol can be recommended.

Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and chemotherapy or by surgery and chemoradiotherapy for patients with resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS).

BACKGROUND: Radical surgery is the cornerstone in the treatment of resectable gastric cancer. The Intergroup 0116 and MAGIC trials have shown benefit of postoperative chemoradiation and perioperative chemotherapy, respectively. Since these trials cannot be compared directly, both regimens are evaluated prospectively in the CRITICS trial. This study aims to obtain an improved overall survival for patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy and surgery by incorporating radiotherapy concurrently with chemotherapy postoperatively. METHODS/DESIGN: In this phase III multicentre study, patients with resectable gastric cancer are treated with three cycles of preoperative ECC (epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine), followed by surgery with adequate lymph node dissection, and then either another three cycles of ECC or concurrent chemoradiation (45 Gy, cisplatin and capecitabine). Surgical, pathological, and radiotherapeutic quality control is performed. The primary endpoint is overall survival, secondary endpoints are disease-free survival (DFS), toxicity, health-related quality of life (HRQL), prediction of response, and recurrence risk assessed by genomic and expression profiling. Accrual for the CRITICS trial is from the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, and more countries are invited to participate. CONCLUSION: Results of this study will demonstrate whether the combination of preoperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy will improve the clinical outcome of the current European standard of perioperative chemotherapy, and will therefore play a key role in the future management of patients with resectable gastric cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT00407186.

Unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a single center experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: For unresectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) median overall survival (OS) is 5-6 months. This article analyzes patients with PC from colorectal cancer (CRC) uneligible for debulking and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy, describing patient- and tumor-related factors possibly affecting survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2009, 43 patients presented with unresectable PC from CRC: male/female ratio was 29/14, median age was 57.1 years (range 34.8-76.8). "Unresectability" was defined as: six to seven abdominal regions affected by PC, involvement of mesentery or small bowel in the PC, presence of liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, vascular invasion, and/or neural invasion. RESULTS: Median time interval between diagnosis of the primary tumor and diagnosis of PC was 7.2 months (range 0.0-102.3). Primary tumors were right-sided in >50% and had been previously resected in >58%, 74.4% of PC occurred synchronously. Ascites was present at primary diagnosis in 37.2%. In 70% of cases, six to seven abdominal regions were affected and in 58.1% PC involved small bowel/mesentery. Systemic disease was present in 16.3%. In 18.6% of patients, a palliative diversion or ostomy was constructed. Median OS was 6.3 months (range 0.4-33.1). Thirty-one patients (72.1%) received palliative chemotherapy. Median OS was 9.3 months (range 0.9-33.1) with versus 3.1 months (range 0.4-6.5) without chemotherapy (P = 0.000), with less favorable patient and tumor characteristics in the latter group. No other factors clearly influenced OS. CONCLUSION: Palliative chemotherapy results in better OS, but this is probably attributable to factors influencing the patient's general condition.

Results of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy after early failure of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Failure to respond to systemic chemotherapy is considered an exclusion criterion by some institutions for treatment with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). However, it is unknown if these patients benefit from HIPEC treatment. This study aimed to report on outcomes of HIPEC in patients who failed to respond to adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients were selected from a prospective database containing data on all patients who underwent HIPEC, using the following criteria: (1) Metachronous peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from colorectal origin, (2) adjuvant chemotherapy after primary tumor resection, (3) development of PC or local recurrence within 18 months after start of chemotherapy. Treatment and survival data were retrospectively collected. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (29% male, mean age 57 years) were included. Median time to recurrence of disease was 9 months (range 2-15) after first chemotherapy administration. Median survival was 28 months (range 3-100). One- and 2-year survival were 71% and 43%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who initially failed to respond to systemic adjuvant treatment showed a survival after HIPEC similar to results reported in literature in patients with unknown responsiveness. Failure to respond to previous adjuvant systemic treatment should therefore not be considered an exclusion criterion for HIPEC treatment.

Outcome of low-volume surgery for esophageal cancer in a high-volume referral center.

BACKGROUND: There is a known inverse relationship between the number of esophagectomies and in-hospital mortality. Our institute is a tertiary referral center with a high caseload of esophageal cancer patients, but with a low annual volume of esophagectomies. The objective of our study was to evaluate the results of esophageal cancer surgery in our institute and to compare these results with published data from high-surgical-volume institutions. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2007, 1,499 patients with esophageal cancer were referred: for a second opinion only (n = 568), following earlier treatment (n = 103), for palliative treatment (n = 665) or for potentially curative treatment (local endoscopic therapy n = 5, definitive chemoradiotherapy n = 71, or surgery n = 87). The surgically treated patients were studied in detail, and compared with patients treated in high-surgical-volume hospitals. RESULTS: Surgery consisted of a transhiatal (n = 71) or transthoracic (n = 12) esophagectomy, or exploration only (n = 4). Fifty-six (64%) patients received neoadjuvant treatment. A microscopic radical resection was achieved in 96%. Pathologic complete response rate was 25%. Forty-four (53%) patients had a complicated postoperative course, and one (1%) patient died. At a median postoperative follow-up of 30 (1-149) months, 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 89% and 60%, respectively. No major differences were observed between our results and those presented in six large study cohorts with high operative volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome of low-volume esophageal surgery can be comparable to published high-surgical-volume results. More relevant factors other than hospital volume alone should be taken into account to improve outcome of esophageal cancer surgery.

Long-term survival after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with peritoneal metastases of urachal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Urachal adenocarcinoma (UrAC) is a rare malignancy arising from persistent urachal remnants, which can cause peritoneal metastases (PM). Currently, patients with this stage UrAC are considered beyond cure. Our objective is to report long-term oncological outcome after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with PM of urachal adenocarcinoma (UrAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 55 patients with UrAC treated at our hospital between 1994 and 2017. Patients were staged with CT, bone scintigraphy and/or PET/CT. From 2001 on, cN0M0 patients underwent staging laparoscopy. Ten patients had PM and were treated with CRS/HIPEC; 35 showed no metastases and underwent local treatment; 10 had distant metastases and received palliative chemotherapy. Disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. Postoperative complications represent a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 96.8 months. Of the CRS/HIPEC patients, 5 (50%) developed a recurrence; 4 (40%) died of disease. The 2-yr and 5-yr DSS after CRS/HIPEC were 66.7% and 55.6%, respectively. DSS of the CRS/HIPEC patients did not significantly differ from DSS of patients without metastases who only underwent curative local treatment and was superior to patients with distant metastases (P = 0.012). The overall complication rate after CRS/HIPEC was 60%. Major complications (Clavien 3) constituted 20%. The study is limited by its retrospective nature and the small sample size. CONCLUSION: CRS/HIPEC demonstrates satisfactory long-term oncological outcome for patients with PM of UrAC. It may be offered as a potentially curative treatment option for this group of patients.

Patient-derived organoids can predict response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

There is a clear and unmet clinical need for biomarkers to predict responsiveness to chemotherapy for cancer. We developed an in vitro test based on patient-derived tumor organoids (PDOs) from metastatic lesions to identify nonresponders to standard-of-care chemotherapy in colorectal cancer (CRC). In a prospective clinical study, we show the feasibility of generating and testing PDOs for evaluation of sensitivity to chemotherapy. Our PDO test predicted response of the biopsied lesion in more than 80% of patients treated with irinotecan-based therapies without misclassifying patients who would have benefited from treatment. This correlation was specific to irinotecan-based chemotherapy, however, and the PDOs failed to predict outcome for treatment with 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin. Our data suggest that PDOs could be used to prevent cancer patients from undergoing ineffective irinotecan-based chemotherapy.