Variation in histopathological assessment and association with surgical quality indicators following oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Histopathological outcomes, such as lymph node yield and margin positivity, are used to benchmark and assess surgical centre quality, and are reported annually by the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) in England and Wales. The variation in pathological specimen assessment and how this affects these outcomes is not known. METHODS: A survey of practice was circulated to all tertiary oesophagogastric cancer centres across England and Wales. Questions captured demographic data, and information on how specimens were prepared and analysed. National performance data were retrieved from the NOGCA. Survey results were compared for tertiles of lymph node yield, and circumferential and longitudinal margins. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 32 of 37 units (86 per cent response rate), accounting for 93.1 per cent of the total oesophagectomy volume in England and Wales. Only 5 of 32 units met or exceeded current guidelines on specimen preparation according to the Royal College of Pathologists guidelines. There was wide variation in how centres defined positive (R1) margins, and how margins and lymph nodes were assessed. Centres with the highest nodal yield were more likely to use systematic fat blocking, and to re-examine specimens when the initial load was low. Systematic blocking of lesser curve fat resulted in significantly higher rates of patients with at least 15 lymph nodes examined (91.4 versus 86.5 per cent; P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Preparation and histopathological assessment of specimens varies significantly across institutions. This challenges the validity of currently used surgical quality metrics for oesophageal and other tumours.

Lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer at European specialist centres.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this project was to evaluate the current practice of D2 in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the first part of the study, 18 European high volume gastric cancer centres completed a questionnaire, designed to evaluate their preferred lymphadenectomy in a series of clinical scenarios. Surgeon compliance with international guidelines for lymphadenectomy was evaluated. In the second part, information on 381 gastrectomies performed for primary gastric cancer by participating surgeons from January to December 2015, was retrospectively collected. RESULTS: Surgical choice in clinical scenarios was affected by tumour stage and to a lesser extent, site and histotype. In particular, in early gastric cancer with diffuse histology D2 was recommended by >70% of surgeons, while this percentage dropped to 44% in intestinal histotypes. When surgeons selected a D2 dissection, the procedure was rarely fully compliant with the Japanese guidelines. In the review of gastrectomy experience an adequate number of nodes (≥15 nodes) was retrieved in 97% after D2. The number of retrieved nodes varied with median values ranging from 17 to 35 (p < 0.001) after D2. D2/D2+ was more frequently performed in mixed (80%) and diffuse (78%) cases than in intestinal cases (69%) (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Although an adequate lymphadenectomy was achieved in almost all cases in dedicated centres, there is still variation in the number of retrieved nodes. Tumor histology largely affects surgeon's choice as regards the extent of lymphadenectomy; however, the role of histology in planning surgical procedures needs to be verified in prospective trials.

Adjuvant therapy following oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma in patients with a positive resection margin.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy is contentious. In UK practice, surgical resection margin status is often used to classify patients for receiving adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with positive (R1) resection margins. METHODS: Two prospectively collected UK institutional databases were combined to identify eligible patients. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were used to compare overall and recurrence-free survival according to adjuvant treatment. Recurrence patterns were assessed as a secondary outcome. Propensity score-matched analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Of 616 patients included in the combined database, 242 patients who had an R1 resection were included in the study. Of these, 112 patients (46·3 per cent) received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 46 (19·0 per cent) were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and 84 (34·7 per cent) had no adjuvant treatment. In adjusted analysis, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·38 to 0·94; P = 0·026), with a benefit in terms of both local (HR 0·48, 0·24 to 0·99; P = 0·047) and systemic (HR 0·56, 0·33 to 0·94; P = 0·027) recurrence. In analyses stratified by tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-responders (Mandard tumour regression grade 4-5) treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had an overall survival benefit (HR 0·61, 0·38 to 0·97; P = 0·037). In propensity score-matched analysis, an overall survival benefit (HR 0·62, 0·39 to 0·98; P = 0·042) and recurrence-free survival benefit (HR 0·51, 0·30 to 0·87; P = 0·004) were observed for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy may improve overall survival and recurrence-free survival after margin-positive resection. This pattern seems most pronounced with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

ANTECEDENTES: El papel del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con adenocarcinoma esofagogástrico tratados con quimioterapia neoadyuvante es polémico. En la práctica del Reino Unido, el estado del margen de resección quirúrgico se utiliza a menudo para identificar a los pacientes que reciben tratamiento adyuvante. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el beneficio en la supervivencia del tratamiento adyuvante en pacientes con márgenes de resección positivos (R1). MÉTODOS: Se combinaron dos bases de datos de instituciones del Reino Unido que recogen información de forma prospectiva para identificar pacientes elegibles. Se utilizaron análisis de regresión de Cox ajustados para comparar la supervivencia global y la supervivencia libre de recidiva según el tratamiento adyuvante. Los patrones de recidiva se evaluaron como resultado secundario. También se realizó un análisis de emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión. RESULTADOS: De 616 pacientes incluidos en la base de datos combinada, se incluyeron en el estudio 242 pacientes con resección R1. De estos pacientes, 112 (46%) recibieron quimiorradioterapia adyuvante, 46 (19%) pacientes fueron tratados con quimioterapia adyuvante y 84 (35%) pacientes no recibieron ningún tratamiento. En el análisis ajustado, la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante mejoró la supervivencia libre de recidiva (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio, HR 0,59, i.c. del 95% 0,38-0,94; P = 0,026) con un beneficio tanto para la recidiva local (HR 0,48, i.c. del 95% 0,24-0,99; P = 0,047) como para la sistémica (HR 0,56, i.c. del 95% 0,33-0,94; P = 0,027). Cuando los pacientes se clasificaron según la respuesta tumoral a la quimioterapia neoadyuvante, los no respondedores (Mandard Grado 4/5) tratados con quimiorradioterapia adyuvante obtuvieron un beneficio en la supervivencia (HR 0,61, i.c. del 95% 0,38-0,97; P = 0,037). En el análisis por emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión, se observó un beneficio en la supervivencia global (HR 0,62, i.c. del 95% 0,39-0,98; P = 0,042) y en la supervivencia libre de recidiva (HR 0,51.i.c. del 95% 0,30-0,87; P = 0,004) con la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante frente a no recibir tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: El tratamiento adyuvante puede mejorar la supervivencia global y la supervivencia libre de recidiva en pacientes con margen de resección positivo. Este patrón parece más pronunciado con la quimiorradioterapia adyuvante en pacientes que no responden a la quimioterapia.

Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro-oesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: The UK Medical Research Council ST03 trial compared perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (B) in gastric and oesophagogastric junctional cancer. No difference in survival was noted between the arms of the trial. The present study reviewed the standards and performance of surgery in the context of the protocol-specified surgical criteria. METHODS: Surgical and pathological clinical report forms were reviewed to determine adherence to the surgical protocols, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and final histopathological stage for all patients treated in the study. RESULTS: Of 1063 patients randomized, 895 (84·2 per cent) underwent resection; surgical details were available for 880 (98·3 per cent). Postoperative assessment data were available for 873 patients; complications occurred in 458 (52·5 per cent) overall, of whom 71 (8·1 per cent) developed complications deemed to be life-threatening by the responsible clinician. The most common complications were respiratory (211 patients, 24·2 per cent). The anastomotic leak rate was 118 of 873 (13·5 per cent) overall; among those who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, the rate was higher in the group receiving ECX-B (23·6 per cent versus 9·9 per cent in the ECX group). Pathological assessment data were available for 845 patients. At least 15 nodes were removed in 82·5 per cent of resections and the median lymph node harvest was 24 (i.q.r. 17-34). Twenty-five or more nodes were removed in 49·0 per cent of patients. Histopathologically, the R1 rate was 24·9 per cent (208 of 834 patients). An R1 resection was more common for proximal tumours. CONCLUSION: In the ST03 trial, the performance of surgery met the protocol-stipulated criteria. Registration number: NCT00450203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

International comparison of treatment strategy and survival in metastatic gastric cancer.

Background: In the randomized Asian REGATTA trial, no survival benefit was shown for additional gastrectomy over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer with a single incurable factor, thereby discouraging surgery for these patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment strategies for patients with metastatic gastric cancer in daily practice in five European countries, along with relative survival in each country. Methods: Nationwide population-based data from Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden were combined. Patients with primary metastatic gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2014 were included. The proportion of gastric resections performed and the administration of chemotherapy (irrespective of surgery) within each country were determined. Relative survival according to country was calculated. Results: Overall, 15 057 patients with gastric cancer were included. The proportion of gastric resections varied from 8·1 per cent in the Netherlands and Denmark to 18·3 per cent in Belgium. Administration of chemotherapy was 39·2 per cent in the Netherlands, compared with 63·2 per cent in Belgium. The 6-month relative survival rate was between 39·0 (95 per cent c.i. 37·8 to 40·2) per cent in the Netherlands and 54·1 (52·1 to 56·9) per cent in Belgium. Conclusion: There is variation in the use of gastrectomy and chemotherapy in patients with metastatic gastric cancer, and subsequent differences in survival.

A seven-Gene Signature assay improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated gastroesophageal cancer patients from the MAGIC trial.

Background: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable gastroesophageal cancer, lymph node metastasis is the only validated prognostic variable; however, within lymph node groups there is still heterogeneity with risk of relapse. We hypothesized that gene profiles from neoadjuvant chemotherapy treated resection specimens from gastroesophageal cancer patients can be used to define prognostic risk groups to identify patients at risk for relapse. Patients and methods: The Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial (n = 202 with high quality RNA) samples treated with perioperative chemotherapy were profiled for a custom gastric cancer gene panel using the NanoString platform. Genes associated with overall survival (OS) were identified using penalized and standard Cox regression, followed by generation of risk scores and development of a NanoString biomarker assay to stratify patients into risk groups associated with OS. An independent dataset served as a validation cohort. Results: Regression and clustering analysis of MAGIC patients defined a seven-Gene Signature and two risk groups with different OS [hazard ratio (HR) 5.1; P < 0.0001]. The median OS of high- and low-risk groups were 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 6.5 and 13.2 months] and 80.9 months (CI: 43.0 months and not assessable), respectively. Risk groups were independently prognostic of lymph node metastasis by multivariate analysis (HR 3.6 in node positive group, P = 0.02; HR 3.6 in high-risk group, P = 0.0002), and not prognostic in surgery only patients (n = 118; log rank P = 0.2). A validation cohort independently confirmed these findings. Conclusions: These results suggest that gene-based risk groups can independently predict prognosis in gastroesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This signature and associated assay may help risk stratify these patients for post-surgery chemotherapy in future perioperative chemotherapy-based clinical trials.

North European comparison of treatment strategy and survival in older patients with resectable gastric cancer: A EURECCA upper gastrointestinal group analysis.

BACKGROUND: As older gastric cancer patients are often excluded from randomized clinical trials, the most appropriate treatment strategy for these patients remains unclear. The current study aimed to gain more insight in treatment strategies and relative survival of older patients with resectable gastric cancer across Europe. METHODS: Population-based cohorts from Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were combined. Patients ≥70 years with resectable gastric cancer (cT1-4a, cN0-2, cM0), diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 were included. Resection rates, administration of chemotherapy (irrespective of surgery), and relative survival within a country according to stage were determined. RESULTS: Overall, 6698 patients were included. The percentage of operated patients was highest in Belgium and lowest in Sweden for both stage II (74% versus 56%) and stage III disease (57% versus 25%). For stage III, chemotherapy administration was highest in Belgium (44%) and lowest in Sweden (2%). Three year relative survival for stage I, II, and III disease in Belgium was 67.8% (95% CI:62.8-72.6), 41.2% (95% CI:37.3-45.2), 17.8% (95% CI:12.5-24.0), compared with 56.7% (95% CI:51.5-61.7), 31.3% (95% CI:27.6-35.2), 8.2% (95% CI:4.4-13.4) in Sweden. There were no significant differences in treatment strategies of patients with stage I disease. CONCLUSION: Substantial treatment differences are observed across North European countries for patients with stages II and III resectable gastric cancer aged 70 years or older. In the present comparison, treatment strategies with a higher proportion of patients undergoing surgery seemed to be associated with higher survival rates for patients with stages II or III disease.

Lymph node regression and survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to define the pathological response in lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma and to quantify any associated survival benefit. METHODS: Lymph nodes retrieved at oesophagectomy were examined retrospectively by two pathologists for evidence of a response to chemotherapy. Patients were classified as lymph node-negative (either negative nodes with no evidence of previous tumour involvement or negative with evidence of complete regression) or positive (allocated a lymph node regression score based on the proportion of fibrosis to residual tumour). Lymph node responders (score 1, complete response; 2, less than 10 per cent remaining tumour; 3, 10-50 per cent remaining tumour) and non-responders (score 4, more than 50 per cent viable tumour; 5, no response) were compared in survival analyses using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 377 patients, 256 had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Overall, 68 of 256 patients (26·6 per cent) had a lymph node response and 115 (44·9 per cent) did not. The remaining 73 patients (28·5 per cent) had negative lymph nodes with no evidence of regression. Some patients had a lymph node response in the absence of a response in the primary tumour (27 of 99, 27 per cent). Lymph node responders had a significant survival benefit (P < 0·001), even when stratified by patients with or without a response in the primary tumour. On multivariable analysis, lymph node responders had decreased overall (hazard ratio 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·36 to 0·78) and disease-specific (HR 0·42, 0·27 to 0·66) mortality, and experienced reduced local and systemic recurrence. CONCLUSION: Lymph node regression is a strong prognostic factor and may be more important than response in the primary tumour.

The impact of obesity on esophagectomy: a meta-analysis.

The impact of body mass index (BMI) on postoperative outcomes after curative resection for esophageal cancer has been assessed in many studies worldwide with conflicting conclusions. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the influence of preoperative BMI on surgical and oncologic outcomes after radical surgery for esophageal cancer, in Western studies. A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify Western publications reporting BMI and outcomes following surgery for esophageal cancer. Articles that did not report preoperative BMI, postoperative morbidity, and early mortality were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using the OpenMetaAnalyst software (Version 10.10). One hundred and ninety records were examined and 8 studies were included with a total of 2838 patients. The study population was stratified into two groups: a nonobese group (BMI < 30 kg/m2), containing 2199 patients, and an obese group (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), with 639 patients. In the obese group, there was an increased risk (up to 35%) of anastomotic leak (P = 0.003; RR: 0.857, 95% CI: 0.497, 0.867). The obese group showed a significantly more favorable five-year overall survival (P = 0.011). Although there was a significant association between anastomotic leak and obesity, patients with obesity also have a better overall 5-year survival. This meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with obesity should be counseled regarding the specific risks of surgery but they can be reassured that despite these risks overall outcome is satisfactory.

A comparison of the left thoracoabdominal and Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

The purpose of this study was to assess the oncological outcomes of a large multicenter series of left thoracoabdominal esophagectomies, and compare these to the more widely utilized Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. With ethics approval and an established study protocol, anonymized data from five centers were merged into a structured database. The study exposure was operative approach (ILE or LTE). The primary outcome measure was time to death. Secondary outcome measures included time to tumor recurrence, positive surgical resection margins, lymph node yield, postoperative death, and hospital length of stay. Cox proportional hazards models provided hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusting for age, pathological tumor stage, tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, and neoadjuvant treatment. Among 1228 patients (598 ILE; 630 LTE), most (86%) had adenocarcinoma (AC) and were male (81%). Comparing ILE and LTE for AC patients, no difference was seen in terms of time to death (HR 0.904 95%CI 0.749-1.1090) or time to recurrence (HR 0.973 95%CI 0.768-1.232). The risk of a positive resection margin was also similar (OR 1.022 95%CI 0.731-1.429). Median lymph node yield did not differ between approaches (LTE 21; ILE 21; P = 0.426). In-hospital mortality was 2.4%, significantly lower in the LTE group (LTE 1.3%; ILE 3.6%; P = 0.004). Median hospital stay was 11 days in the LTE group and 14 days in the ILE group (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, this is the largest series of left thoracoabdominal esophagectomies to be submitted for publication and the only one to compare two different transthoracic esophagectomy strategies. It demonstrates oncological equivalence between operative approaches but possible short- term advantages to the left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data.

We report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for patients with pathologically staged cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction after resection or ablation with no preoperative therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted de-identified data using standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 13,300 patients, 5,631 had squamous cell carcinoma, 7,558 adenocarcinoma, 85 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 26 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (51%), little weight loss (1.8 kg), 0-2 ECOG performance status (83%), and a history of smoking (70%). Cancers were pT1 (24%), pT2 (15%), pT3 (50%), pN0 (52%), pM0 (93%), and pG2-G3 (78%); most involved distal esophagus (71%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma was monotonic and distinctive across pTNM. Survival was more distinctive for adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma when pT was ordered by pN. Survival for pTis-1 adenocarcinoma was better than for squamous cell carcinoma, although monotonic and distinctive for both. WECC pathologic staging data is improved over that of the 7th edition, with more patients studied and patient and cancer variables collected. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics, and should direct 9th edition data collection. However, the role of pure pathologic staging as the principal point of reference for esophageal cancer staging is waning.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: clinical staging data.

To address uncertainty of whether clinical stage groupings (cTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for clinically staged patients from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 22,123 clinically staged patients, 8,156 had squamous cell carcinoma, 13,814 adenocarcinoma, 116 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 37 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (18.5-25 mg/kg2 , 47%), little weight loss (2.4 ± 7.8 kg), 0-1 ECOG performance status (67%), and history of smoking (67%). Cancers were cT1 (12%), cT2 (22%), cT3 (56%), cN0 (44%), cM0 (95%), and cG2-G3 (89%); most involved the distal esophagus (73%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for squamous cell carcinoma was not distinctive for early cT or cN; for adenocarcinoma, it was distinctive for early versus advanced cT and for cN0 versus cN+. Patients with early cancers had worse survival and those with advanced cancers better survival than expected from equivalent pathologic categories based on prior WECC pathologic data. Thus, clinical and pathologic categories do not share prognostic implications. This makes clinically based treatment decisions difficult and pre-treatment prognostication inaccurate. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient characteristics, cancer categories, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: neoadjuvant pathologic staging data.

To address uncertainty of whether pathologic stage groupings after neoadjuvant therapy (ypTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for pathologically staged cancers after neoadjuvant therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 7,773 pathologically staged neoadjuvant patients, 2,045 had squamous cell carcinoma, 5,686 adenocarcinoma, 31 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 11 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (61 years) men (83%) with normal (40%) or overweight (35%) body mass index, 0-1 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (96%), and a history of smoking (69%). Cancers were ypT0 (20%), ypT1 (13%), ypT2 (18%), ypT3 (44%), ypN0 (55%), ypM0 (94%), and G2-G3 (72%); most involved the distal esophagus (80%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for yp categories was unequally depressed, more for earlier categories than later, compared with equivalent categories from prior WECC data for esophagectomy-alone patients. Thus, survival of patients with ypT0-2N0M0 cancers was intermediate and similar regardless of ypT; survival for ypN+ cancers was poor. Because prognoses for ypTNM and pTNM categories are dissimilar, prognostication should be based on separate ypTNM categories and groupings. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection.

The multidisciplinary management of gastro-oesophageal junction tumours: European Society of Digestive Oncology (ESDO): Expert discussion and report from the 16th ESMO World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona.

BACKGROUND AND SCOPE: The management of GOJ cancers remains controversial and may vary between countries. Evidence-based attitudes and guidelines are not easy to elaborate since most of the trials and studies reported mixed cases of oesophageal (both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell tumours), GOJ and gastric cancers. The aim of this expert discussion and position paper is to elaborate practical recommendations that integrate evidence-reported literature and experience-based attitude covering all clinical aspects of GOJ cancer across different specialities and countries in Europe. METHODOLOGY: Opinion leaders, selected on scientific merit were asked to answer to a prepared set of questions covering the approach of GOJ tumours from definition to therapeutic strategies. All answers were then discussed during a plenary session and reported here in providing a well-balanced reflection of both clinical expertise and updated evidence-based medicine. RESULTS: Definition, classification, diagnosis and staging of GOJ tumours were updated and debated. Therapeutic aspects including endoscopic therapy, surgical management, both multimodal curative and palliative management were also reviewed for proposing practical and consensual positions and recommendations whenever possible. CONCLUSION: GOJ tumours deserve specific attention,not only for uniformising clinical management across countries but also for performing specific clinical and translational research,mainly in the curative perioperative setting.

Description and analysis of clinical pathways for oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, in 10 European countries (the EURECCA upper gastro intestinal group - European Registration of Cancer Care).

AIMS: Outcomes for patients with oesophago-gastric cancer are variable across Europe. The reasons for this variability are not clear. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse clinical pathways to understand differences in service provision for oesophageal and gastric cancer in the countries participating in the EURECCA Upper GI group. METHODS: A questionnaire was devised to assess clinical presentation, diagnosis, staging, treatment, pathology, follow-up and service frameworks across Europe for patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer. The questionnaire was issued to experts from 14 countries. The responses were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively and compared. RESULTS: The response rate was (10/14) 71.4%. The approach to diagnosis was similar. Most countries established a diagnosis within 3 weeks of presentation. However, there were different approaches to staging with variable use of endoscopic ultrasound reflecting availability. There has been centralisation of treatments in most countries for oesophageal surgery. The most consistent area was the approach to pathology. There were variations in access to specialist nurse and dietitian support. Although most countries have multidisciplinary teams, their composition and frequency of meetings varied. The two main areas of significant difference were research and audit and overall service provision. Observations on service framework indicated that limited resources restricted many of the services. CONCLUSION: The principle approaches to diagnosis, treatment and pathology were similar. Factors affecting the quality of patient experience were variable. This may reflect availability of resources. Standard pathways of care may enhance both the quality of treatment and patient experience.

Variations among 5 European countries for curative treatment of resectable oesophageal and gastric cancer: A survey from the EURECCA Upper GI Group (EUropean REgistration of Cancer CAre).

INTRODUCTION: EURECCA (EUropean REgistration of Cancer CAre) is a network aiming to improve cancer care by auditing outcome. EURECCA initiated an international survey to share and compare patient outcome for oesophagogastric cancer. The present study assessed how a uniform dataset could be introduced for oesophagogastric cancer in Europe. METHODS: Participating countries presented data using common data items describing patients', disease, strategies, and outcome characteristics. Patients treated with curative surgery for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (ACA) were included. RESULTS: United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Spain and Ireland participated. There were differences in data source ranging from national registries to large collaborative groups. 4668 oesophagogastric cancer cases over a 12 months period were included. The predominant histological type was ACA. Disease stage tended to be earlier in France and Ireland. In oesophageal and junctional cancers neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was preferred in the Netherlands and Ireland contrasting with chemotherapy in the UK and France. All countries used perioperative chemotherapy in gastric cancer but 1/3 of patients received this treatment. The mean R0 resection rate was 86% for oesophageal and junctional resections and 88% for gastric resections. Postoperative mortality varied from 1% to 7%. CONCLUSION: This European survey shown that implementing a uniform treatment and outcome data format of oesophagogastric cancer is feasible. It identified differences in disease presentation, treatment approaches and outcome, which need to be investigated, especially by increasing the number of participating countries. Future comparisons will facilitate developments in treatment for the benefit of patient outcomes.

Retrospective cohort study of an enhanced recovery programme in oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery.

Introduction Enhanced recovery programmes have been established in some areas of elective surgery. This study applied enhanced recovery principles to elective oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery. Methods An enhanced recovery programme for patients undergoing open oesophagogastrectomy, total and subtotal gastrectomy for oesophageal and gastric malignancy was designed. A retrospective cohort study compared length of stay on the critical care unit (CCU), total length of inpatient stay, rates of complications and in-hospital mortality prior to (35 patients) and following (27 patients) implementation. Results In the cohort study, the median total length of stay was reduced by 3 days following oesophagogastrectomy and total gastrectomy. The median length of stay on the CCU remained the same for all patients. The rates of complications and mortality were the same. Conclusions The standardised protocol reduced the median overall length of stay but did not reduce CCU stay. Enhanced recovery principles can be applied to patients undergoing major oesophagogastrectomy and total gastrectomy as long as they have minimal or reversible co-morbidity.