Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Histopathological outcomes, such as lymph node yield and margin positivity, are used to benchmark and assess surgical centre quality, and are reported annually by the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) in England and Wales. The variation in pathological specimen assessment and how this affects these outcomes is not known. METHODS: A survey of practice was circulated to all tertiary oesophagogastric cancer centres across England and Wales. Questions captured demographic data, and information on how specimens were prepared and analysed. National performance data were retrieved from the NOGCA. Survey results were compared for tertiles of lymph node yield, and circumferential and longitudinal margins. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 32 of 37 units (86 per cent response rate), accounting for 93.1 per cent of the total oesophagectomy volume in England and Wales. Only 5 of 32 units met or exceeded current guidelines on specimen preparation according to the Royal College of Pathologists guidelines. There was wide variation in how centres defined positive (R1) margins, and how margins and lymph nodes were assessed. Centres with the highest nodal yield were more likely to use systematic fat blocking, and to re-examine specimens when the initial load was low. Systematic blocking of lesser curve fat resulted in significantly higher rates of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes examined (91.4 versus 86.5 per cent; P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Preparation and histopathological assessment of specimens varies significantly across institutions. This challenges the validity of currently used surgical quality metrics for oesophageal and other tumours.

Core outcome set for surgical trials in gastric cancer (GASTROS study): international patient and healthcare professional consensus.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)-a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders-that should be reported by future trials in this field. METHODS: Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized. RESULTS: Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and 'serious' adverse events. CONCLUSION: A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.

Patient-reported outcomes after oesophagectomy in the multicentre LASER study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the long-term symptom burden in patients surviving oesophageal cancer surgery are scarce. The aim of this study was to identify the most prevalent symptoms and their interactions with health-related quality of life. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study of patients who underwent oesophageal cancer surgery in 20 European centres between 2010 and 2016. Patients had to be disease-free for at least 1 year. They were asked to complete a 28-symptom questionnaire at a single time point, at least 1 year after surgery. Principal component analysis was used to assess for clustering and association of symptoms. Risk factors associated with the development of severe symptoms were identified by multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 1081 invited patients, 876 (81.0 per cent) responded. Symptoms in the preceding 6 months associated with previous surgery were experienced by 586 patients (66.9 per cent). The most common severe symptoms included reduced energy or activity tolerance (30.7 per cent), feeling of early fullness after eating (30.0 per cent), tiredness (28.7 per cent), and heartburn/acid or bile regurgitation (19.6 per cent). Clustering analysis showed that symptoms clustered into six domains: lethargy, musculoskeletal pain, dumping, lower gastrointestinal symptoms, regurgitation/reflux, and swallowing/conduit problems; the latter two were the most closely associated. Surgical approach, neoadjuvant therapy, patient age, and sex were factors associated with severe symptoms. CONCLUSION: A long-term symptom burden is common after oesophageal cancer surgery.

Adjuvant therapy following oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma in patients with a positive resection margin.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy is contentious. In UK practice, surgical resection margin status is often used to classify patients for receiving adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with positive (R1) resection margins. METHODS: Two prospectively collected UK institutional databases were combined to identify eligible patients. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were used to compare overall and recurrence-free survival according to adjuvant treatment. Recurrence patterns were assessed as a secondary outcome. Propensity score-matched analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Of 616 patients included in the combined database, 242 patients who had an R1 resection were included in the study. Of these, 112 patients (46·3 per cent) received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 46 (19·0 per cent) were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and 84 (34·7 per cent) had no adjuvant treatment. In adjusted analysis, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·38 to 0·94; P = 0·026), with a benefit in terms of both local (HR 0·48, 0·24 to 0·99; P = 0·047) and systemic (HR 0·56, 0·33 to 0·94; P = 0·027) recurrence. In analyses stratified by tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-responders (Mandard tumour regression grade 4-5) treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had an overall survival benefit (HR 0·61, 0·38 to 0·97; P = 0·037). In propensity score-matched analysis, an overall survival benefit (HR 0·62, 0·39 to 0·98; P = 0·042) and recurrence-free survival benefit (HR 0·51, 0·30 to 0·87; P = 0·004) were observed for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy may improve overall survival and recurrence-free survival after margin-positive resection. This pattern seems most pronounced with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

ANTECEDENTES: El papel del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con adenocarcinoma esofagogástrico tratados con quimioterapia neoadyuvante es polémico. En la práctica del Reino Unido, el estado del margen de resección quirúrgico se utiliza a menudo para identificar a los pacientes que reciben tratamiento adyuvante. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el beneficio en la supervivencia del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con márgenes de resección positivos (R1). MÉTODOS: Se combinaron dos bases de datos de instituciones del Reino Unido que recogen información de forma prospectiva para identificar pacientes elegibles. Se utilizaron análisis de regresión de Cox ajustados para comparar la supervivencia global y la supervivencia libre de recidiva según el tratamiento adyuvante. Los patrones de recidiva se evaluaron como resultado secundario. También se realizó un análisis de emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión. RESULTADOS: De 616 pacientes incluidos en la base de datos combinada, se incluyeron en el estudio 242 pacientes con resección R1. De estos pacientes, 112 (46%) recibieron quimiorradioterapia adyuvante, 46 (19%) pacientes fueron tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante y 84 (35%) pacientes no recibieron ningún tratamiento. En el análisis ajustado, la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante mejoró la supervivencia libre de recidiva (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio, HR 0,59, i.c. del 95% 0,38-0,94; P = 0,026) con un beneficio tanto para la recidiva local (HR 0,48, i.c. del 95% 0,24-0,99; P = 0,047) como para la sistémica (HR 0,56, i.c. del 95% 0,33-0,94; P = 0,027). Cuando los pacientes se clasificaron según la respuesta tumoral a la quimioterapia neoadyuvante, los no respondedores (Mandard Grado 4/5) tratados con quimiorradioterapia adyuvante obtuvieron un beneficio en la supervivencia (HR 0,61, i.c. del 95% 0,38-0,97; P = 0,037). En el análisis por emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión, se observó un beneficio en la supervivencia global (HR 0,62, i.c. del 95% 0,39-0,98; P = 0,042) y en la supervivencia libre de recidiva (HR 0,51.i.c. del 95% 0,30-0,87; P = 0,004) con la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante frente a no recibir tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: El tratamiento adyuvante puede mejorar la supervivencia global y la supervivencia libre de recidiva en pacientes con margen de resección positivo. Este patrón parece más pronunciado con la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante en pacientes que no responden a la quimioterapia.

Effect of publishing surgeon-specific outcomes on surgical training.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 10 years, the National Health Service in England has started to publish surgeon-specific outcomes publicly. The aim of this study was to investigate how this has affected training case exposure for surgeons in training. METHODS: Anonymized data were collected from the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme database for operations in each specialty with published surgeon outcomes, involving surgical trainees on an approved training programme between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016. Trainee and supervisor involvement in operations before and after the start of publication of surgeon-specific outcomes were compared using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 163 076 recorded operative procedures were included. A statistically significant improvement in exposure to training procedures was observed for anterior resection of rectum, carotid endarterectomy, gastrectomy, meningioma excision, prostatectomy and thyroidectomy following the introduction of publication of surgeon outcomes. In coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and total hip replacement (THR), however, there was a reduction in involvement in training procedures. This was apparent for both trainee and supervisor involvement in CABG, and for trainee involvement in THR. CONCLUSION: Exposure to training procedures has improved rather than declined in the UK in the majority of surgical specialties, since the publication of surgeon-specific outcomes.

Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro-oesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: The UK Medical Research Council ST03 trial compared perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (B) in gastric and oesophagogastric junctional cancer. No difference in survival was noted between the arms of the trial. The present study reviewed the standards and performance of surgery in the context of the protocol-specified surgical criteria. METHODS: Surgical and pathological clinical report forms were reviewed to determine adherence to the surgical protocols, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and final histopathological stage for all patients treated in the study. RESULTS: Of 1063 patients randomized, 895 (84·2 per cent) underwent resection; surgical details were available for 880 (98·3 per cent). Postoperative assessment data were available for 873 patients; complications occurred in 458 (52·5 per cent) overall, of whom 71 (8·1 per cent) developed complications deemed to be life-threatening by the responsible clinician. The most common complications were respiratory (211 patients, 24·2 per cent). The anastomotic leak rate was 118 of 873 (13·5 per cent) overall; among those who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, the rate was higher in the group receiving ECX-B (23·6 per cent versus 9·9 per cent in the ECX group). Pathological assessment data were available for 845 patients. At least 15 nodes were removed in 82·5 per cent of resections and the median lymph node harvest was 24 (i.q.r. 17-34). Twenty-five or more nodes were removed in 49·0 per cent of patients. Histopathologically, the R1 rate was 24·9 per cent (208 of 834 patients). An R1 resection was more common for proximal tumours. CONCLUSION: In the ST03 trial, the performance of surgery met the protocol-stipulated criteria. Registration number: NCT00450203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Correction to: Consensus on the pathological definition and classification of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma.

The authors would like to correct the error in the publication of the original article. The surname and given names of the authors were swapped in the "Acknowledgements". The corrected detail is given below.

Consensus on the pathological definition and classification of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer (GC) are changing, especially in the West with a decreasing incidence of distal, intestinal-type tumours and the corresponding increasing proportion of tumours with Laurén diffuse or WHO poorly cohesive (PC) including signet ring cell (SRC) histology. To accurately assess the behaviour and the prognosis of these GC subtypes, the standardization of pathological definitions is needed. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert team belonging to the European Chapter of International Gastric Cancer Association (IGCA) identified 11 topics on pathological classifications used for PC and SRC GC. The topics were debated during a dedicated Workshop held in Verona in March 2017. Then, through a Delphi method, consensus statements for each topic were elaborated. RESULTS: A consensus was reached on the need to classify gastric carcinoma according to the most recent edition of the WHO classification which is currently WHO 2010. Moreover, to standardize the definition of SRC carcinomas, the proposal that only WHO PC carcinomas with more than 90% poorly cohesive cells having signet ring cell morphology have to be classified as SRC carcinomas was made. All other PC non-SRC types have to be further subdivided into PC carcinomas with SRC component (< 90% but > 10% SRCs) and PC carcinomas not otherwise specified (< 10% SRCs). CONCLUSION: The reported statements clarify some debated topics on pathological classifications used for PC and SRC GC. As such, this consensus classification would allow the generation of evidence on biological and prognostic differences between these GC subtypes.

A seven-Gene Signature assay improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated gastroesophageal cancer patients from the MAGIC trial.

Background: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable gastroesophageal cancer, lymph node metastasis is the only validated prognostic variable; however, within lymph node groups there is still heterogeneity with risk of relapse. We hypothesized that gene profiles from neoadjuvant chemotherapy treated resection specimens from gastroesophageal cancer patients can be used to define prognostic risk groups to identify patients at risk for relapse. Patients and methods: The Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial (n = 202 with high quality RNA) samples treated with perioperative chemotherapy were profiled for a custom gastric cancer gene panel using the NanoString platform. Genes associated with overall survival (OS) were identified using penalized and standard Cox regression, followed by generation of risk scores and development of a NanoString biomarker assay to stratify patients into risk groups associated with OS. An independent dataset served as a validation cohort. Results: Regression and clustering analysis of MAGIC patients defined a seven-Gene Signature and two risk groups with different OS [hazard ratio (HR) 5.1; P < 0.0001]. The median OS of high- and low-risk groups were 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 6.5 and 13.2 months] and 80.9 months (CI: 43.0 months and not assessable), respectively. Risk groups were independently prognostic of lymph node metastasis by multivariate analysis (HR 3.6 in node positive group, P = 0.02; HR 3.6 in high-risk group, P = 0.0002), and not prognostic in surgery only patients (n = 118; log rank P = 0.2). A validation cohort independently confirmed these findings. Conclusions: These results suggest that gene-based risk groups can independently predict prognosis in gastroesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This signature and associated assay may help risk stratify these patients for post-surgery chemotherapy in future perioperative chemotherapy-based clinical trials.

Lymph node regression and survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to define the pathological response in lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma and to quantify any associated survival benefit. METHODS: Lymph nodes retrieved at oesophagectomy were examined retrospectively by two pathologists for evidence of a response to chemotherapy. Patients were classified as lymph node-negative (either negative nodes with no evidence of previous tumour involvement or negative with evidence of complete regression) or positive (allocated a lymph node regression score based on the proportion of fibrosis to residual tumour). Lymph node responders (score 1, complete response; 2, less than 10 per cent remaining tumour; 3, 10-50 per cent remaining tumour) and non-responders (score 4, more than 50 per cent viable tumour; 5, no response) were compared in survival analyses using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 377 patients, 256 had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Overall, 68 of 256 patients (26·6 per cent) had a lymph node response and 115 (44·9 per cent) did not. The remaining 73 patients (28·5 per cent) had negative lymph nodes with no evidence of regression. Some patients had a lymph node response in the absence of a response in the primary tumour (27 of 99, 27 per cent). Lymph node responders had a significant survival benefit (P < 0·001), even when stratified by patients with or without a response in the primary tumour. On multivariable analysis, lymph node responders had decreased overall (hazard ratio 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·36 to 0·78) and disease-specific (HR 0·42, 0·27 to 0·66) mortality, and experienced reduced local and systemic recurrence. CONCLUSION: Lymph node regression is a strong prognostic factor and may be more important than response in the primary tumour.

The impact of obesity on esophagectomy: a meta-analysis.

The impact of body mass index (BMI) on postoperative outcomes after curative resection for esophageal cancer has been assessed in many studies worldwide with conflicting conclusions. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the influence of preoperative BMI on surgical and oncologic outcomes after radical surgery for esophageal cancer, in Western studies. A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify Western publications reporting BMI and outcomes following surgery for esophageal cancer. Articles that did not report preoperative BMI, postoperative morbidity, and early mortality were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using the OpenMetaAnalyst software (Version 10.10). One hundred and ninety records were examined and 8 studies were included with a total of 2838 patients. The study population was stratified into two groups: a nonobese group (BMI < 30 kg/m2), containing 2199 patients, and an obese group (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), with 639 patients. In the obese group, there was an increased risk (up to 35%) of anastomotic leak (P = 0.003; RR: 0.857, 95% CI: 0.497, 0.867). The obese group showed a significantly more favorable five-year overall survival (P = 0.011). Although there was a significant association between anastomotic leak and obesity, patients with obesity also have a better overall 5-year survival. This meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with obesity should be counseled regarding the specific risks of surgery but they can be reassured that despite these risks overall outcome is satisfactory.

A comparison of the left thoracoabdominal and Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

The purpose of this study was to assess the oncological outcomes of a large multicenter series of left thoracoabdominal esophagectomies, and compare these to the more widely utilized Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. With ethics approval and an established study protocol, anonymized data from five centers were merged into a structured database. The study exposure was operative approach (ILE or LTE). The primary outcome measure was time to death. Secondary outcome measures included time to tumor recurrence, positive surgical resection margins, lymph node yield, postoperative death, and hospital length of stay. Cox proportional hazards models provided hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusting for age, pathological tumor stage, tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, and neoadjuvant treatment. Among 1228 patients (598 ILE; 630 LTE), most (86%) had adenocarcinoma (AC) and were male (81%). Comparing ILE and LTE for AC patients, no difference was seen in terms of time to death (HR 0.904 95%CI 0.749-1.1090) or time to recurrence (HR 0.973 95%CI 0.768-1.232). The risk of a positive resection margin was also similar (OR 1.022 95%CI 0.731-1.429). Median lymph node yield did not differ between approaches (LTE 21; ILE 21; P = 0.426). In-hospital mortality was 2.4%, significantly lower in the LTE group (LTE 1.3%; ILE 3.6%; P = 0.004). Median hospital stay was 11 days in the LTE group and 14 days in the ILE group (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, this is the largest series of left thoracoabdominal esophagectomies to be submitted for publication and the only one to compare two different transthoracic esophagectomy strategies. It demonstrates oncological equivalence between operative approaches but possible short- term advantages to the left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data.

We report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for patients with pathologically staged cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction after resection or ablation with no preoperative therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted de-identified data using standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 13,300 patients, 5,631 had squamous cell carcinoma, 7,558 adenocarcinoma, 85 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 26 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (51%), little weight loss (1.8 kg), 0-2 ECOG performance status (83%), and a history of smoking (70%). Cancers were pT1 (24%), pT2 (15%), pT3 (50%), pN0 (52%), pM0 (93%), and pG2-G3 (78%); most involved distal esophagus (71%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma was monotonic and distinctive across pTNM. Survival was more distinctive for adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma when pT was ordered by pN. Survival for pTis-1 adenocarcinoma was better than for squamous cell carcinoma, although monotonic and distinctive for both. WECC pathologic staging data is improved over that of the 7th edition, with more patients studied and patient and cancer variables collected. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics, and should direct 9th edition data collection. However, the role of pure pathologic staging as the principal point of reference for esophageal cancer staging is waning.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: clinical staging data.

To address uncertainty of whether clinical stage groupings (cTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for clinically staged patients from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 22,123 clinically staged patients, 8,156 had squamous cell carcinoma, 13,814 adenocarcinoma, 116 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 37 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (18.5-25 mg/kg2 , 47%), little weight loss (2.4 ± 7.8 kg), 0-1 ECOG performance status (67%), and history of smoking (67%). Cancers were cT1 (12%), cT2 (22%), cT3 (56%), cN0 (44%), cM0 (95%), and cG2-G3 (89%); most involved the distal esophagus (73%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for squamous cell carcinoma was not distinctive for early cT or cN; for adenocarcinoma, it was distinctive for early versus advanced cT and for cN0 versus cN+. Patients with early cancers had worse survival and those with advanced cancers better survival than expected from equivalent pathologic categories based on prior WECC pathologic data. Thus, clinical and pathologic categories do not share prognostic implications. This makes clinically based treatment decisions difficult and pre-treatment prognostication inaccurate. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient characteristics, cancer categories, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: neoadjuvant pathologic staging data.

To address uncertainty of whether pathologic stage groupings after neoadjuvant therapy (ypTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for pathologically staged cancers after neoadjuvant therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 7,773 pathologically staged neoadjuvant patients, 2,045 had squamous cell carcinoma, 5,686 adenocarcinoma, 31 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 11 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (61 years) men (83%) with normal (40%) or overweight (35%) body mass index, 0-1 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (96%), and a history of smoking (69%). Cancers were ypT0 (20%), ypT1 (13%), ypT2 (18%), ypT3 (44%), ypN0 (55%), ypM0 (94%), and G2-G3 (72%); most involved the distal esophagus (80%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for yp categories was unequally depressed, more for earlier categories than later, compared with equivalent categories from prior WECC data for esophagectomy-alone patients. Thus, survival of patients with ypT0-2N0M0 cancers was intermediate and similar regardless of ypT; survival for ypN+ cancers was poor. Because prognoses for ypTNM and pTNM categories are dissimilar, prognostication should be based on separate ypTNM categories and groupings. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

Surgical resection strategy and the influence of radicality on outcomes in oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical approach to tumours of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction remains controversial. The principal randomized trial comparing transhiatal (THO) and transthoracic (TTO) oesophagectomy showed no survival difference, but suggested that some subgroups of patients may benefit from the more extended lymphadenectomy typically conducted with TTO. METHODS: This was a cohort study based on two prospectively created databases. Short- and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing THO and TTO were compared. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, with secondary outcomes including time to recurrence and patterns of disease relapse. A Cox proportional hazards model provided hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.), with adjustments for age, tumour stage, tumour grade, response to chemotherapy and lymphovascular invasion. RESULTS: Of 664 included patients (263 THO, 401 TTO), the distributions of age, sex and histological subtype were similar between the groups. In-hospital mortality (1·1 versus 3·2 per cent for THO and TTO respectively; P = 0·110) and in-hospital stay (14 versus 17 days respectively; P < 0·001) favoured THO. In the adjusted model, there was no difference in overall survival (HR 1·07, 95 per cent c.i. 0·84 to 1·36) or time to tumour recurrence (HR 0·99, 0·76 to 1·29) between the two operations. Local tumour recurrence patterns were similar (22·8 versus 24·4 per cent for THO and TTO respectively). No subgroup could be identified of patients who had benefited from more radical surgery on the basis of tumour location or stage. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in survival or tumour recurrence for TTO and THO.

Bevacizumab with peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) in localised gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a safety report.

BACKGROUND: Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard treatment of localised oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma; however, the outcomes remain poor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ST03 is a multicentre, randomised, phase II/III study comparing peri-operative ECX with or without bevacizumab (ECX-B). The primary outcome measure of phase II (n = 200) was safety, specifically gastrointestinal (GI) perforation rates and cardiotoxicity. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were randomised between October 2007 and April 2010. Ninety-one/101 (90%) ECX and 86/99 (87%) ECX-B patients completed pre-operative chemotherapy; 7 ECX and 9 ECX-B patients stopped due to toxicity. Gastrointestinal perforations (3 ECX, 1 ECX-B), cardiac events (1 ECX, 4 ECX-B) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs, 8 ECX, 7 ECX-B) were uncommon. Arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs, myocardial infarction (MI) or cerebrovascular accident) were more frequent with ECX-B (5 versus 1 with ECX). Delayed wound healing, anastomotic leaks and GI bleeding rates were similar. More asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) falls (≥15% and/or to <50%) occurred with ECX-B (21.2% versus 11.1% with ECX). Clinically significant falls (≥10% to below lower limit of normal, LLN) occurred in (15.3%) and (8.9%) respectively, with no associated cardiac failure (median 22 months follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of bevacizumab to peri-operative ECX chemotherapy is feasible with acceptable toxicity and no negative impact on surgical outcomes.

Differences in outcomes of oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery across Europe.

BACKGROUND: In several European countries, centralization of oesophagogastric cancer surgery has been realized and clinical audits initiated. The present study was designed to evaluate differences in resection rates, outcomes and annual hospital volumes between these countries, and to analyse the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes. METHODS: National data were obtained from cancer registries or clinical audits in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and England. Differences in outcomes were analysed between countries and between hospital volume categories, adjusting for available case-mix factors. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2009, 10 854 oesophagectomies and 9010 gastrectomies were registered. Resection rates in England were 18·2 and 21·6 per cent for oesophageal and gastric cancer respectively, compared with 28·5-29·9 and 41·4-41·9 per cent in the Netherlands and Denmark (P < 0·001). The adjusted 30-day mortality rate after oesophagectomy was lowest in Sweden (1·9 per cent). After gastrectomy, the adjusted 30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the Netherlands (6·9 per cent) than in Sweden (3·5 per cent; P = 0·017) and Denmark (4·3 per cent; P = 0·029). Increasing hospital volume was associated with a lower 30-day mortality rate after oesophagectomy (odds ratio 0·55 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·42 to 0·72) for at least 41 versus 1-10 procedures per year) and gastrectomy (odds ratio 0·64 (0·41 to 0·99) for at least 21 versus 1-10 procedures per year). CONCLUSION: Hospitals performing larger numbers of oesophagogastric cancer resections had a lower 30-day mortality rate. Differences in outcomes between several European countries could not be explained by differences in hospital volumes. To understand these differences in outcomes and resection rates, with reliable case-mix adjustments, a uniform European upper gastrointestinal cancer audit with recording of standardized data is warranted.

Ethnicity in relation to incidence of oesophageal and gastric cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the variation in incidence of all, and six subgroups of, oesophageal and gastric cancer between ethnic groups. METHODS: Data on all oesophageal and gastric cancer patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2007 in England were analysed. Self-assigned ethnicity from the Hospital Episode Statistics dataset was used. Male and female age-standardised incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated for each ethnic group, using White groups as the references. RESULTS: Ethnicity information was available for 83% of patients (76 130/92 205). White men had a higher incidence of oesophageal cancer, with IRR for the other ethnic groups ranging from 0.17 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.15-0.20) (Pakistani men) to 0.58 95% CI (0.50-0.67) (Black Caribbean men). Compared with White women, Bangladeshi women (IRR 2.02 (1.24-3.29)) had a higher incidence of oesophageal cancer. For gastric cancer, Black Caribbean men (1.39 (1.22-1.60)) and women (1.57 (1.28-1.92)) had a higher incidence compared with their White counterparts. In the subgroup analysis, White men had a higher incidence of lower oesophageal and gastric cardia cancer compared with the other ethnic groups studied. Bangladeshi women (3.10 (1.60-6.00)) had a higher incidence of upper and middle oesophageal cancer compared with White women. CONCLUSION: Substantial ethnic differences in the incidence of oesophageal and gastric cancer were found. Further research into differences in exposures to risk factors between ethnic groups could elucidate why the observed variation in incidence exists.