Comparison of laparoscopy versus mini-laparotomy for jejunostomy placement in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Optimal nutrition is challenging for patients with gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma and often requires feeding tube placement prior to preoperative therapy. Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) placement via mini-laparotomy is technically easier to perform than laparoscopic FJ. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing laparoscopic versus mini-laparotomy FJ placement. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma receiving laparoscopic versus mini-laparotomy FJ at a single tertiary referral center from 2000 to 2018. 30-day outcomes included complications, conversion to laparotomy, reoperation, length of stay, and readmission. RESULTS: A total of 656 patients met the inclusion criteria and were studied. The majority of patients were male (68.1%) with a mean age of 60.6 years. The difference in surgical approach remained relatively stable over time. Overall, 82 (12.5%) patients experienced complications, and three (0.5%) patients died postoperatively. While readmission and conversion to open laparotomy did not differ between groups, overall complications (10.5% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.002), Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications (4.0% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.021), length of stay (4.1 vs. 5.6 days, p < 0.001), and reoperation (0.9% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.002) favored the laparoscopic over mini-laparotomy group. CONCLUSION: The current study helps clarify the risk of FJ placement in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma requiring nutritional support. Laparoscopic FJ placement has lower overall morbidity and length of stay compared to mini-laparotomy. However, caution is needed in preventing and identifying the rare causes of postoperative mortality that may be associated with laparoscopic FJ placement.

Influence of induction chemotherapy in trimodality therapy-eligible oesophageal cancer patients: secondary analysis of a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A randomised phase 2 trial of trimodality with or without induction chemotherapy (IC) in oesophageal cancer (EC) patients showed no advantage in overall survival (OS) or pathologic complete response rate. To identify subsets that might benefit from IC, a secondary analysis was done. METHODS: The trial had accrued 126 patients (NCT 00525915). Recursive partitioning and proportional hazards regression with interactions were performed. RESULTS: The median follow-up of surviving patients was 6.7 years and the median OS duration was 3.8 years (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-5.8 years). OS was associated with tumour length (P=0.03), cT (P=0.02), cN (P=0.04), clinical stage (P=0.01), and tumour grade (P<0.001). The effect of IC differed according to tumour grade. Among patients with well or moderately differentiated (WMD) ECs (n=59), the 5-year survival rate was 74% with IC and 50% without IC, P=0.001. IC had no effect on OS of patients with poorly differentiated (PD) ECs (31% and 28%, respectively; interaction, P=0.04; IC, P=0.03). In the multivariate reduced model, WMD with IC was an independent prognosticator for better OS (HR=0.41, 95% CI, 0.25-0.67; P=<0.001). The following four EC phenotypes emerged for OS: (1) very high risk (PD, cN2/N3), (2) high risk (PD, cN0/N1, stage cIII), (3) moderate risk (PD, cN0/N1, stage cI/II or WMD without IC), and (4) low risk (WMD with IC). The 5-year survival rates were 11%, 27%, 48%, and 74%, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that IC significantly prolonged OS of WMD EC patients who undergo trimodality; prospective evaluation is needed.

Actionable Locoregional Relapses after Therapy of Localized Esophageal Cancer: Insights from a Large Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of surveillance after therapy of localized esophageal cancer (LEC) is to identify actionable relapses amenable to salvage; however, the current surveillance algorithms are not optimized. We report on a large cohort of LEC patients with actionable locoregional relapses (LRRs). METHODS: Between 2000 and 2013, 127 (denominator = 752) patients with actionable LRR were identified. Histologic/cytologic confirmation was the gold standard. All surveillance tools (imaging, endoscopy, fine needle aspiration) were assessed. RESULTS: Most patients were men (89%), had adenocarcinoma (79%), and had no new symptoms (72%) when diagnosed with LRR. In trimodality patients, endoscopic confirmation of positron emission tomography-computed tomography-suspected LRR occurred in only 44%, and 56% required additional tools (e.g., fine needle aspiration). Alternatively, in bimodality patients, endoscopy confirmed LRRs in 81%. Trimodality patients had a higher risk of subsequent LRR/distant metastases after the first LRR than the bimodality patients (p = 0.03). In all patients, 78% of the subsequent relapses were distant. For patients who were salvaged, survival was significantly prolonged (50.6 vs. 25.1 months, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients live longer after successful salvage of the LRR than if salvage is not possible. After LRR, patients have a high risk of subsequent distant metastasis and whether the second relapse is local or distant, survival is uniformly poor.

The Proportion of Signet Ring Cell Component in Patients with Localized Gastric Adenocarcinoma Correlates with the Degree of Response to Pre-Operative Chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma (LGAC), who get pre-operative therapy, have heterogeneous/unpredictable outcomes. Predictive clinical variables/biomarkers are not established. METHODS: We analyzed 107 LGAC patients who had chemoradiation and surgery. LGACs were grouped for (1) presence/absence of signet ring cell histology (SRC) and (2) histologic grade: G2 or G3. %SRC was assessed (0, 1-10, 11-49, and 50-100%) and correlated with pathologic complete response (pathCR) or

A Nomogram to Predict Distant Metastases After Multimodality Therapy for Patients With Localized Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with localized esophageal cancer (LEC), 35% or more develop distant metastases (DM) as first relapse, most in the first 24 months after local therapy. Implementation of novel strategies may be possible if DM can be predicted reliably. We hypothesized that clinical variables could help generate a DM nomogram. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with LEC who completed multimodality therapy were analyzed. Various statistical methods were used, including multivariate analysis to generate a nomogram. A concordance index (c-index) was established and validated using the bootstrap method. RESULTS: Among 629 patients analyzed (356 trimodality/273 bimodality), 36% patients developed DM as first relapse. The median overall survival from DM was only 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.0-10.2). In a multivariate analysis, the variables associated with a higher risk for developing DM were poorly differentiated histology (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; P<.0001), baseline T3/T4 primary (HR, 3.07; P=.0006), and baseline N+ LEC (HR, 2.01; P<.0001). Although variables associated with a lower risk for DM were age of 60 years or older (HR, 0.75; P=.04), squamous cell carcinoma (HR, 0.54; P=.013), and trimodality therapy (HR, 0.58; P=.0001), the bias-corrected c-index was 0.67 after 250 bootstrap resamples. CONCLUSIONS: Our nomogram identified patients with LEC who developed DM with a high probability. The model needs to be refined (tumor and blood biomarkers) and validated. This type of model will allow implementation of novel strategies in patients with LEC.

Geographic distribution of regional metastatic nodes affects the outcome of trimodality-eligible patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Malignant nodes in patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (L-EAC) portend a poor prognosis. We assessed the correlation of the distribution of nodes with the outcome of patients undergoing chemoradiation/surgery (trimodality therapy). METHODS: We studied 209 L-EAC patients who had confirmed or suspicious nodes at baseline staging. All patients received trimodality therapy and were grouped according to the nodal geography: above the diaphragm (AD), below the diaphragm (BD), or above and below the diaphragm (ABD). Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the outcomes of the groups were assessed by the log-rank test. RESULTS: Patients were primarily Caucasian (91%) and male (93%), with a baseline stage III L-EAC (89%). The median follow-up was 2.8 years (range, 0.4-11.7). Of the 209 patients, 35% (n = 73) had AD nodes, 20% (n = 41) had BD nodes, and 45% (n = 95) had ABD nodes. ABD patients had a 5-year overall survival rate of 33%, whereas this rate was 55% in AD patients and 60% in BD patients (p = 0.02). Patients with a higher histology grade were also at a higher risk of relapse and had a poor survival (p < 0.01 for both). CONCLUSIONS: L-EAC patients in the ABD group had the worst outcome after trimodality treatment compared to those in the AD or BD group. Novel strategies are needed for ABD patients.

Early versus Delayed Therapy of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients--Does It Make a Difference?

BACKGROUND: Nearly 50% of gastric cancer patients are diagnosed with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Therapy is palliative but results in ill effects. The median overall survival (OS) of AGC patients is often <12 months. It is unclear if the early initiation of therapy in all AGC patients is beneficial. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of AGC patients in our database was carried out. The patients were divided into two groups: asymptomatic or symptomatic. We sought to assess whether the delay of systemic therapy was harmful in asymptomatic patients. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were analyzed. Most patients were symptomatic (68%), males (67%), and had low ECOG scores (0-1; 85%). In univariate analyses, ECOG performance status 0 (p = 0.005), delayed initiation of therapy (p = 0.03), and lack of symptoms (p = 0.03) were associated with a longer OS. The multivariate model for OS identified only ECOG performance status as an independent prognosticator of longer OS (p = 0.02). Asymptomatic patients who had delayed (≥ 4 weeks) systemic therapy had an OS rate of 77% at 1 year compared to 58% for patients treated within 4 weeks (p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: Symptomatic AGC patients had a poor outcome compared to asymptomatic AGC patients. Treatment delay in asymptomatic patients had no detrimental effect on OS, suggesting that the timing of therapy can be based on patient selection.

Distribution of Resistant Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in the Resected Specimens of Clinical Stage III Patients after Chemoradiation: Its Clinical Implications.

BACKGROUND: We have limited knowledge of the geographic distribution of resistant esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in resected specimens, but its clinical importance can be enormous. METHOD: We selected patients with baseline stage III EAC who had had chemoradiation followed by surgery and had residual EAC (resistant cases only). Outcomes were correlated with various endpoints (percentage of resistant EAC and anatomic distribution). RESULTS: A total of 100 clinical stage III patients were studied; 90% had an R0 resection, and 99% had either moderate or poorly differentiated EAC. Twelve percent had >50% residual cancer, 31% had 11-50% residual cancer, 53% had 1-10% residual cancer, and 3% had positive nodes only. Each compartment was frequently involved: mucosa/submucosa (66%), muscularis propria (76%), and serosa (62%); all compartments were involved in 35% of the cases. Lack of EAC (meaning response) was observed in the mucosa/submucosa (34%), muscularis propria (24%), serosa (38%), and nodes (42%). Although the endoscopic biopsies prior to surgery showed no EAC in 79% of the patients, in the surgical specimens, resistant EAC was frequently occurring in the mucosa/submucosa (66%). CONCLUSION: Contrary to our hypothesis that resistant EAC would be frequent in the nodes, our data show that its distribution is heterogeneous and unpredictable. Most importantly, the postchemoradiation biopsies are misleading, and a decision to delay/avoid surgery based on negative biopsies can be detrimental for the patients.

Initial Standardized Uptake Value of Positron Emission Tomography Influences the Prognosis of Patients with Localized Gastric Adenocarcinoma Treated Preoperatively.

BACKGROUND: In patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma (LGAC) who receive preoperative therapy, tools to predict response or prognosticate outcome before therapy are lacking. We used initial standardized uptake value (iSUV) of positron emission tomography (PET) to evaluate its association with overall survival (OS). METHODS: We identified 60 patients with confirmed LGAC who were treated with preoperative chemoradiation and had a baseline PET in addition to other routine staging. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank sum test were used to determine the association between iSUV and other variables, and the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: The median iSUV was 6 (range, 0-28). The presence of signet ring cells in pretreatment biopsies correlated highly with low iSUV (≤ 6; p = 0.0017). Patients with a high iSUV (> 6) had a longer OS compared to those with a low iSUV (≤ 6; p = 0.0344). iSUV was not an independent predictor (p = 0.12); however, the risk of death was reduced for patients with an iSUV > 6 (hazard ratio = 0.26). CONCLUSION: Our novel findings show that among LGAC patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation and surgery, those with a high iSUV have longer OS than patients with a low iSUV. iSUV appears to have a predictive role in patients with LGAC when treated with preoperative chemoradiation.

Distribution and timing of distant metastasis after local therapy in a large cohort of patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer (EAC) receive chemoradiation and then surgery (trimodality, TMT) or definitive chemoradiation (bimodality, BMT). Distant metastases (DMs) are common but the details of their distribution and timing in a large cohort have not been described. METHODS: 629 patients with localized EAC who had TMT or BMT were analyzed. Standard statistical methods were used to define the end points. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 37.2 months (interquartile range 17.8-65.0). Of 356 TMT patients, 33% (119) developed DM as their first relapse and of 273 BMT patients, 40% (109) developed DM; 91% (TMT) and 96% (BMT) of the DMs were diagnosed within 2 years of local therapy. The most common sites of DM were: lung, distant nodes, liver, peritoneal cavity, bone, brain and pleura in order of frequency. The median overall survival of TMT patients with DM was 10.2 months (95% CI 7.8-12.7) and that for BMT patients with DM was 7.8 months (95% CI 5.7-9.9). CONCLUSIONS: Following TMT or BMT, ≥33% of patients developed DMs and most of these occurred within 2 years (>90%) of local therapy. A clinical model is desirable that associates clinical parameters with a high risk for DM in TMT-eligible patients prior to surgery.

Post-chemoradiation surgical pathology stage can customize the surveillance strategy in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Current algorithms for surveillance of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) after chemoradiation and surgery (trimodality therapy [TMT]) remain empiric. The authors hypothesized that the frequency, type, and timing of relapses after TMT would be highly associated with surgical pathology stage (SPS), and therefore SPS could be used to individualize the surveillance strategy. Between 2000 and 2010, 518 patients with EAC were identified who underwent TMT at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and were frequently surveyed. Frequency, type, and timing of the first relapse (locoregional and/or distant) were tabulated according to SPS. Standard statistical approaches were used. The median follow-up time after esophageal surgery was 55.4 months (range, 1.0-149.2 months). Disease relapse occurred in 215 patients (41.5%). Higher SPS was associated with a higher rate of relapse (0/I vs II/III, P≤.001; 0/I vs II, P=.002; SPS 0/I vs III, P≤.001; and SPS II vs III, P=.005) and with shorter time to relapse (P<.001). Irrespective of the SPS, approximately 95% of all relapses occurred within 36 months of surgery. The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were shorter for patients with a higher SPS than those with a lower SPS (0/I vs II/III, P≤.001; 0/I vs II, P≤.001; 0/I vs III, P≤.001; and II vs III, P=.014). The compelling data show an excellent association between SPS and frequency/type/timing of relapses after TMT in patients with EAC. Thus, the surveillance strategy can potentially be customized based on SPS. These data can inform a future evidence-based surveillance strategy that can be efficient and cost-effective.

The influence of histopathologic tumor viability on long-term survival and recurrence rates following neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to validate the effect of histopathologic tumor viability (HTV) on extended survival outcomes and assess the prognostic ability of the current staging system in patients receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: The American Joint Committee on Cancer, 7th Edition, esophageal carcinoma staging system is derived from patients treated with surgery alone and does not account for the treatment effect of CRT. The extent of HTV after CRT is based on response to neoadjuvant therapy and has been shown to correlate with patient outcome. METHODS: Medical records of 1278 patients who underwent esophagectomy (1990-2011) were reviewed; 784 patients underwent preoperative CRT. Histologic tumor viability was assessed in 602 patients and classified as 0% to 10%, 11% to 50%, and more than 50%. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method at potential median follow-up of 67 months. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified variables associated with survival. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis identified HTV of greater than 50% (P < 0.001, HR 2.5), positive pathologic nodal status (P < 0.001, HR 1.6), and positive clinical nodal status (P = 0.002, HR 1.5) but not pathologic T status (P = 0.816, HR 1.2) to be independently associated with survival. Actuarial 5- and 10-year survival was 52% and 43% (HTV of 0%-10%), 45% and 33% (HTV of 11%-50%), and 16% for both (HTV of >50%). The best 5-year survival 56% was achieved in N0 patients with HTV of 0% to 10% (P = 0.056, HR 1.0), contrary to 6% observed in node-positive patients with HTV of greater than 50% (P < 0.001, HR 3.1). Patients with HTV of greater than 50% demonstrated distant recurrence more frequently than those with HTV of less than 50% (51% vs 33%, P = 0.010, OR: 2.2) CONCLUSIONS:: After preoperative chemoradiation, long-term outcomes of esophageal carcinoma are best predicted utilizing histologic tumor viability; HTV may be a practical early endpoint predicting efficacy of therapy.

Propensity-based matching between esophagogastric cancer patients who had surgery and who declined surgery after preoperative chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND: Trimodality therapy (TMT; chemoradiation plus surgery) has level-1 evidence for survival advantage for TMT-eligible esophagogastric cancer patients. Some patients, however, decline surgery after preoperative chemoradiation. The question of which patient should have esophagectomy and which one should not is unlikely to be answered by a prospective comparison; therefore, we matched the clinical covariates of several patients who had surgery with those who declined surgery (DS). METHODS: Between 2002 and 2011, we identified 623 patients in our databases. Of 623 patients, 244 patients had TMT and 61 TMT-eligible patients were in the DS group. Using the propensity-score method, we matched 16 covariates between 36 DS patients and 36 TMT patients. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between the two groups were balanced (p = NS). The median overall survival times were: 57.9 months (95% CI: 27.7 to not applicable, NA) for the DS group and 50.8 months (95% CI: 30.7 to NA) for the TMT group (p = 0.28). The median relapse-free survival times were: 18.5 (95% CI: 11.5-30.4) for the DS group and 26.5 months (95% CI: 15.5-NA) for the TMT group (p = 0.45). Eleven (31%) of 36 patients in the DS group had salvage surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are intriguing but skewed by the patients who had salvage surgery in the DS group. Until highly reliable predictive models are developed for esophageal preservation, TMT must be encouraged for all TMT-eligible gastroesophageal cancer patients.

Incidence of brain metastases after trimodality therapy in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal cancer: implications for screening and surveillance.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether patients undergoing trimodality therapy (TMT) should be screened or surveyed for brain metastases. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed esophageal cancer (EC) patients who underwent TMT between the years 2000 and 2010. All were systematically staged and surveyed but none had screening or surveillance brain imaging. RESULTS: The median follow-up time for 518 patients was 29.3 months (range 1-149.2); all patients had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Of 188 (36.3%) patients who developed distant metastases, 20 (10.6% of 188 patients or 3.9% of 518 patients) had brain metastases. A higher baseline clinical stage (stage III or IVa) was associated with brain metastases. Most (90%) patients with brain metastases were diagnosed within 24 months of surgery. Sixteen patients had central nervous system symptoms at diagnosis. Twelve (60%) patients had solitary metastasis and 8 (40%) patients had multiple metastases. Although 17 patients received therapy for brain metastases, the median overall survival time of 20 patients was only 10.5 months (95% CI 6.6-14.0). CONCLUSION: After TMT, 3.9% of EC patients developed brain metastases and their prognosis was poor. Our data suggest that screening and/or surveillance for brain metastases in the EC population undergoing TMT is not warranted.

Management of localized gastric cancer.

Gastric cancer continues to be a fatal disease with majority of cases presenting in late stages. For patients with advanced disease, we can only recommend palliative therapy. For localized gastric cancer, the approaches vary in various regions of the world. In western countries, preoperative chemotherapy or adjuvant chemo-radiation is preferred; however in Asia, surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is favored. The extent of the lymph node dissection also varies by region. D2 gastrectomy is difficult to implement in most western countries while it is standardized and is a routine in Asia. We recommend multidisciplinary evaluation of each patient before starting any therapy. The prognosis after resection depends of the pathologic stage. Long-term survivors are often <50% in the West and <70% in many Asian countries. Regional and systemic recurrences are common. Improved systemic treatments are needed. Detailed studies of molecular biology might uncover novel therapeutic targets and prognostic subgroups.

Nomograms for prognostication of outcome in patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal carcinoma undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Level-1 evidence for definitive chemoradiotherapy (bimodality therapy or BM therapy) has been established for patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers (EGEJC) who otherwise do not qualify for surgery; however, tools to estimate individual patient prognosis are unavailable. We used a number of clinical pre- and post-treatment parameters to establish two nomograms: for overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). METHODS: From 2002 through 2010, 257 consecutive patients with EGEJC who received BM therapy and had pre- and post-treatment positron emission tomography (PET) and post-treatment endoscopic biopsies among other assessments were analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Standard statistical methods were used to generate the nomograms. RESULTS: None of the 257 patients underwent surgery. Persistent or recurrent cancer was documented in 187 (72.8%) patients. The estimated median survival duration for all 257 patients was 21.1 months (95% CI, 18.9-27.1) and the median RFS duration was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.43-15.0). After BM therapy, 155 (60.3%) patients achieved a clinical complete response (cCR). In multivariate analyses, maximum initial standardized uptake value and cCR were independent prognostic variables for OS (p = 0.038, p < 0.001). Nomogram concordance indices of 0.70 for OS and 0.77 for RFS were established by 200 cycles of bootstrap resampling for each of the two outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that, in patients with EGEJC, pre- and post-treatment clinical parameters contribute to the establishment of prognostic nomograms of OS and RFS. Upon validation, these nomograms could prove useful in the clinic to individualize therapy.

Localized gastric cancer treated with chemoradation without surgery: UTMD Anderson Cancer Center experience.

BACKGROUND: In patients with localized gastric cancer (LGC) who are unfit for surgery, decline surgery, or have unresectable cancer, chemoradiotherapy may provide palliation; however, data in the literature are sparse. METHODS: We identified 66 LGC patients who had definitive chemoradiation but no surgery. All patients had baseline and postchemoradiation staging including an endoscopic biopsy. Multiple statistical methods were used to analyze outcomes. RESULTS: Most patients were men and most had stage III or IV cancer. Five patients were surgery eligible but declined to have surgery. The median follow-up time was 33.9 months (95% CI 18.3-49.6). The median survival time (MST) for 66 patients was only 14.5 months (95% CI 10.8-19.7) and the median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 5.03 months (95% CI 4.67-6.40). The estimated overall survival (OS) and RFS rates at 3 years were 22.6% (95% CI 13.7-37.3) and 7.7% (95% CI 3.2-18.6), respectively. Twenty-three (35%) patients who achieved a clinical complete response (cCR; negative postchemoradiation biopsy and no progression by imaging) fared better than those who achieved less than cCR (

Outcome of trimodality-eligible esophagogastric cancer patients who declined surgery after preoperative chemoradiation.

BACKGROUND: For patients with localized esophageal cancer (EC) who can withstand surgery, the preferred therapy is chemoradiation followed by surgery (trimodality). However, after achieving a clinical complete response [clinCR; defined as both post-chemoradiation endoscopic biopsy showing no cancer and physiologic uptake by positron emission tomography (PET)], some patients decline surgery. The literature on the outcome of such patients is sparse. METHOD: Between 2002 and 2011, we identified 622 trimodality-eligible EC patients in our prospectively maintained databases. All patients had to be trimodality eligible and must have completed preoperative staging after chemoradiation that included repeat endoscopic biopsy and PET among other routine tests. RESULTS: Out of 622 trimodality-eligible patients identified, 61 patients (9.8%) declined surgery. All 61 patients had a clinCR. The median age was 69 years (range 47-85). Males (85.2%) and Caucasians (88.5%) were dominant. Baseline stage was II (44.2%) or III (52.5%), and histology was adenocarcinoma (65.6%) or squamous cell carcinoma (29.5%). Forty-two patients are alive at a median follow-up of 50.9 months (95% CI 39.5-62.3). The 5-year overall and relapse-free survival rates were 58.1 ± 8.4 and 35.3 ± 7.6%, respectively. Of 13 patients with local recurrence during surveillance, 12 had successful salvage resection. CONCLUSION: Although the outcome of 61 EC patients with clinCR who declined surgery appears reasonable, in the absence of a validated prediction/prognosis model, surgery must be encouraged for all trimodality-eligible patients.

Advanced gastroesophageal carcinoma: an update on the current therapeutic landscape.

Gastroesophageal cancers are usually diagnosed in an advanced stage, and effective treatment options remain limited. The discovery of new drugs to treat these diseases has been slow for decades. An occasional favorable outcome, trastuzumab, in patients with HER2 protein-overexpressing tumors, is welcome but not sufficient. For advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (AGC), fluoropyrimidines (given orally or intravenously) plus a platinum compound (usually cisplatin) have been accepted as a global reference to streamline new drug development. The addition of a third cytotoxic (docetaxel or epirubicin) can produce modest prolongation of overall survival. In some European countries, the irinotecanbased regimen is considered as an alternative to platinum-based first-line therapy. Selecting a safe, effective, and convenient regimen is desirable and is the focus of current research. Additionally, it appears that survival differences by regions (e.g., Asians survive longer compared to Western and South American patients) are likely due to second- and third-line therapies, differences in tumor biology, or unknown reasons. Future progress could come from 1 of 2 approaches: (1) conducting many empiric phase III trials in unselected patients or (2) through detailed studies of molecular biology to develop rational therapies. We provide a brief update on the treatment of AGC.

Treatment Patterns for Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma in the United States.

Despite the increasing incidence of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJA), the optimal treatment strategy for the disease remains unknown. The objective of this study was to describe treatment patterns for GEJA in the United States. The National Cancer Database was searched to identify all patients who underwent resection of the lower esophagus, abdominal esophagus, and/or gastric cardia for GEJA between 2006 and 2016. Patients were grouped by clinical disease stage: early localized (L; T1-2N0), locally advanced (LA; T3-4N0), regional (R; T1-2N+), or regionally advanced (RA; T3-4N+). The search identified 28,852 GEJA patients. The dominant age range was 60-69 years (39%). Most patients were men (85%), and most were white (92%). Most L patients (69%) underwent upfront surgery, whereas most LA, R, and RA patients received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT; 86%, 80%, and 90%, respectively). Among patients who received NAT, 85% received chemoradiotherapy. Adjuvant therapy was relatively uncommon across all groups (15-20%). In the LA, R, and RA groups, overall survival was greater in patients who received NAT compared to upfront surgery (p < 0.001). With the exception of patients with early localized node-negative disease, most GEJA patients receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy despite the lack of prospective trials reporting survival benefit over chemotherapy alone.