Esophagectomy vs Gastrectomy for Early Stage Adenocarcinoma of the Gastroesophageal Junction: What is the Optimal Oncologic Surgical Treatment?

Guidelines for the management of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma recommend esophagectomy as the preferred surgical treatment. Gastrectomy has been proposed as an equivalent procedure. This study aims to compare the oncologic outcomes of these operations. The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical T1N0M0 (all sizes) and T2N0M0 (≤2cm) GEJ adenocarcinoma from 2004-2017. Patients treated with surgery-only were included and were stratified by surgical treatment. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was used to create a balanced cohort. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate for factors predictive of treatment. Kaplan-Meier (KM) and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare overall survival (OS). 2,446 patients were identified. 75.1% received esophagectomy, while 24.9% were treated with gastrectomy. Patients at high volume facilities were more likely to undergo esophagectomy (OR 1.750, P < 0.001). Factors associated with lower likelihood of undergoing esophagectomy included age ≥75 years (OR 0.588, P = 0.001), female sex (OR 0.706, P = 0.003), and non-White race (OR 0.430, P < 0.001), compared to age ≤50 years, male, and White race, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, gastrectomy was associated with a higher rate of positive margins (4.1% vs 2.3%, P = 0.022). PSM yielded 591 pairs. In the matched cohort, patients treated with esophagectomy had improved 5-year OS compared to gastrectomy (70.6% vs 66.5%, P = 0.030). Multivariable analysis showed improved OS in patients treated with esophagectomy compared to gastrectomy (HR 0.767, P = 0.010). Esophagectomy is associatedwith improved survival and a lower incidence of positive margins in patients with early-stage GEJ adenocarcinoma when compared to gastrectomy.

Utilization and costs of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing and targeted therapy in Medicare patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines in 2013 and 2014 recommended Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) testing for metastatic lung adenocarcinoma patients as the efficacy of targeted therapies depends on the mutations. However, adherence to these guidelines and the corresponding costs have not been well-studied. METHODS: We identified 2362 patients at least 65 years old newly diagnosed with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma from January 2013 to December 2015 using the SEER-Medicare database. We examined the utilization patterns of EGFR testing and targeted therapies including erlotinib and afatinib. We further examined the costs of both EGFR testing and targeted therapy in terms of Medicare costs and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. RESULTS: The EGFR testing rate increased from 38% in 2013 to 51% and 49% in 2014 and 2015 respectively. The testing rate was 54% among the 394 patients who received erlotinib, and 52% among the 42 patients who received afatinib. The median Medicare and OOP costs for testing were $1483 and $293. In contrast, the costs for targeted therapy were substantially higher with median 30-day costs at $6114 and $240 for erlotinib and $6239 and $471 for afatinib. CONCLUSION: This population-based study suggests that testing guidelines improved the use of EGFR testing, although there was still a large proportion of patients receiving targeted therapy without testing. The costs of targeted therapy were substantially higher than the testing costs, highlighting the need to improve adherence to testing guidelines in order to improve clinical outcomes while reducing the economic burden for both Medicare and patients.