Impact of 18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). RESULTS: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870-1253 in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.

Measurement of metabolite levels and treatment-induced changes in hepatic metastases of gastro-esophageal cancer using 7-T phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging.

Methods for early treatment response evaluation to systemic therapy of liver metastases are lacking. Tumor tissue often exhibits an increased ratio of phosphomonoesters to phosphodiesters (PME/PDE), which can be noninvasively measured by phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy (31P MRS), and may be a marker for early therapy response assessment in liver metastases. However, with commonly used 31P surface coils for liver 31P MRS, the liver is not fully covered, and metastases may be missed. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of 31P MRS imaging (31P MRSI) with full liver coverage to assess 31P metabolite levels and chemotherapy-induced changes in liver metastases of gastro-esophageal cancer, using a 31P whole-body birdcage transmit coil in combination with a 31P body receive array at 7 T. 3D 31P MRSI data were acquired in two patients with hepatic metastases of esophageal cancer, before the start of chemotherapy and after 2 (and 9 in patient 2) weeks of chemotherapy. 3D 31P MRSI acquisitions were performed using an integrated 31P whole-body transmit coil in combination with a 16-channel body receive array at 7 T, with a field of view covering the full abdomen and a nominal voxel size of 20-mm isotropic. From the 31P MRSI data, 12 31P metabolite signals were quantified. Prior to chemotherapy initiation, both PMEs, that is, phosphocholine (PC) and phosphoethanolamine (PE), were significantly higher in all metastases compared with the levels previously determined in the liver of healthy volunteers. After 2 weeks of chemotherapy, PC and PE levels remained high or even increased further, resulting in increased PME/PDE ratios compared with healthy liver tissue, in correspondence with the clinical assessment of progressive disease after 2 months of chemotherapy. The suggested approach may present a viable tool for early therapy (non)response assessment of tumor metabolism in patients with liver metastases.

31 P MR Spectroscopy in the Pancreas: Repeatability, Comparison With Liver, and Pilot Pancreatic Cancer Data.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive evaluation of phosphomonoesters (PMEs) and phosphodiesters (PDEs) by 31-phosphorus MR spectroscopy (31 P MRS) may have potential for early therapy (non-)response assessment in cancer. However, 31 P MRS has not yet been applied to investigate the human pancreas in vivo. PURPOSE: To assess the technical feasibility and repeatability of 31 P MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) of the pancreas, compare 31 P metabolite levels between pancreas and liver, and determine the feasibility of 31 P MRSI in pancreatic cancer. STUDY TYPE: Prospective cohort study. POPULATION: 10 healthy subjects (age 34 ± 12 years, four females) and one patient (73-year-old female) with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 7-T, 31 P FID-MRSI, 1 H gradient-echo MRI. ASSESSMENT: 31 P FID-MRSI of the abdomen (including the pancreas and liver) was performed with a nominal voxel size of 20 mm (isotropic). For repeatability measurements, healthy subjects were scanned twice on the same day. The patient was only scanned once. Test-retest 31 P MRSI data of pancreas and liver voxels (segmented on 1 H MRI) of healthy subjects were quantified by fitting in the time domain and signal amplitudes were normalized to γ-adenosine triphosphate. In addition, the PME/PDE ratio was calculated. Metabolite levels were averaged over all voxels within the pancreas, right liver lobe and left liver lobe, respectively. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeatability of test-retest data from healthy pancreas was assessed by paired t-tests, Bland-Altman analyses, and calculation of the intrasubject coefficients of variation (CoVs). Significant differences between healthy pancreas and right and left liver lobes were assessed with a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The intrasubject CoVs for PME, PDE, and PME/PDE in healthy pancreas were below 20%. Furthermore, PME and PME/PDE were significantly higher in pancreas compared to liver. In the patient with pancreatic cancer, qualitatively, elevated relative PME signals were observed in comparison with healthy pancreas. DATA CONCLUSION: In vivo 31 P MRSI of the human healthy pancreas and in pancreatic cancer may be feasible at 7 T. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients With Gastroesophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for various stages of gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) is often neurotoxic. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study investigates the incidence and severity of CIPN and its association with HRQoL in patients with GEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who received chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy for GEC were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient-reported data (measured using the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 and EORTC QLQ-C30) were collected through the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP) at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment initiation. Linear mixed effects models were constructed to assess CIPN and the correlation between CIPN and HRQoL was analyzed using Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: A total of 2,135 patients were included (chemoradiotherapy: 1,593; chemotherapy with curative intent: 295; palliative chemotherapy: 247). In all 3 treatment groups, CIPN significantly increased during treatment (adjusted mean score of CIPN at 6 months: chemoradiotherapy, 8.3 [baseline: 5.5]; chemotherapy with curative intent, 16.0 [baseline: 5.6]; palliative therapy, 25.4 [baseline: 10.7]). For chemoradiotherapy, the adjusted mean score continued to increase after treatment (24 months: 11.2). For chemotherapy with curative intent and palliative therapy, the adjusted mean score of CIPN decreased after treatment but did not return to baseline values. CIPN was negatively correlated with HRQoL in all treatment groups, although significance and strength of the correlation differed over time. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the poor prognosis of GEC, it is essential to consider side effects of (neurotoxic) treatment. The high prevalence and association with HRQoL indicate the need for early recognition of CIPN.

Evaluation of treatment strategies and survival of patients with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer is controversial and varies internationally. This study aimed to describe treatment and survival of patients with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients staged with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer who were registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) were included. All patients were categorized by the treatment modality received. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the overall survival of them. RESULTS: Between 2015-2020, 286 patients with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer were included. Treatment consisted of preoperative chemoradiotherapy/chemotherapy followed by surgery (8%), chemoradiotherapy alone (35%), chemotherapy alone (6%), radiotherapy alone (19%) and best supportive care (32%). The median follow-up was 28.1 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of each group were: 82%, 58%, 49% for preoperative therapy plus surgery; 53%, 27%, 16% for chemoradiotherapy only; 13%, 0%, 0% for chemotherapy only; 13%, 0%, 0% for radiotherapy only; and 5%, 0%, 0% for best supportive care. CONCLUSION: In a selected group of patients, preoperative therapy followed by esophagectomy may lead to improved survival, which is comparable to patients with <cT4bM0 tumors. Therefore, reevaluation following chemo(radio)therapy is recommended in these patients to evaluate the possibility of additional surgical resection.

Implementation of Best Practices in Pancreatic Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients). Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score). Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.