Revisiting the Malignant Masquerade at the Liver Hilum: Have We Made Progress?

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing malignant from benign causes of obstruction at the liver hilum can pose a diagnostic dilemma. This study aimed to determine factors that predict benign causes of hilar obstruction and long-term outcomes after resection. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent surgery for hilar obstruction at a single institution between 1997 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Median follow-up was 26 months (range 0-281 months). RESULTS: Among 182 patients who underwent surgery for hilar obstruction, 25 (14%) patients were found to have benign disease. Median CA19-9 level after normalization of serum bilirubin was 80 U/mL (range 1-5779) and 21 U/mL (range 1-681) among patients with malignant and benign strictures, respectively (p = 0.001). Cross-sectional imaging features associated with malignancy were lobar atrophy, soft tissue mass/infiltration, and vascular involvement (all p < 0.05). Factors not correlated with malignancy were jaundice upon presentation, peak serum bilirubin, sex, and race. Preoperative bile duct brushing or biopsy had sensitivity and specificity rates of 82% and 55%, respectively. Among patients who underwent resection with curative intent, grade 3-4 complications occurred in 55% and 29% of patients with malignant and benign strictures, respectively (p = 0.028). Postoperative long-term complications of chronic portal hypertension and recurrent cholangitis occurred in ≥ 10% of patients with both benign and malignant disease (p = non-significant). CONCLUSIONS: Strictures at the liver hilum continue to present diagnostic and management challenges. Postoperative complications and long-term sequelae of portal hypertension and recurrent cholangitis develop in a significant number of patients after resection of both benign and malignant strictures.

Localized Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma in the Elderly: Is Age a Factor Associated with Suboptimal Treatment?

INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is relatively common in elderly patients as the incidence increases with age. However, the optimal treatment approach is not well established in this group of patients. The aim of this study is to review our experience for localized gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma in patients aged ≥80 years and to assess association between patient characteristics, clinical factors, and overall survival (OS) in order to optimize the therapeutic approaches for this population. METHODS: Patients ≥80 years old treated for localized gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma were retrospectively analyzed. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to assess the association between patient characteristics and OS. Factors that were significant in the multivariate model were included in the final reduced model. RESULTS: 127 patients ≥80 years old, were included in this study with median age of 83 years. The median follow-up time was 3.2 years, and median OS was 2.5 years (95% CI: 2.0-3.1 years). Independent prognostic factors for OS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) (p = 0.003), baseline clinical stage (p = 0.01), and surgery (p = 0.001). ECOG PS, tumor location, baseline stage, tumor grade, and surgery were included in the final reduced model. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment can improve survival in elderly patients. Therapeutic decisions should be based on the patients' general condition rather that age alone.

Biliary Drainage in Hilar and Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma; 25-Year Experience at a Tertiary Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: This study analyzes the optimal biliary stenting strategy for palliation in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients with CCA who underwent biliary drainage from 1997-2023. A per-patient analysis of percutaneous biliary drainage (PTBD) rates, the median number of ERCPs, overall survival (OS), and a per-procedure analysis of clinical success (CS), stent-specific Adverse Events (AEs), and mean time to reintervention by stent type and laterality (unilateral(u) & bilateral(b)) is presented. RESULTS: A total of 333 patients underwent 1,050 ERCPs; 85% with plastic stents (PS). PTBD was eventually done in 23% of PS patients, 35% of whom had PS removed prior to PTBD. ERCPs with SEMS/uniSEMS use had higher CS (89%/91%) vs PS/uPS (85% both) and PS within SEMS (PS-SEMS)/uPS-SEMS (71%/74%;p=0.013/p=0.054). Compared to PS, SEMS and PS-SEMS were associated with higher stent-specific AEs (OR SEMS 4.85; 3.23-7.27; PS-SEMS 9.99; 5.33-18.71;p<0.001). Straight PS were associated with more stent-specific AEs compared to double-pigtail stents (OR 6.74; 3.95-11.45;p<0.001). More 7 Fr stents were used in cases with balloon dilation (BD, 109 vs. 88 with no BD; p<0.001). BD had 79% CS rate vs 87% without BD (p<0.001). Cases with pus on ERCP and those with BD had a shorter mean time to reintervention. On regression analyses, higher Bismuth class, PS use, and PS-SEMS use were associated with a shorter mean time to repeat ERCP. 52% of patients in the bSEMS arm died from cholangitis (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: The relatively higher clinical success of SEMS is countered by the higher stent-specific complication rate. PS can be removed and may better facilitate PTBD. Within PS types, DPTs may have fewer stent-specific AEs. Cases requiring balloon dilation and with endoscopic evidence of pus may benefit from earlier reintervention.

How much progress have we made?: a 20-year experience regarding esophageal stents for the palliation of malignant dysphagia.

Esophageal stents are widely used for the palliation of malignant esophageal obstruction. Advances in technology have made esophageal stenting technically feasible and widespread for such obstruction, but complications remain frequent. We present outcomes of a large cohort undergoing esophageal stent placement for malignant esophageal obstruction at a tertiary care cancer center. Patients who underwent placement of esophageal stents for malignancy-related esophageal obstruction between 1 January 2001 and 31 July 2020 were identified. Exclusion criteria included stents placed for benign stricture, fistulae, obstruction of proximal esophagus (proximal to 24 cm from incisors), or post-surgical indications. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics, procedure and stent characteristics, complications, and follow-up. A total of 242 patients underwent stent placement (median age: 64 years, 79.8% male). The majority, 204 (84.3%), had esophageal cancer. During the last two decades, there has been an increasing trend in the number of esophageal stents placed. Though plastic stents were previously used, these are no longer utilized. Complications are frequent and include early complications of pain in 68 (28.1%) and migration in 21 (8.7%) and delayed complications of recurrent symptoms of dysphagia in 46 (19.0%) and migration in 26 (10.7%). Over the study period, there has not been a significant improvement in the rate of complications. During follow-up, 92 (38%) patients required other enteral nutrition modalities after esophageal stent placement. No patient, treatment, or stent characteristics were significantly associated with stent complication or outcome. Esophageal stent placement is an increasingly popular method for palliation of malignant dysphagia. However, complications, particularly pain, migration, and recurrent symptoms of dysphagia are common. Almost 40% of patients may also require other methods of enteral access after esophageal stent placement. Given the high complication rates and suboptimal outcomes, removable stents should be considered as first-line in the case of poor palliative response.

Preoperative biliary drainage for pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is currently one of the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality with dismal long term survival after diagnosis. Nearly 85% of pancreatic cancer patients present with advanced disease precluding curative surgical resection. In those who are candidates for surgery, preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been developed since the 1960s in order to improve surgical outcomes. While obstructive jaundice in resectable pancreatic cancer has been traditionally treated before surgical resection in all patients, data over the past decade demonstrated increased perioperative complications and morbidity with systematic PBD compared to direct surgery. With new evidence of potential adverse events, the role of routine PBD is being reassessed. Current indications for PBD include cholangitis, delayed surgery, and relief of jaundice in patients planned to receive neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). NAT is being increasingly utilized in borderline resectable as well as resectable pancreatic cancer and a higher proportion of patients with likely require PBD in the future. The evidence for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as first line for PBD is robust with supporting data from endoscopic ultrasound assisted biliary drainage. Self-expanding metal stent was shown to be cost-effective in recent studies without increase in morbidity compared to plastic stents in this setting. In this review, we will summarize the current evidence for PBD in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Targeting cancer stem cells with a pan-BCL-2 inhibitor in preclinical and clinical settings in patients with gastroesophageal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Gastro-oesophageal cancers (GEC) are resistant to therapy and lead to poor prognosis. The cancer stem cells (CSCs) and antiapoptotic pathways often confer therapy resistance. We sought to elucidate the antitumour action of a BCL-2 inhibitor, AT101 in GEC in vitro, in vivo and in a clinical trial. METHODS: Extensive preclinical studies in vitro and in vivo were carried out to establish the mechanism action of AT101 on targeting CSCs and antiapoptotic proteins. A pilot clinical trial in patients with GEC was completed with AT-101 added to standard chemoradiation. RESULTS: Overexpression of BCL-2 and MCL-1 was noted in gastric cancer tissues (GC). AT-101 induced apoptosis, reduced proliferation and tumour sphere formation in MCL-1/BCL-2 high GC cells. Interestingly, AT101 dramatically downregulated genes (YAP-1/Sox9) that control CSCs in GEC cell lines regardless of BCL-2/MCL-1 expression. Addition of docetaxel to AT-101 amplified its antiproliferation and induced apoptosis effects. In vivo studies confirmed the combination of AT101 and docetaxel demonstrated stronger antitumour activity accompanied with significant decrease of CSCs biomarkers (YAP1/SOX9). In a pilot clinical trial, 13 patients with oesophageal cancer (EC) received AT101 orally concurrently with chemoradiation. We observed dramatic clinical complete responses and encouraging overall survival in these patients. Clinical specimen analyses revealed that AT-101 dramatically reduced the expression of CSCs genes in treated EC specimens indicating antitumour activity of AT101 relies more on its anti-CSCs activity. CONCLUSIONS: Our preclinical and clinical data suggest that AT-101 overcomes resistance by targeting CSCs pathways suggesting a novel mechanism of action of AT101 in patients with GEC.

Integrated genomic profiling and modelling for risk stratification in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Prognosis of patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (mEGAC) is poor and molecular determinants of shorter or longer overall survivors are lacking. Our objective was to identify molecular features and develop a prognostic model by profiling the genomic features of patients with mEGAC with widely varying outcomes. DESIGN: We profiled 40 untreated mEGACs (20 shorter survivors <13 months and 20 longer survivors >36 months) with whole-exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing and performed an integrated analysis of exome, transcriptome, immune profile and pathological phenotypes to identify the molecular determinants, developing an integrated model for prognosis and comparison with The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohorts. RESULTS: KMT2C alterations were exclusively observed in shorter survivors together with high level of intratumour heterogeneity and complex clonal architectures, whereas the APOBEC mutational signatures were significantly enriched in longer survivors. Notably, the loss of heterozygosity in chromosome 4 (Chr4) was associated with shorter survival and 'cold' immune phenotype characterised by decreased B, CD8, natural killer cells and interferon-gamma responses. Unsupervised transcriptomic clustering revealed a shorter survivor subtype with distinct expression features (eg, upregulated druggable targets JAK2, MAP3K13 and MECOM). An integrated model was then built based on clinical variables and the identified molecular determinants, which significantly segregated shorter and longer survivors. All the above features and the integrated model have been validated independently in multiple TCGA cohorts. CONCLUSION: This study discovered novel molecular features prognosticating overall survival in patients with mEGAC and identified potential novel targets in shorter survivors.

Frequency and Implications of Paratracheal Lymph Node Metastases in Resectable Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the frequency of paratracheal lymph nodes (LN) metastases and their prognostic influence. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Paratracheal LNs are considered regional nodes in the esophageal cancer classification, but their metastatic rate and influence on survival remain unclear. METHODS: One thousand one hundred ninety-nine patients with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (EAC) (January 2002 and December 2016) in our Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Database were analyzed. Paratracheal LNs were defined as1R, 1L, 2R, 2L, 4R, and 4L, according to the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. RESULTS: Of 1199 patients, 73 (6.1%) had positive paratracheal LNs at diagnosis. The median overall survival (OS) of 73 patients with initial paratracheal LN involvement was 2.10 years (range 0.01-10.1, 5-yrs OS 24.2%). Of 1071 patients who were eligible for recurrence evaluation, 70 patients (6.5%) developed paratracheal LN metastases as the first recurrence. The median time to recurrence was 1.28 years (range 0.28-5.96 yrs) and the median OS following recurrence was only 0.95 year (range 0.03-7.88). OS in 35 patients who had only paratracheal LN recurrence was significantly longer than in patients who had other recurrences (median OS 2.26 vs 0.51 yrs, 5-yrs OS; 26.8% vs 0%, P < 0.0001). Higher T stage (T3/T4) was an independently risk factor for paratracheal LN recurrence (odds ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 1.46-17.89). We segregated patients in 3 groups based on the distance of tumor's proximal edge to esophagogastric junction (low; ≤2 cm, medium; 2.0-7.0 cm, and high; >7.0 cm). Paratracheal LN metastases were more frequent with the proximal tumors (low, 4.2%; medium, 12.0%; high, 30.3%; Cochran-Armitage Trend test, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Paratracheal LN metastases were associated with a shorter survival in resectable EAC patients. Alternate approaches to prolong survival of this group of patients are warranted.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Management of Perforations in Gastrointestinal Tract: Expert Review.

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all procedures, especially procedures carrying an increased risk for perforation, a thorough discussion between the endoscopist and the patient (preferably together with the patient's family) should include details of the procedural techniques and risks involved. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: The area of perforation should be kept clean to prevent any spillage of gastrointestinal contents into the perforation by aspirating liquids and, if necessary, changing the patient position to bring the perforation into a non-dependent location while minimizing insufflation of carbon dioxide to avoid compartment syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Use of carbon dioxide for insufflation is encouraged for all endoscopic procedures, especially any endoscopic procedure with increased risk of perforation. If available, carbon dioxide should be used for all endoscopic procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: All endoscopists should be aware of the procedures that carry an increased risk for perforation such as any dilation, foreign body removal, any per oral endoscopic myotomy (Zenker's, esophageal, pyloric), stricture incision, thermal coagulation for hemostasis or tumor ablation, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, ampullectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoluminal stenting with self-expanding metal stent (SEMS), full-thickness endoscopic resection, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in surgically altered anatomy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary and pancreatic access, EUS-guided cystogastrostomy, and endoscopic gastroenterostomy using a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Urgent surgical consultation should be highly considered in all cases with perforation even when endoscopic repair is technically successful. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For all upper gastrointestinal perforations, the patient should be considered to be admitted for observation, receive intravenous fluids, be kept nothing by mouth, receive broad-spectrum antibiotics (to cover Gram-negative and anaerobic organisms), nasogastric tube (NGT) placement (albeit some exceptions), and surgical consultation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For upper gastrointestinal tract perforations, a water-soluble upper gastrointestinal series should be considered to confirm the absence of continuing leak at the perforation site before initiating a clear liquid diet. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopic closure of esophageal perforations should be pursued when feasible, utilizing through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) or over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) for perforations <2 cm and endoscopic suturing for perforations >2 cm, reserving esophageal stenting with SEMS for cases where primary closure is not possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopic closure of gastric perforations should be pursued when feasible, utilizing TTSCs or OTSCs for perforations <2 cm and endoscopic suturing or combination of TTSCs and endoloop for perforations >2 cm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: For large type 1 duodenal perforations (lateral duodenal wall tear >3 cm), being cognizant of the difficulty in closing them endoscopically, urgent surgical consultation should be made while the feasibility of endoscopic closure is assessed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Because type 2 periampullary (retroperitoneal) perforations are subtle and can be easily missed, the endoscopist should carefully assess the gas pattern on fluoroscopy to avoid delays in treatment and request a computed tomography scan if there is a concern for such a perforation; identified perforations of this type at the time of ERCP may be closed with TTSCs if feasible and/or by placing a fully covered SEMS into the bile duct across the ampulla. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For the management of large duodenal polyps, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should only be performed by experienced endoscopists and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) only by experts because both EMR and ESD in the duodenum require proficiency in resection and mucosal defect closure techniques to manage immediate and/or delayed perforations (caused by the proteolytic enzymes of the pancreas). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Endoscopists should be aware that colon perforations occurring during diagnostic colonoscopy are most commonly located in the sigmoid colon due to direct trauma from forceful advancement of the colonoscope. Such tears recognized at the time of colonoscopy may be closed by TTSCs or OTSCs if the bowel preparation is good and the patient is stable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Although colon perforation is responsive to various endoscopic tools such as TTSC, OTSC, and endoscopic suturing, perforations in the right colon, especially in the cecum, have been relegated to using only TTSCs because of inability to reach the site of the perforation with an endoscopic suturing device or OTSC if the colon is tortuous or unclean. Recently a new suture-based device for defect closure has been introduced allowing deep submucosal and intramuscular enhanced fixation through a standard gastroscope or colonoscope. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: Patients with perforations who are hemodynamically unstable or who have suffered a delayed perforation with peritoneal signs or frank peritonitis should be surgically managed without any attempt at endoscopic closure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 16: In any adverse event including perforation, it is paramount to ensure accurate documentation, prompt discussion with the patient and family, and swift reporting to the quality officer (or equivalent) and risk management team of the institution (in major adverse events).

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions. METHODS: This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update is to describe the indications for screening for pancreas cancer in high-risk individuals. METHODS: The evidence reviewed in this work is based on reports of pancreas cancer screening studies in high-risk individuals and expert opinion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients determined to be at high risk, including first-degree relatives of patients with pancreas cancer with at least 2 affected genetically related relatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients with genetic syndromes associated with an increased risk of pancreas cancer, including all patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hereditary pancreatitis, patients with CDKN2A gene mutation, and patients with 1 or more first-degree relatives with pancreas cancer with Lynch syndrome, and mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM genes. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Genetic testing and counseling should be considered for familial pancreas cancer relatives who are eligible for surveillance. A positive germline mutation is associated with an increased risk of neoplastic progression and may also lead to screening for other relevant associated cancers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Participation in a registry or referral to a pancreas Center of Excellence should be pursued when possible for high-risk patients undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not screen average-risk individuals for pancreas cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals should begin at age 50 years, or 10 years younger than the initial age of familial onset. Screening should be initiated at age 40 years in CKDN2A and PRSS1 mutation carriers with hereditary pancreatitis and at age 35 years in the setting of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should be used in combination as the preferred screening modalities in individuals undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The target detectable pancreatic neoplasms are resectable stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and high-risk precursor neoplasms, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-grade dysplasia and some enlarged pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasias. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Screening intervals of 12 months should be considered when there are no concerning pancreas lesions, with shortened intervals and/or the performance of EUS in 6-12 months directed towards lesions determined to be low risk (by a multidisciplinary team). EUS evaluation should be performed within 3-6 months for indeterminate lesions and within 3 months for high-risk lesions, if surgical resection is not planned. New-onset diabetes in a high-risk individual should lead to additional diagnostic studies or change in surveillance interval. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Decisions regarding therapy directed towards abnormal findings detected during screening should be made by a dedicated multidisciplinary team together with the high-risk individual and their family. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Surgical resection should be performed at high-volume centers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Clinicians should consider discontinuing pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals when they are more likely to die of non-pancreas cancer-related causes due to comorbidity and/or are not candidates for pancreas resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: The limitations and potential risks of pancreas cancer screening should be discussed with patients before initiating a screening program.

Efficacy of uncovered colonic stents for extrinsic versus intrinsic malignant large bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies evaluating self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for management of malignant extrinsic colon obstruction have yielded conflicting results. We evaluated the efficacy of uncovered SEMS for extrinsic colon malignancy (ECM) versus intrinsic colon malignancy (ICM). METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients referred for colonic SEMS at a tertiary cancer center between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Primary outcome measures were technical success, clinical success, intervention rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: 138 patients with ECM and 119 patients with ICM underwent attempted stent placement. The rectum and/or sigmoid colon was the most common stricture site. Technical success was lower in the ECM group [86% vs 96% (p = .009)]. Clinical success was lower in the ECM group both at 7 days [82% vs 95% (p = .004)] and at 90 days [60% vs 86% (p < .001)]. Subsequent intervention was required more frequently [44% vs 35%; p = .23] and earlier [median 9 vs 132 days; p < .001] in the ECM group. Median overall survival in the ECM group was 92 vs 167 days. Among predictive variables analyzed, the ECM group had a higher frequency of peritoneal metastasis (87% vs 32%; p < .001), multifocal strictures with requirement for multiple stents (20% vs 6%; p = .002), sharp angulated strictures (39% vs 25%; p = .04) , and radiation therapy (21% vs 10%; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Colonic SEMS for ECM is associated with lower technical and clinical success with earlier intervention rates compared with ICM. Our findings can be used to better inform patients and referring providers as well as guide new stent design to enhance efficacy in this population.

Total Lesion Glycolysis Assessment Identifies a Patient Fraction With a High Cure Rate Among Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Patients Treated With Definitive Chemoradiation.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether tumor metabolism could be prognostic of cure in L-EAC patients who receive definitive chemoradiation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with inoperable localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (L-EAC) often receive definitive chemoradiation; however, biomarkers and/or imaging variables to prognosticate cure are missing. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-six patients with L-EAC who had chemoradiation but not surgery were analyzed from the prospectively maintained EAC databases in the Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Texas, USA) between March 2002 and April 2015. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from the positron emission tomography data were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 266 patients, 253 (95%) were men; the median age was 67 years (range 20-91 yrs) and 153 had poorly differentiated L-EAC. The median SUVmax was 10.3 (range 0-87) and the median TLG was 85.7 (range 0-3227). Both SUVmax and TLG were higher among those with: tumors >5 cm in length, high clinical stage, and high tumor and node categories by TNM staging (all P < 0.0001). Of 234 patients evaluable for cure, 60 (25.6%) achieved cure. In the multivariable logistic regression model, low TLG (but not low SUVmax) was associated with cure (continuous TLG value: odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.92). TLG was quantified into 4 quartile categorical variables; first quartile (Q1; <32), second quartile (Q2; 32.0-85.6), third quartile (Q3; 85.6-228.4), and fourth quartile (Q4; >228.4); the cure rate was only 10.3% in Q4 and 5.1% in Q3 but increased to 28.8% in Q2, and 58.6% in Q1. The cross-validation resulted in an average accuracy of prediction score of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-validated model, 59% of patients in the 1st quartile were cured following definitive chemoradiation. Baseline TLG could be pursued as one of the tools for esophageal preservation.

Efficacy of Three-Drug Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Preoperative Chemoradiation in Patients with Localized Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation yields better R0 resection rates, pathologic complete response (pCR) rates and improved survival for localized gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). We report the effect of three-drug induction chemotherapy on a large cohort of localized GAC patients. METHODS: We identified 97 patients with localized GAC who received three-drug induction chemotherapy followed by preoperative chemoradiation therapy. We assessed various endpoints (overall survival [OS], recurrence-free survival [RFS], R0 resection and pCR rate). RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 3.5 years (range; 0.4-16.7). The induction chemotherapy regimen was a fluoropyrimidine and a platinum compound (cisplatin or oxaliplatin) with a taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel) for 95% of patients. Seventy-three (75.3%) out of 97 patients underwent planned surgery. R0 resection and pCR rae were 93.2 and 20.6%, respectively. Pathologic partial response (<50% residual carcinoma) rate was 50.7%. The median OS was 6.4 years (95% Cl 3.3-12.4) for the entire cohort and 11.1 years (95% Cl 7.1-not estimable) for patients that underwent surgery. The estimated 2- and 5-year OS rates were 72.4% (95% CI 62.1-80.3) and 54.3% (95% CI 43.2-64.1) for the entire cohort and 83.2% (95% CI 72.3--90.1) and 66% (95% CI 52.3-75.8) for patients that underwent surgery. Pathologic lesser stage (stage I/II vs. stage III/IV) (p = 0.001) and R0 resection (p = 0.02) were independently associated with longer RFS in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our data shows that three-drug combination is feasible without providing substantial advantage compared with two-drug combination in this setting of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery.

Management of ampullary adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome: 16 years of experience from a tertiary cancer center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The management of ampullary adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is challenging due to multiple adenomas in the duodenum, history of previous major abdominal surgery, and desmoid lesions. In this study, we aim to define the optimum management for ampullary adenomas, particularly in FAP. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all patients with pathology-confirmed ampullary adenomas in M.D. Anderson Cancer Center from 2002 to 2018. Relevant data were extracted, including patient demographics, treatments, outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 137 patients with ampullary adenomas who underwent 159 procedures; 95 of the 137 patients had FAP and were placed under close observation, 29 underwent endoscopic ampullectomy, 4 underwent surgical ampullectomy, and 31 underwent panreaticoduodenectomy (PD). In the close observation group, 12.6% progressed to advanced adenoma and subsequently underwent resection. There was no ampullary cancer detected in this group. The endoscopic ampullectomy group had a postprocedure adverse event rate of 10.2%. Eleven patients had residual/recurrent disease after endoscopic ampullectomy, 3 of whom needed surgery. Four patients underwent initial surgical ampullectomy and 2 subsequently needed PD. Patients who underwent PD had an adverse event rate of 29%. In this group, there were no cases of residual disease or recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: The management of ampullary adenomas in FAP should be carefully considered for the best outcome. Although these patients can be managed by endoscopic ampullectomy, careful surveillance for recurrence should be followed along with prompt management of the recurrence when detected. Although PD provides a definitive treatment, it is limited by the patient's comorbid conditions and high adverse event rates.

Brain metastases in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer is associated with proximally located adenocarcinoma and lymph node metastases.

BACKGROUND: As cancer patients are surviving longer, more patients manifest brain metastases (BRMs). However, the rate of BRMs from upper gastrointestinal cancer is unclear. We therefore evaluated the frequency and prognostic effect of BRMs in this setting. METHODS: We analyzed records of 2348 patients who were treated between January 2002 and December 2016 for upper gastrointestinal cancer, including esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (EAC; proximal EAC, Siewert types I and II), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC; Siewert type III and stomach cancer) in our Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Database. Frequency, risk factors, and survival after BRMs were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 2348 patients, 68 (2.9%) had BRMs upon follow-up. The BRM rates were as follows: proximal EAC, 4.8%; Siewert type I, 5.9%; Siewert type II, 2.2%; Siewert type III, 0.7%; ESCC: 1.2%; and stomach cancer, 0%. Among EAC patients, Siewert type I and lymph node metastases were independent the risk factors for BRMs in the multivariable analysis. The median overall survival (OS) in the 68 patients with BRMs was only 1.16 years (95% CI 0.78-1.61). However, OS for patients who had a solitary BRM, who had BRM but no other distant metastasis, or who underwent surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery favorable. CONCLUSION: Patients with proximally located adenocarcinoma, or with lymph node metastases are at a higher risk for BRMs and patients fare better after treatment of isolated BRM.

A Comprehensive Approach to the Management of Benign and Malignant Ampullary Lesions: Management in Hereditary and Sporadic Settings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review was to examine the historical roots of endoscopic management of ampullary lesions and explore emerging data on improved techniques, technologies, and outcomes. Of specific interest was answering whether there exists a reasonable body of data to support one resection technique or strategy above others. RECENT FINDINGS: Review of recent literature suggests the continued use of endoscopic ampullectomy is a safe and effective means of curative treatment of ampullary adenomas. Complications are relatively infrequent and complete endoscopic resection is possible in a majority of cases, with proper patient and lesion selection. Greater than 2 decades of experience with endoscopic ampullectomy have shown this to be a viable, well-tolerated, and highly effective means of treating ampullary adenomas. While few concrete guidelines exist to advise endoscopists on the ideal technique for resection, experience, patient selection, and prior planning can greatly influence the technical and clinical success of endoscopic ampullectomy.

Low metabolic activity in primary gastric adenocarcinoma is associated with resistance to chemoradiation and the presence of signet ring cells.

PURPOSES: Preoperative chemoradiation is a potential treatment option for localized gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Currently, the response to chemoradiation cannot be predicted. We analyzed the pretreatment maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) on positron emission tomography/computed tomography as potential predictors of the response to chemoradiation. METHODS: We analyzed the SUVmax and TLG data from 59 GAC patients who received preoperative chemoradiation. We used logistic regression models to predict a pathologic complete response (pCR) and Kaplan-Meier curves to determine overall survival among patients with high and low SUVmax or TLG. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (49%) had Siewert type III adenocarcinoma and 30 (51%) had tumors located in the lower stomach. Forty-one patients had poorly differentiated GAC, and 26 had signet ring cells. The median SUVmax was 7.3 (0-28.2) and the median TLG was 56.6 (0-1881.5). Patients with signet ring cells had a low pCR rate, as well as a low SUVmax and TLG. In the multivariable logistic regression model, high SUVmax was a predictor of pCR (odds ratio = 11.1, 95% confidence interval = 2.12-50.0, p = 0.004). Overall survival was not associated with the SUVmax (log-rank p = 0.69) or TLG (log-rank p = 0.85) CONCLUSION: A high SUVmax was associated with sensitivity to chemoradiation and pCR in GAC, and signet ring cells seemed to confer resistance.

LncRNA PVT1 up-regulation is a poor prognosticator and serves as a therapeutic target in esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: PVT1 has emerged as an oncogene in many tumor types. However, its role in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the role of PVT1 in BE/EAC progression and uncover its therapeutic value against EAC. METHODS: PVT1 expression was assessed by qPCR in normal, BE, and EAC tissues and statistical analysis was performed to determine the association of PVT1 expression and EAC (stage, metastases, and survival). PVT1 antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) were tested for their antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. RESULTS: PVT1 expression was up-regulated in EACs compared with paired BEs, and normal esophageal tissues. High expression of PVT1 was associated with poor differentiation, lymph node metastases, and shorter survival. Effective knockdown of PVT1 in EAC cells using PVT1 ASOs resulted in decreased cell proliferation, invasion, colony formation, tumor sphere formation, and reduced proportion of ALDH1A1+ cells. Mechanistically, we discovered mutual regulation of PVT1 and YAP1 in EAC cells. Inhibition of PVT1 by PVT1 ASOs suppressed YAP1 expression through increased phosphor-LATS1and phosphor-YAP1 while knockout of YAP1 in EAC cells significantly suppressed PVT1 levels indicating a positive regulation of PVT1 by YAP1. Most importantly, we found that targeting both PVT1 and YAP1 using their specific ASOs led to better antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide strong evidence that PVT1 confers an aggressive phenotype to EAC and is a poor prognosticator. Combined targeting of PVT1 and YAP1 provided the highest therapeutic index and represents a novel therapeutic strategy.

First-Line Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel Chemotherapy for Localized Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemotherapy provides early treatment of micro-metastases and guaranteed delivery of all components of multimodality therapy for localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). For locally advanced (LA) PDAC, induction chemotherapy is the standard of care. This study evaluated the use of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (Gem/nab-P) as first-line therapy for localized PDAC. METHODS: Clinicopathologic features, treatment, and outcomes were evaluated for 99 patients with localized PDAC. The patients were staged using previously published criteria as follows: potentially resectable (PR), borderline type A (BR-A) (anatomy amenable to vascular resection), BR-B (biology suspicious for metastatic disease including high CA19-9), BR-C (comorbidities requiring medical optimization), and LA. RESULTS: The 99 patients (PR/BR/LA: 45/14/40) were treated with Gem/nab-P. Clinical staging showed that 20 patients had PR or BR-A disease, whereas 39 patients had BR-B or BR-C disease. The BR-B+C cases included one or more of the following: age of 80 years or older (13%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2 or more (13%), moderate to severe comorbidities (55%), CA19-9 of 1000 or higher (28%), and suspicion for metastases (21%). The majority of the patients received biweekly Gem/nab-P dosing, which was well tolerated. Pancreatectomy was performed for 12 (60%) of 20 patients with PR+BR-A, 2 (5%) of 39 patients with BR-B+C, and 1 (3%) of 40 patients with LA disease. During a median follow-up period of 26 months, the median overall survival (OS) period was 18 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.6-20.5 months) for all the patients, 17 months (95% CI, 14.6-19.5 months) for the unresected patients, and not reached for the resected patients (p = 0.028 for resected vs unresected patients). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of patients with radiographically resectable PDAC albeit aggressive biology (BR-B), medically inoperable conditions (BR-C), or both received biweekly first-line Gem/nab-P. The resection rates were lower for the BR-B/BR-C patients than for the PR/BR-A patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19-1.00; p = 0.05).