Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA) improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated oesophagogastric cancer patients from the MAGIC and the ST03 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour-associated fat cells without desmoplastic stroma reaction at the invasion front (Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA)) is a prognostic biomarker in gastric and colon cancer. The clinical utility of the SARIFA status in oesophagogastric cancer patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy is currently unknown. METHODS: The SARIFA status was determined in tissue sections from patients recruited into the MAGIC (n = 292) or ST03 (n = 693) trials treated with surgery alone (S, MAGIC) or perioperative chemotherapy (MAGIC, ST03). The relationship between SARIFA status, clinicopathological factors, overall survival (OS) and treatment was analysed. RESULTS: The SARIFA status was positive in 42% MAGIC trial S patients, 28% MAGIC and 48% ST03 patients after pre-operative chemotherapy. SARIFA status was related to OS in MAGIC trial S patients and was an independent prognostic biomarker in ST03 trial patients (HR 1.974, 95% CI 1.555-2.507, p < 0.001). ST03 patients with lymph node metastasis (ypN + ) and SARIFA-positive tumours had poorer OS than patients with ypN+ and SARIFA-negative tumours (plogrank < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SARIFA status has clinical utility as prognostic biomarker in oesophagogastric cancer patients irrespective of treatment modality. Whilst underlying biological mechanisms warrant further investigation, the SARIFA status might be used to identify new drug targets, potentially enabling repurposing of existing drugs targeting lipid metabolism.

Prognostic Significance of Negative Lymph Node Long Axis in Esophageal Cancer: Results From the Randomized Controlled UK MRC OE02 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between negative lymph node (LNneg) size as a possible surrogate marker of the host antitumor immune response and overall survival (OS) in esophageal cancer (EC) patients. BACKGROUND: Lymph node (LN) status is a well-established prognostic factor in EC patients. An increased number of LNnegs is related to better survival in EC. Follicular hyperplasia in LNneg is associated with better survival in cancer-bearing mice and might explain increased LN size. METHODS: The long axis of 304 LNnegs was measured in hematoxylin-eosin stained sections from resection specimens of 367 OE02 trial patients (188 treated with surgery alone (S), 179 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (C+S)) as a surrogate of LN size. The relationship between LNneg size, LNneg microarchitecture, clinicopathological variables, and OS was analyzed. RESULTS: Large LNneg size was related to lower pN category ( P = 0.01) and lower frequency of lymphatic invasion ( P = 0.02) in S patients only. Irrespective of treatment, (y)pN0 patients with large LNneg had the best OS. (y)pN1 patients had the poorest OS irrespective of LNneg size ( P < 0.001). Large LNneg contained less lymphocytes ( P = 0.02) and had a higher germinal centers/lymphocyte ratio ( P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate LNneg size in EC patients randomized to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery or surgery alone. Our pilot study suggests that LNneg size is a surrogate marker of the host antitumor immune response and a potentially clinically useful new prognostic biomarker for (y)pN0 EC patients. Future studies need to confirm our results and explore underlying biological mechanisms.

The Cancer Hub Approach for Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery During COVID-19 Pandemic: Outcomes from a UK Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused unprecedented disruption to global healthcare delivery. In England, the majority of elective surgery was postponed or cancelled to increase intensive care capacity. Our unit instituted the 'RM Partners Cancer Hub' at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, to deliver ongoing cancer surgery in a 'COVID-lite' setting. This article describes the operational set-up and outcomes for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer resections performed during this period. METHODS: From April 2020 to April 2021, the Royal Marsden Hospital formed the RM Partners Cancer Hub. This approach was designed to coordinate resources and provide as much oncological treatment as feasible for patients across the RM Partners West London Cancer Alliance. A UGI surgical case prioritisation strategy, along with strict infection control pathways and pre-operative screening protocols, was adopted. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients underwent surgery for confirmed or suspected UGI cancer during the RM Partners Cancer Hub, with 213 completed resections and combined 90-day mortality rate of 3.5%. Good short-term survival outcomes were demonstrated with 2-year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) for oesophageal (70.8% and 72.9%), gastric (66.7% and 83.3%) and pancreatic cancer resections (68.0% and 88.0%). One patient who developed perioperative COVID-19 during the RM Partners Cancer Hub operation made a full recovery with no lasting clinical sequelae. CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates that the RM Partners Cancer Hub approach is a safe strategy for continuing upper gastrointestinal (GI) resectional surgery during future periods of healthcare service disruption.

Identifying the limitations of cardiopulmonary exercise testing prior to esophagectomy using a pooled analysis of patient-level data.

Preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) provides an objective assessment of aerobic fitness in patients undergoing surgery. While peak oxygen uptake during exercise (VO2peak) and anaerobic threshold have demonstrated a moderate correlation with the development of complications following esophagectomy, no clinically useful threshold values have been defined. By pooling patient level data from existing studies, we aimed to define optimal thresholds for preoperative CPET parameters to predict patients at high risk of postoperative complications. Studies reporting on the relationship between preoperative CPET variables and post-esophagectomy complications were determined from a comprehensive literature search. Patient-level data were obtained from six contributing centers for pooled-analyses. Outcomes of interest included cardiopulmonary and non-cardiopulmonary complications, unplanned intensive care unit readmission, and 90-day and 12-month all-cause mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curves and logistic regression models estimated the predictive value of CPET parameters for each individual outcome of interest. This analysis comprised of 621 patients who underwent CPET prior to esophagectomy during the period from January 2004 to March 2017. For both anaerobic threshold and VO2peak, none of the receiver operating characteristic curves achieved an area under the curve value > 0.66 for the outcomes of interest. The discriminatory ability of CPET for determining high-risk patients was found to be poor in patients undergoing an esophagectomy. CPET may only carry an adjunct role to clinical decision-making.

The role of surgery after prolonged primary chemotherapy for advanced oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most patients presenting with oesophageal cancer do so with advanced disease not suitable for surgery. However, there are examples of encouraging survival following surgery in highly selected patients who respond well to chemotherapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who presented with advanced but nonvisceral metastatic oesophageal cancer. Consecutive patients on a prolonged primary chemotherapy pathway who underwent surgical resection following a favourable response to chemotherapy were included. Survival and recurrence rates were analysed using Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 57 patients included in the cohort operated between 2007 and 2015, the overall median survival was 44 months and the 5-year survival was 42%. Prechemotherapy cN0/cN1 (HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.62) conferred an independent survival advantage compared to cN2 and cN3 disease. Poor differentiation (HR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.11-5.42), R1 resection (HR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.14-5.19) and advanced nodal status (HR: 3.28, 95% CI: 1.44-7.47) predicted worse survival on univariable analysis. Poor differentiation (HR: 3.93, 95% CI: 1.62-9.56) was independently associated with poor survival when adjusted for other variables. CONCLUSION: Patients who present with advanced inoperable oesophageal cancer who have a favourable response to chemotherapy represent a limited group of patients who may benefit from surgery.

Adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery for oesophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with clear resection margins.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and surgery is contentious. In UK practice, surgical resection margin status is often used to classify patients into receiving adjuvant treatment. This study aimed to assess any survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with clear resection margins. METHODS: This was a retrospective collaborative cohort study combining two prospectively collected UK institutional databases of patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity matched analyses were used to compare overall and recurrence-free survival according to the adjuvant treatment. RESULTS: Of 374 patients with clear resection margins, 221 patients (59%) had no adjuvant treatment, 137 patients (37%) had adjuvant chemotherapy and 16 patients (4%) had adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. For patients who had received NAC (290, 76%), when adjuvant chemotherapy was compared to no adjuvant treatment, hazard ratios (HRs) favoured adjuvant chemotherapy but did not reach independent significance (overall survival [OS] HR 0.65 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.06; p .0.087). Responders to NAC (Mandard 1-3) were seemingly more likely to demonstrate a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.42 95% CI 0.15-1.11; p .1.081). CONCLUSIONS: Although no independent survival benefit was observed, the point estimates favoured adjuvant treatment, predominantly in patients with chemo-responsive tumours.

Consensus recommendations for the standardized histopathological evaluation and reporting after radical oesophago-gastrectomy (HERO consensus).

BACKGROUND: Variation in the approach, radicality, and quality of gastroesophageal surgery impacts patient outcomes. Pathological outcomes such as lymph node yield are routinely used as surrogate markers of surgical quality, but are subject to significant variations in histopathological evaluation and reporting. A multi-society consensus group was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations for the standardized assessment of gastroesophageal cancer specimens. METHODS: A consensus group comprised of surgeons, pathologists, and oncologists was convened on behalf of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain & Ireland. Literature was reviewed for 17 key questions. Draft recommendations were voted upon via an anonymous Delphi process. Consensus was considered achieved where >70% of participants were in agreement. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 18 statements for all 17 questions. Twelve strong recommendations regarding preparation and assessment of lymph nodes, margins, and reporting methods were made. Importantly, there was 100% agreement that the all specimens should be reported using the Royal College of Pathologists Guidelines as the minimum acceptable dataset. In addition, two weak recommendations regarding method and duration of specimen fixation were made. Four topics lacked sufficient evidence and no recommendation was made. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus recommendations provide explicit guidance for gastroesophageal cancer specimen preparation and assessment, to provide maximum benefit for patient care and standardize reporting to allow benchmarking and improvement of surgical quality.

Histological intratumoral heterogeneity in pretreatment esophageal cancer biopsies predicts survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from the UK MRC OE02 trial.

Despite the use of multimodal treatment, survival of esophageal cancer (EC) patients remains poor. One proposed explanation for the relatively poor response to cytotoxic chemotherapy is intratumor heterogeneity. The aim was to establish a statistical model to objectively measure intratumor heterogeneity of the proportion of tumor (IHPoT) and to use this newly developed method to measure IHPoT in the pretreatment biopsies from from EC patients recruited to the OE02 trial. A statistical mixed effect model (MEM) was established for estimating IHPoT based on variation in hematoxylin/eosin (HE) stained pretreatment biopsy pieces from the same individual in 218 OE02 trial patients (103 treated by chemotherapy and surgery (chemo+surgery); 115 patients treated by surgery alone). The relationship between IHPoT, prognosis, chemotherapy survival benefit, and clinicopathological variables was assessed. About 97 (44.5%) and 121 (55.5%) ECs showed high and low IHPoT, respectively. There was no significant difference in IHPoT between surgery (median [range], 0.1637 [0-3.17]) and chemo+surgery (median [range], 0.1692 [0-2.69]) patients (P = 0.43). Chemo+surgery patients with low IHPoT had a significantly longer survival than surgery patients (HR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.20-2.75, P = 0.005). There was no survival difference between chemo+surgery and surgery patients with high IHPoT (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.72-1.81, P = 0.566). This is the first study suggesting that IHPoT measured in the pretreatment biopsy can predict chemotherapy survival benefit in EC patients. IHPoT may represent a clinically useful biomarker for patient treatment stratification. Future studies should determine if pathologists can reliably estimate IHPoT.

Multicenter Study of Presentation, Management, and Postoperative and Long-Term Outcomes of Septegenerians and Octogenerians Undergoing Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy for elderly patients with gastric cancer is still controversial. This study aimed to assess the impact of age on short- and long-term outcomes after treatment for primary gastric cancer. METHODS: From January 2004 to December 2014, a total of 507 patients underwent gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma at two high-volume upper gastrointestinal (GI) centers. The patients were classified into three groups as follows: group A (patients ≤ 69 years old, n = 266), group B (patients 70-79 years old, n = 166), and group C (patients ≥ 80 years old, n = 75). Clinicopathologic characteristics as well as, short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The patients in groups B and C had more comorbidities, whereas the younger subjects (group A) had more advanced tumor stages. Less extensive surgery was performed in the groups B and C. Older patients (age ≥ 70 years) had more postoperative medical complications. Moreover, group C had a higher postoperative mortality rate (8.1%) than group A (1.8%) or group B (1.9%). In the multivariable analysis, age older than 80 years (group C) was a negative independent factor for overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.36) compared with group A, whereas group B seemed to have a comparable risk (HR, 1.37). Notably, the three groups did not show significant differences in disease-related survival (DRS). CONCLUSION: The data suggest that patients 70-79 years of age show a risk of postoperative death comparable with that of younger subjects. However, patients older than 80 years should be carefully selected for surgical treatment due to the increased risk of postoperative mortality.

Prognostic value of pathological lymph node status and primary tumour regression grading following neoadjuvant chemotherapy - results from the MRC OE02 oesophageal cancer trial.

AIMS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains an important therapeutic option for advanced oesophageal cancer (OC). Pathological tumour regression grade (TRG) may offer additional information by directing adjuvant treatment and/or follow-up but its clinical value remains unclear. We analysed the prognostic value of TRG and associated pathological factors in OC patients enrolled in the Medical Research Council (MRC) OE02 trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Histopathology was reviewed in 497 resections from OE02 trial participants randomised to surgery (S group; n = 244) or NAC followed by surgery [chemotherapy plus surgery (CS) group; n = 253]. The association between TRG groups [responders (TRG1-3) versus non-responders (TRG4-5)], pathological lymph node (LN) status and overall survival (OS) was analysed. One hundred and ninety-five of 253 (77%) CS patients were classified as 'non-responders', with a significantly higher mortality risk compared to responders [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-2.24, P = 0.026]. OS was significantly better in patients without LN metastases irrespective of TRG [non-responders HR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.33-2.63, P < 0.001 versus responders HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.11-4.10, P = 0.024]. In multivariate analyses, LN status was the only independent factor predictive of OS in CS patients (HR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.42-2.62, P < 0.001). Exploratory subgroup analyses excluding radiotherapy-exposed patients (n = 48) showed similar prognostic outcomes. CONCLUSION: Lymph node status post-NAC is the most important prognostic factor in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, irrespective of TRG. Potential clinical implications, e.g. adjuvant treatment or intensified follow-up, reinforce the importance of LN dissection for staging and prognostication.

Peri-operative chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in operable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (UK Medical Research Council ST03): primary analysis results of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard of care for patients with resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, improves the proportion of patients responding to treatment in advanced gastric cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2-3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically proven, resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma from 87 UK hospitals and cancer centres. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery. Patients in the control group (chemotherapy alone) received three pre-operative and three post-operative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy: 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1250 mg/m2 oral capecitabine on days 1-21. Patients in the investigational group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7·5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and for six further doses once every 21 days following chemotherapy, as maintenance treatment. Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, where staff used a computer programme that implemented a minimisation algorithm with a random element to establish the allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy centre, site of tumour, and tumour stage. The primary outcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we report the primary analysis results of the trial; all patients have completed treatment and the required number of primary outcome events has been reached. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 46020948, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00450203. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2007, and March 25, 2014, 1063 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530). At the time of analysis, 508 deaths were recorded (248 in the chemotherapy alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). 3-year overall survival was 50·3% (95% CI 45·5-54·9) in the chemotherapy alone group and 48·1% (43·2-52·7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·91-1·29; p=0·36). Apart from neutropenia no other toxic effects were reported at grade 3 or worse severity in more than 10% of patients in either group. Wound healing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in this group compared with 33 (7%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. In patients who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 [10%] of 233 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 52 [24%] of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients with lower oesophageal or junctional tumours planned for an oesophagogastric resection was stopped towards the end of the trial. Serious adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophil count (42 events vs 53). INTERPRETATION: The results of this trial do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy for patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound healing. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and F Hoffmann-La Roche Limited.

Improved survival in resected oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinomas over a decade: the Royal Marsden experience 2001-2010.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma (OGA) treatment remains challenging. Improvements in early diagnosis, staging and management might have contributed to survival prolongation. To examine this hypothesis, we assessed outcomes of resected OGA patients in our institution over 10 years, comparing two time periods, 2001-2005 and 2006-2010. METHODS: Records from patients who had undergone surgery with radical intent and follow-up for OGA were retrospectively reviewed. Patients followed up at hospitals other than the Royal Marsden Hospital were excluded. Two different cohorts were identified: patients with oesophageal and type I or type II oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) tumours, and patients with gastric and type III OGJ tumours. RESULTS: We identified 360 patients: 147 from 2001-2005 and 213 from 2006-2010. The characteristics were comparable across the two time periods. Between 2001-2005 and 2006-2010, the percentage of R0 resections increased (from 67.1 to 81.1 % for proximal tumours and from 76.3 to 95.9 % for gastric and type III OGJ tumours). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved increased over time. The 5-year overall survival rate increased significantly from 42.3 to 56.6 % for proximal tumours and from 38.8 to 55.3 % for gastric and type III OGJ tumours. Similarly, the disease-free survival rate significantly increased from 34.6 to 53.5 % for proximal tumours and from 35.9 to 51.1 % for gastric and type III OGJ tumours. CONCLUSION: This study comprehensively describes the improvement in survival outcomes in a major UK referral centre over a 10-year period, identifying potentially relevant factors such as increased number of R0 resections and higher lymph node yield.

Third international conference of the European Union Network of Excellence on gastric and esophagogastric junction cancer, Cologne, Germany, June 2012.

In 2012 the European Union Network of Excellence on gastric and esophagogastric junction cancer (EUNE) held its third conference in Cologne, Germany. The main themes discussed included translational research, standard and audit, early diagnosis, development of surgical treatment, adequate surgery for EGJ cancer, adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment, prevention of peritoneal carcinomatosis and finally education and training. The meeting was attended by 150 experts from 18 different countries.

Factors associated with early recurrence and death after esophagectomy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Accurate selection of patients for radical treatment of esophageal cancer is essential to avoid early recurrence and death (ERD) after surgery. We sought to evaluate a large series of consecutive resections to assess factors that may be associated with this poor outcome. METHODS: This was a cohort study including 680 patients operated for esophageal cancer between 2000 and 2010. The poor outcome group comprised 100 patients with tumor recurrence and death within 1 year of surgery. The comparison group comprised 267 long-term survivors, defined as those surviving more than 3 years from surgery. Pathological characteristics associated with poor outcome were analyzed using logistic regression to determine odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: On the adjusted model T stage and N stage predicted poor survival, with the greatest risk being patients with locally advanced tumors and three or more involved lymph nodes (OR 10.6, 95% CI 2.8-40.0). Poor differentiation (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4-5.5), chemotherapy response (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.2-10.6), and involved resection margins (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.0) were all significant independent prognostic markers in the multivariable model. There was a trend toward worse survival with lymphovascular invasion (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9-4.2) and low albumin (OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.8-4.4) but not of statistical significance in the adjusted model. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cancer patients with poorly differentiated tumors and three or more involved lymph nodes have a particularly high risk of ERD after surgery. Accurate risk stratification of patients may identify a group who would be better served by alternative oncological treatment strategies.

Circumferential resection margin rates in esophageal cancer resection- oncological equivalency and comparable clinical outcomes between open versus minimally invasive techniques: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Radical surgery for esophageal cancer requires macroscopic and microscopic clearance of all malignant tissue. A critical element of the procedure is achieving a negative circumferential margin (CRM) to minimize local recurrence. The utility of minimally invasive surgery poses challenges in replicating techniques developed in open surgery, particularly for hiatal dissection in esophago-gastrectomy. In this study, the technical approach and clinical and oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy are described with particular reference to CRM involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cohort study included all patients undergoing either open or laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy between January 2004 to June 2022 in a single tertiary center. A standard surgical technique for hiatal dissection of the esophago-gastric junction developed in open surgery was adapted for a laparoscopic approach. Clinical parameters, length of stay (LOS), post-operative complications and mortality data were collected and analyzed by a Mann-Whitney U or Fisher's exact method. RESULTS: Overall 447 patients underwent an esophago-gastrectomy in the study with 219 open and 228 laparoscopic procedures. The CRM involvement was 18.8% in open surgery and 13.6% in laparoscopic surgery. The 90-day-mortality for open surgery was 4.1% compared with 2.2% for laparoscopic procedures. Median Intensive care unit (ITU), inpatient LOS and 30-day readmission rates were shorter for laparoscopic compared with open esophago-gastrectomy (ITU: 5 versus 8 days, P=0.0004; LOS: 14 versus 20 days, P=0.022; 30-day re-admission 7.46% versus 10.50%). Post-operative complication rates were comparable across both cohorts. The rates of starting adjuvant chemotherapy were 51.8% after open and 74.4% in laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: This study presents a standardized surgical approach to hiatal dissection for esophageal cancer. We present equivalence between open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy in clinical, oncological and survival outcomes with similar rates of CRM involvement. We also observe a significantly shorter hospital length of stay with the minimally invasive approach.

International External Validation of Risk Prediction Model of 90-Day Mortality after Gastrectomy for Cancer Using Machine Learning.

BACKGROUND: Radical gastrectomy remains the main treatment for gastric cancer, despite its high mortality. A clinical predictive model of 90-day mortality (90DM) risk after gastric cancer surgery based on the Spanish EURECCA registry database was developed using a matching learning algorithm. We performed an external validation of this model based on data from an international multicenter cohort of patients. METHODS: A cohort of patients from the European GASTRODATA database was selected. Demographic, clinical, and treatment variables in the original and validation cohorts were compared. The performance of the model was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) for a random forest model. RESULTS: The validation cohort included 2546 patients from 24 European hospitals. The advanced clinical T- and N-category, neoadjuvant therapy, open procedures, total gastrectomy rates, and mean volume of the centers were significantly higher in the validation cohort. The 90DM rate was also higher in the validation cohort (5.6%) vs. the original cohort (3.7%). The AUC in the validation model was 0.716. CONCLUSION: The externally validated model for predicting the 90DM risk in gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy with curative intent continues to be as useful as the original model in clinical practice.

Practice guidance on the management of acute and chronic gastrointestinal problems arising as a result of treatment for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms after cancer therapies which have a moderate or severe impact on quality of life is similar to the number diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease annually. However, in contrast to patients with inflammatory bowel disease, most of these patients are not referred for gastroenterological assessment. Clinicians who do see these patients are often unaware of the benefits of targeted investigation (which differ from those required to exclude recurrent cancer), the range of available treatments and how the pathological processes underlying side effects of cancer treatment differ from those in benign GI disorders. This paper aims to help clinicians become aware of the problem and suggests ways in which the panoply of syndromes can be managed. METHODS: A multidisciplinary literature review was performed to develop guidance to facilitate clinical management of GI side effects of cancer treatments. RESULTS: Different pathological processes within the GI tract may produce identical symptoms. Optimal management requires appropriate investigations and coordinated multidisciplinary working. Lactose intolerance, small bowel bacterial overgrowth and bile acid malabsorption frequently develop during or after chemotherapy. Toxin-negative Clostridium difficile and cytomegalovirus infection may be fulminant in immunosuppressed patients and require rapid diagnosis and treatment. Hepatic side effects include reactivation of viral hepatitis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, steatosis and steatohepatitis. Anticancer biological agents have multiple interactions with conventional drugs. Colonoscopy is contraindicated in neutropenic enterocolitis but endoscopy may be life-saving in other patients with GI bleeding. After cancer treatment, simple questions can identify patients who need referral for specialist management of GI symptoms. Other troublesome pelvic problems (eg, urinary, sexual, nutritional) are frequent and may also require specialist input. The largest group of patients affected by chronic GI symptoms are those who have been treated with pelvic radiotherapy. Their complex symptoms, often caused by more than one diagnosis, need systematic investigation by gastroenterologists when empirical treatments fail. All endoscopic and surgical interventions after radiotherapy are potentially hazardous as radiotherapy may induce significant local ischaemia. The best current evidence for effective treatment of radiation-induced GI bleeding is with sucralfate enemas and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. CONCLUSIONS: All cancer units must develop simple methods to identify the many patients who need help and establish routine referral pathways to specialist gastroenterologists where patients can receive safe and effective treatment. Early contact with oncologists and/or specialist surgeons with input from the patient's family and friends often helps the gastroenterologist to refine management strategies. Increased training in the late effects of cancer treatment is required.