ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Background: Radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil (5FU) and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal cancer is associated with a 20-25% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Cetuximab increases the efficacy of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck carcinomas. The aim of this phase I/II trial was to determine the optimal doses and the pCR rate with chemoradiotherapy (C-RT) plus cetuximab. Methods: A 45-Gy radiotherapy regimen was delivered over 5 weeks. The phase I study determined the dose-limiting toxicity and the maximum tolerated dose of 5FU-cisplatin plus cetuximab. The phase II trial aimed to exhibit a pCR rate > 20 % (25 % expected), requiring 33 patients (6 from phase I part plus 27 in phase II part). pCR was defined as ypT0Nx. Results: The phase I study established the following recommended doses: weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 one week before, and 250 mg/m2 during radiotherapy); 5FU (500 mg/m2/day, d1-d4) plus cisplatin (40 mg/m2, d1) during week 1 and 5. In the phase II part, 32 patients received C-RT before surgery, 31 patients underwent surgery, and resection was achieved in 27 patients. A pCR was achieved in five patients (18.5 %) out of 27. After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached. Conclusions: Adding cetuximab to preoperative C-RT was toxic and did not achieve a pCR > 20 % as required. The recommended doses, determined during the phase I part, could explain these disappointing results due to a reduction in chemotherapy dose-intensity. Trial registration: This trial was registered with EudraCT number 2006-004770-27.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer posed significant global health challenges, particularly due to poor survival rates, especially in advanced stages. Primary endoscopic resection had emerged as an alternative treatment for early esophageal cancer, aiming to preserve organ function and reduce surgical morbidity. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study included 334 patients with early esophageal cancer (T1a-b, N0) from 30 French-speaking European centers between 2000 and 2010. Patients underwent either primary endoscopic resection followed by esophagectomy (E group, n = 36) or esophagectomy alone (S group, n = 298). Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for TNM stage and propensity score weighting were used to assess the impact of primary endoscopic resection on recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Primary endoscopic resection did not significantly influence RFS (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.68, p = 0.88) or OS (adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.13, p = 0.92) compared to esophagectomy alone. Initial higher thromboembolic complications in the endoscopic resection group were not significant after adjustment (adjusted OR 4.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 64.27, p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Primary endoscopic resection followed by esophagectomy for early esophageal cancer did not alter oncological outcomes or overall survival in this retrospective cohort. These findings supported the role of primary endoscopic resection as a safe initial treatment strategy, warranting validation in larger prospective studies. REGISTRATION: Our study was registered retrospectively on the Clinicaltrials.com website under the identifier NCT01927016. We acknowledge the importance of prospective registration and regret that this was not done before the commencement of the study.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer (EC/GEJC) is a poor prognosis disease with a high risk of recurrence even in patients curatively resected. Adjuvant nivolumab is currently used for patients with completely resected (R0) EC/GEJC who have residual pathologic disease following prior neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This study aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of nivolumab in this indication in France according to the collective perspective excluding indirect costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A simplified four-health-state semi-Markov model was developed to model EC/GEJC patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by R0 over a 15-year time horizon, comparing adjuvant nivolumab versus surveillance, which was the recommended French clinical practice before immunotherapy arrival. Time-to-recurrence (TTR) from CheckMate 577 was used to inform transition from disease-free to post-recurrence health state; patients who recurred were split according to the distribution of type of recurrence observed during the trial. Post-recurrence survival (PRS) according to the type of recurrence was derived from a real-world registry. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab led to an incremental survival gain of 1.19 years (+ 34%), mostly in the disease-free state, an incremental cost of 48,634 and QALY of 0.98 resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of 49,572/QALY with limited uncertainty. 'Cure assumption' at 5 years had an important impact on the results (41,115/QALY; - 17%), as that tends to increase life-years and QALYs while costs remain the same. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed reference ICUR (52,542/QALY) with 80% probability of nivolumab being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 75,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that adjuvant nivolumab is cost effective in the treatment of EC/GEJC patients who have residual disease after neoadjuvant CRT followed by R0 resection. Compared with previously evaluated cost-effectiveness analyses for other immune-checkpoint inhibitors indicated in metastatic settings, ICUR appears particularly low in this early setting thanks to the important impact on health outcomes and capped treatment duration.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prognostic differences between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in patients with surgery after a prolonged interval (>12 wk) following chemoradiotherapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: Previously, we established that a prolonged interval after CRT prior to esophagectomy was associated with poorer long-term survival. METHODS: This was an international multi-center cohort study involving seventeen tertiary centers, including patients who received CRT followed by surgery between 2010-2020. Patients undergoing MIE were defined as thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach. RESULTS: 428 patients (145 MIE and 283 OE) had surgery between 12 weeks and two years after CRT. Significant differences were observed in ASA grade, radiation dose, clinical T stage, and histological subtype. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, sex, BMI, pathological T or N stage, resection margin status, tumor location, surgical technique, or 90-day mortality. Survival analysis showed MIE was associated with improved survival in univariate (P=0.014), multivariate analysis after adjustment for smoking, T and N stage, and histology (HR=1.69; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.5) and propensity matched analysis (P=0.02). Further subgroup analyses by radiation dose and interval after CRT showed survival advantage for MIE, in 40-50Gy dose groups (HR=1.9; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.0), and in patients having surgery within six months of CRT (HR=1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.2). CONCLUSION: MIE was associated with an improved overall survival compared to OE in patients with a prolonged interval from CRT to surgery. The mechanism for this observed improvement in survival remains unknown, with potential hypotheses including a reduction in complications and improved functional recovery after MIE.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a rare disease. The genomic profiling tumours according to clinical characteristics and its impact on the prognosis remains unclear. METHODS: A pooled analysis of clinical data, genomic profiling and MisMatch Repair (MMR) status from three databases was performed. RESULTS: A total of 188 tumour samples were analysed. A predisposing disease was reported in 22.3%, mainly Lynch syndrome and Crohn's disease. The tumours were localized in 80.2% and metastatic in 18.8%. The most frequent mutations were KRAS (42.0%) among them 7/79 are G12C, TP53 (40.4%), APC (19.1%), PIK3CA (18.6%), SMAD4 (12.8%) and ERBB2 (9.6%). Mutation distribution differed according to predisposing disease for TP53, ERBB2, IDH1, FGFR3, FGFR1 and KDR. KRAS and SMAD4 mutations were more frequent in metastatic tumour, whereas ERBB2 mutations were absent in metastatic tumour. For localized tumour, APC mutation was independently associated with a poor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0254). 31.8% of localized tumours and 11.3% of metastatic tumours were dMMR (29.8% of the entire cohort). A dMMR status was associated with a better OS (HR = 0.61 [0.39-0.96], p = 0.0316). CONCLUSIONS: There is a different genomic profile according to the stage and predisposing disease. dMMR and APC mutation in localized tumour predict a better prognosis.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Intestinal Neoplasms , Mutation , Humans , Adenocarcinoma/genetics , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Intestinal Neoplasms/genetics , Intestinal Neoplasms/pathology , Intestinal Neoplasms/mortality , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Intestine, Small/pathology , Adult , Prognosis , Aged, 80 and over , Gene Expression Profiling , DNA Mismatch Repair/geneticsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has gained momentum for left pancreatic resections. However, debate remains about whether it has any advantage over open surgery for distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: This retrospective review examined pancreatectomies performed for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at 21 centers in France between January 2014 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching based on tumor size, sex, age, body mass index, center, and method of pancreatic transection. RESULTS: During the period study, 274 patients underwent left pancreatic resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [109 underwent distal splenopancreatectomy, and 165 underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy [(splenic vessel preservation (n = 97; 58.7%)/splenic vessel resection (n = 68; 41.3%)]. Before propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (P = .004), lower rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (P = .04), and higher rate of "textbook" outcomes (P = .04). After propensity score matching, there were 2 groups of 54 patients (n = 30 distal splenopancreatectomy; n = 78 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less blood loss (P = .05), decreased rate of major morbidity (6% vs. 24%; P = .02), less delayed gastric emptying (P = .05) despite similar rates of postoperative fistula, hemorrhage, and reoperation (P > .05). The 5-year overall survival (79% vs. 75%; P = .74) and recurrence-free survival (10% vs 17%; P = .39) were similar. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery for left pancreatic resection can be safely proposed for patients with resectable left pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Minimally invasive surgery decreases the rate of major complications while providing comparable long-term oncologic outcomes.
Subject(s)
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures , Neuroendocrine Tumors , Pancreatectomy , Pancreatic Neoplasms , Propensity Score , Humans , Pancreatectomy/methods , Pancreatectomy/adverse effects , Pancreatic Neoplasms/surgery , Pancreatic Neoplasms/pathology , Pancreatic Neoplasms/mortality , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , France/epidemiology , Neuroendocrine Tumors/surgery , Neuroendocrine Tumors/pathology , Neuroendocrine Tumors/mortality , Aged , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Treatment Outcome , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Splenectomy/methods , AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The impact of cirrhosis on the postoperative outcomes of distal pancreatectomy is yet to be reported. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of distal pancreatectomy in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study patients with cirrhosis who underwent planned distal pancreatectomy between 2008 and 2020 in French high volume centers. Patients with cirrhosis were matched 1:4 for demographic, surgical, and histologic criteria with patients without cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III). The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications, specifically related to cirrhosis and pancreatic surgery, and survival for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Overall, 32 patients with cirrhosis were matched with 128 patients without cirrhosis. Most patients (93.5%) had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The severe morbidity rate after distal pancreatectomy was higher in patients with cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis (28.13% vs 25.75%, P = .11. The operative time was significantly longer in the cirrhotic group compared with controls (P = .01). However, patients with and without cirrhosis had comparable blood loss and conversion rates. Postoperatively, the two groups had similar rates of pancreatic fistula, hemorrhage, reoperation, postoperative mortality, and survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that distal pancreatectomy in high-volume centers is feasible for patients with compensated cirrhosis.
Subject(s)
Liver Cirrhosis , Pancreatectomy , Pancreatic Neoplasms , Postoperative Complications , Humans , Pancreatectomy/adverse effects , Male , Female , Retrospective Studies , Middle Aged , Aged , Liver Cirrhosis/complications , Liver Cirrhosis/surgery , Liver Cirrhosis/mortality , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Pancreatic Neoplasms/surgery , Pancreatic Neoplasms/mortality , Pancreatic Neoplasms/complications , Treatment Outcome , Operative Time , Survival Rate , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/mortality , Adenocarcinoma/complicationsSubject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures , Peritoneal Neoplasms , Humans , Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures/methods , Peritoneal Neoplasms/secondary , Peritoneal Neoplasms/therapy , Peritoneal Neoplasms/surgery , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Prognosis , Critical PathwaysABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Colorectal signet-ring cell carcinoma (CSRCC) is a rare clinical entity which accounts for approximately 1% of all colorectal cancers. Although multiple studies concerning this specific topic have been published in the past decades, the pathogenesis, associated risk factors, and potential implications on treatment are still poorly understood. Besides the low incidence, historically confusing histological criteria have resulted in confusing data. Nevertheless, the rising incidence of CSRCC along with relatively young age at presentation and associated dismal prognosis, highlight the actual interest to synthesize the known literature regarding CSRCC. AIM: To provide an updated overview of risk factors, prognosis, and management of CSRCC. METHODS: A literature search in the MEDLINE/PubMed database was conducted with the following search terms used: 'Signet ring cell carcinoma' and 'colorectal'. Studies in English language, published after January 1980, were included. Studies included in the qualitative synthesis were evaluated for content concerning epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical, diagnostic, histological, and molecular features, as well as metastatic pattern and therapeutic management. If possible, presented data was extracted in order to present a more detailed overview of the literature. RESULTS: In total, 67 articles were included for qualitative analysis, of which 54 were eligible for detailed data extraction. CSRCC has a reported incidence between 0.1%-2.4% and frequently presents with advanced disease stage at the time of diagnosis. CSRCC is associated with an impaired overall survival (5-year OS: 0%-46%) and a worse stage-corrected outcome compared to mucinous and not otherwise specified adenocarcinoma. The systematic use of exploratory laparoscopy to determine the presence of peritoneal metastases has been advised. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, although the rates of curative resection in CSRCC (21%-82%) are lower compared to those in other histological types. In case of peritoneal metastasis, cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy should only be proposed in selected patients. CONCLUSION: CSRCC is a rare clinical entity most often characterized by young age and advanced disease at presentation. As such, diagnostic modalities and therapeutic approach should be tailored accordingly.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: According to current international guidelines, stage cT2N0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma warrants preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery. However, upfront surgery is often preferred in clinical practice, depending on patient clinical status and local treatment preferences. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of cT2N0M0 patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed among 32 centers, including gastric adenocarcinoma patients operated between January 2007 and December 2017. Patients with cT2N0M0 stage were divided into upfront surgery (S) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS) groups. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to compensate for baseline differences between the groups. RESULTS: Among the 202 patients diagnosed with cT2N0M0 stage, 68 (33.7%) were in the CS group and 134 (66.3%) were in the S group. CS patients were younger (mean age 62.7 ± 12.8 vs. 69.8 ± 12.1 years for S patients; p < 0.001) and had a better health status (World Health Organization performance status = 0 in 60.3% of CS patients vs. 34.5% of S patients; p = 0.006). During follow-up, recurrence occurred in 27.2% and 19.6% of CS and S patients, respectively, after IPTW (p = 0.32). Five-year OS was similar between CS and S patients (78.9% vs. 68.3%; p = 0.42), as was 5-year DFS (70.4% vs. 68.5%; p = 0.96). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with neither OS nor DFS in multivariable analysis after IPTW. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cT2N0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma did not present a survival or recurrence benefit if treated with perioperative chemotherapy followed by surgery as opposed to surgery alone.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Propensity Score , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Stomach Neoplasms/mortality , Stomach Neoplasms/drug therapy , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Male , Female , Neoadjuvant Therapy/mortality , Adenocarcinoma/mortality , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Adenocarcinoma/drug therapy , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/therapy , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Aged , Survival Rate , Follow-Up Studies , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant/mortality , Prognosis , Neoplasm Staging , Gastrectomy/mortalityABSTRACT
The incidence of gastric cancer (GC) is expected to increase to 1.77 million cases by 2040. To improve treatment outcomes, GC patients are increasingly treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) prior to curative-intent resection. Although NAC enhances locoregional control and comprehensive patient care, survival rates remain poor, and further investigations should establish outcomes assessment of current clinical pathways. Individually assessed parameters have served as benchmarks for treatment quality in the past decades. The Outcome4Medicine Consensus Conference underscores the inadequacy of isolated metrics, leading to increased recognition and adoption of composite measures. One of the most simple and comprehensive is the "All or None" method, which refers to an approach where a specific set of criteria must be fulfilled for an individual to achieve the overall measure. This narrative review aims to present the rationale for the implementation of a novel composite measure, Textbook Neoadjuvant Outcome (TNO). TNO integrates five objective and well-established components: Treatment Toxicity, Laboratory Tests, Imaging, Time to Surgery, and Nutrition. It represents a desired, multidisciplinary care and hospitalization of GC patients undergoing NAC to identify the treatment- and patient-related data required to establish high-quality oncological care further. A key strength of this narrative review is the clinical feasibility and research background supporting the implementation of the first and novel composite measure representing the "ideal" and holistic care among patients with locally advanced esophago-gastric junction (EGJ) and GC in the preoperative period after NAC. Further analysis will correlate clinical outcomes with the prognostic factors evaluated within the TNO framework.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatectomy is open to debate. The present study compares clinically significant POPF rates in patients randomized between somatostatin versus octreotide as prophylactic treatment. METHODS: Multicentric randomized controlled open study in patient's candidate for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) comparing somatostatin continuous intravenous infusion for 7 days versus octreotid 100 µg, every 8 hours subcutaneous injection for 7 days, stratified by procedure (PD vs DP) and size of the main pancreatic duct (>4 mm) on grade B/C POPF rates at 90 days based on an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Of 763 eligible patients, 651 were randomized: 327 in the octreotide arm and 324 in the somatostatin arm, with comparable the stratification criteria - type of surgery and main pancreatic duct dilatation. Most patients had PD (n=480; 73.8%), on soft/normal pancreas (n=367; 63.2%) with a nondilated main pancreatic duct (n=472; 72.5%), most often for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=311; 47.8%). Almost all patients had abdominal drainage (n=621; 96.1%) and 121 (19.5%) left the hospital with the drain in place (median length of stay=16 days). A total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Continuous intravenous somatostatin is not statistically different from subcutaneous octreotide in the prevention of grade B/C POPF after pancreatectomy. FINDINGS: In the PREFIPS Randomized Clinical Trial including 651 patients, a total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no significant difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis.
Subject(s)
Octreotide , Pancreatectomy , Pancreatic Fistula , Pancreaticoduodenectomy , Postoperative Complications , Somatostatin , Humans , Pancreatic Fistula/prevention & control , Pancreatic Fistula/etiology , Pancreatic Fistula/epidemiology , Octreotide/therapeutic use , Octreotide/administration & dosage , Male , Female , Somatostatin/administration & dosage , Somatostatin/therapeutic use , Pancreatectomy/adverse effects , Pancreaticoduodenectomy/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Aged , Infusions, Intravenous , Gastrointestinal Agents/administration & dosage , Gastrointestinal Agents/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , France/epidemiology , Adult , Injections, SubcutaneousABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is associated with significant mortality. A better understanding of the causes leading to death may help to reduce mortality. A root cause analysis of mortality after esophagectomy was performed. METHODS: Root cause analysis was retrospectively applied by an independent expert panel of 4 upper gastrointestinal surgeons and 1 anesthesiologist-intensivist to patients included in the French national multicenter prospective cohort FREGAT between August 2014 and September 2019 who underwent an esophagectomy for cancer and died within 90 days of surgery. A cause-and-effect diagram was used to determine the root causes related to death. Death was classified as potentially preventable or non-preventable. RESULTS: Among the 1,040 patients included in the FREGAT cohort, 70 (6.7%) patients (male: 81%, median age 68 [62-72] years) from 17 centers were included. Death was potentially preventable in 37 patients (53%). Root causes independently associated with preventable death were inappropriate indication (odds ratio 35.16 [2.50-494.39]; P = .008), patient characteristics (odds ratio 5.15 [1.19-22.35]; P = .029), unexpected intraoperative findings (odds ratio 18.99 [1.07-335.55]; P = .045), and delay in diagnosis of a complication (odds ratio 98.10 [6.24-1,541.04]; P = .001). Delay in treatment of a complication was found only in preventable deaths (28 [76%] vs 0; P < .001). National guidelines were less frequently followed (16 [43%] vs 22 [67%]; P = .050) in preventable deaths. The only independent risk factor of preventable death was center volume <26 esophagectomies per year (odds ratio 4.71 [1.55-14.33]; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of deaths after esophagectomy were potentially preventable. Better patient selection, early diagnosis, and adequate management of complications through centralization could reduce mortality.
Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophagectomy , Root Cause Analysis , Humans , Esophagectomy/adverse effects , Esophagectomy/mortality , Male , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/mortality , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Retrospective Studies , France/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
The management of gastric cancer has long been debated, particularly the extent of lymph node (LN) dissection required during curative surgery. LN invasion stands out as the most critical prognostic factor in gastric cancer. Historically, Japanese academic societies were the pioneers in defining a classification system for regional gastric LN stations, numbering them from 1 to 16. This classification was later used to differentiate between different types of LN dissection, such as D1, D2 and D3. However, these definitions were often considered too complex to be universally adopted, resulting in wide variations in recommendations from one country to another and making it difficult to compare published studies. In addition, the optimal extent of LN dissection remains uncertain, with initially recommended dissections being extensive but associated with significant morbidity without a clear survival benefit. The aim of this review is to make a case for extending LN dissection based on the existing literature, which includes a comprehensive examination of the current definitions of lymphadenectomy and an analysis of the results of all randomised controlled trials evaluating morbidity, mortality and long-term survival associated with different types of LN dissection. Finally, we provide a summary of the various recommendations issued by organizations such as the Japanese Gastric Research Association, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the French National Thesaurus of Digestive Oncology.
Subject(s)
Gastrectomy , Lymph Node Excision , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Stomach Neoplasms/mortality , Lymph Node Excision/methods , Prognosis , Gastrectomy/methods , Lymph Nodes/pathology , Lymph Nodes/surgery , Lymphatic MetastasisABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.
Subject(s)
Esophageal Neoplasms , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Esophageal Neoplasms/therapy , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Stomach Neoplasms/therapy , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Stomach Neoplasms/diagnosis , Europe , Consensus , Neoplasm Metastasis , Delphi TechniqueABSTRACT
Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5-4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Addition of oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in the treatment of peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin (CRPM) did not show any survival benefit in the PRODIGE 7 trial (P7). This study aimed to investigate whether perioperative outcomes after CRS alone for CRPM patients is mediated by hospital volume and to determine the effect of P7 on French practice for CRPM patients treated respectively with CRS alone and CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: Data from CRPM patients treated with CRS alone between 2013 and 2020 in France were collected through a national medical database. The study used a cutoff value of the annual CRS-alone caseload affecting the 90-day postoperative mortality (POM) determined from our previous study to define low-volume (LV) HIPEC and high-volume (HV) HIPEC centers. Perioperative outcomes were compared between no-HIPEC, LV-HIPEC, and HV-HIPEC centers. The trend between years and HIPEC rates was analyzed using the Cochrane-Armitage test. RESULTS: Data from 4159 procedures were analyzed. The patients treated in no-HIPEC and LV-HIPEC centers were older compared with HV-HIPEC centers (p < 0.0001) and had a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (p < 0.0001) and less complex surgery (p < 0.0001). Whereas the major morbidity (MM) rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.79), the 90-day POM was lower in HV-HIPEC centers than in no-HIPEC and LV-HIPEC centers (5.4% vs 15% and 13.3%; p < 0.0001), with lower failure-to-rescue (FTR) (p < 0.0001). After P7, the CRS/HIPEC rate decreased drastically in Cancer centers (p < 0.001), whereas patients treated with CRS alone are still referred to expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of CRS alone should improve patient selection as well as FTR and POM. After P7, CRS/HIPEC decreased mostly in Cancer centers, without any impact on the number of CRS-alone cases referred to expert centers.