European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4).

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.

Cancer-specific dose and fractionation schedules in stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligometastatic disease: An interim analysis of the EORTC-ESTRO E2-RADIatE OligoCare study.

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION: Optimal dose and fractionation in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligometastatic cancer patients remain unknown. In this interim analysis of OligoCare, we analyzed factors associated with SBRT dose and fractionation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis was based on the first 1,099 registered patients. SBRT doses were converted to biological effective doses (BED) using α/ß of 10 Gy for all primaries, and cancer-specific α/ß of 10 Gy for non-small cell lung and colorectal cancer (NSCLC, CRC), 2.5 Gy for breast cancer (BC), or 1.5 Gy for prostate cancer (PC). RESULTS: Of the interim analysis population of 1,099 patients, 999 (99.5 %) fulfilled inclusion criteria and received metastasis-directed SBRT for NSCLC (n = 195; 19.5 %), BC (n = 163; 16.3 %), CRC (n = 184; 18.4 %), or PC (n = 457; 47.5 %). Two thirds of patients were treated for single metastasis. Median number of fractions was 5 (IQR, 3-5) and median dose per fraction was 9.7 (IQR, 7.7-12.4) Gy. The most frequently treated sites were non-vertebral bone (22.8 %), lung (21.0 %), and distant lymph node metastases (19.0 %). On multivariate analysis, the dose varied significantly for primary cancer type (BC: 237.3 Gy BED, PC 300.6 Gy BED, and CRC 84.3 Gy BED), and metastatic sites, with higher doses for lung and liver lesions. CONCLUSION: This real-world analysis suggests that SBRT doses are adjusted to the primary cancers and oligometastasis location. Future analysis will address safety and efficacy of this site- and disease-adapted SBRT fractionation approach (NCT03818503).

Health-related quality of life in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer following metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy: Real-world data from the E2-RADIatE OligoCare cohort.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa) using real-world data from the OligoCare cohort. Materials and methods: OligoCare is a pragmatic, observational cohort designed to assess the impact of metastases-directed SBRT on patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD). We report an interim analyses of the secondary endpoint HRQoL, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, within six months of metastases-directed SBRT for oligometastatic disease in men with PCa among the first 1600 registered patients. HRQoL data collection was optional within the OligoCare cohort. To compare HRQoL between baseline and first follow-up assessment, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. A multiple linear regression model was used to explore the HRQoL associations with predefined factors. Results: Out of the 1600 registered patients, 658 were treated for oligometastatic PCa, of which 233 had baseline QoL data and 132 patients had both baseline and follow-up HRQoL data. At baseline, most patients had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 (87 %), were de-novo oligometastatic (79 %), had one metastasis (90 %), and had a good overall global health status (mean 80.81, SD16.11, IQR 75-92). 51 % received hormonal therapy as concomitant systemic treatment. Patients with comorbidities as assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity index had a worse global health status at baseline (-4.88, 95 % CI:-9.35, -0.42). No clinically meaningful significant difference in global health status was observed at first assessment following SBRT (median 3.0 months) compared with baseline (mean difference 2.27, 95 % CI:-1.54, 6.08). Upon evaluating the proportions, meaningful clinically important differences (a 10-point or more difference) was observed in, 17 % and 11 % of the patients reporting deterioration and improvement of global health status, respectively. Conclusion: Metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy had no negative impact on global HRQoL within the first six months after treatment.

Trends in best-case, typical and worst-case survival scenarios of patients with non-metastatic esophagogastric cancer between 2006 and 2020: A population-based study.

New treatment options and centralization of surgery have improved survival for patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. It is unknown, however, which patients benefitted the most from treatment advances. The aim of this study was to identify best-case, typical and worst-case scenarios in terms of survival time, and to assess if survival associated with these scenarios changed over time. Patients with non-metastatic potentially resectable esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Best-case (20th percentile), upper-typical (40th percentile), typical (median), lower-typical (60th percentile) and worst-case (80th percentile) survival scenarios were defined, and regression analysis was used to investigate the change in survival time for each scenario across years. For patients with esophageal cancer (N = 24 352) survival time improved on average 12.0 (until 2011), 1.5 (until 2018), 0.7, 0.4 and 0.2 months per year for the best-case, upper-typical, median, lower-typical and worst-case scenario, respectively. For patients with gastric cancer (N = 9993) survival time of the best-case scenario remained constant, whereas the upper-typical, median, lower-typical and worst-case scenario improved on average with 1.0 (until 2018), 0.5, 0.2 and 0.2 months per year, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that, survival scenarios improved for nearly all patients across treatment groups and for patients with squamous cell carcinomas or adenocarcinomas. Survival improved for almost all patients suggesting that in clinical practice the vast majority of patients benefitted from treatment advances. The clinically most meaningful survival advantage was observed for the best-case scenario of esophageal cancer.

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials.

Population-based study of treatment and outcome of recurrent oesophageal or junctional cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction have a high risk of recurrence after treatment with curative intent. The aim of this study was to analyse the site of recurrence, treatment, and survival in patients with recurrent disease. METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic oesophageal or junctional carcinoma treated with curative intent between January 2015 and December 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on recurrence were collected in the second half of 2019. Overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: In total, 862 of 1909 patients (45.2 per cent) for whom information on follow-up was available had disease recurrence, and 858 patients were included. Some 161 of 858 patients (18.8 per cent) had locoregional recurrence only, 415 (48.4 per cent) had distant recurrence only, and 282 (32.9 per cent) had combined locoregional and distant recurrence. In all, 518 of 858 patients (60.4 per cent) received best supportive care only and 315 (39.6 per cent) underwent tumour-directed therapy. Patients with locoregional recurrence alone more often received chemoradiotherapy than those with distant or combined locoregional and distant recurrence (19.3 per cent versus 0.7 and 2.8 per cent), and less often received systemic therapy (11.2 per cent versus 30.1 and 35.8 per cent). Median OS was 7.6, 4.2, and 3.3 months for patients with locoregional, distant, and combined locoregional and distant recurrence respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Disease recurred after curative treatment in 45.2 per cent of patients. Locoregional recurrence developed in only 18.8 per cent. The vast majority of patients presented with distant or combined locoregional and distant recurrence, and received best supportive care.

Improving survival prediction of oesophageal cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy for dysphagia.

INTRODUCTION: The recent POLDER trial investigated the effects of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on dysphagia caused by incurable oesophageal cancer. An estimated life expectancy of minimally three months was required for inclusion. However, nearly one-third of the included patients died within three months. The aim of this study was to investigate if the use of prediction models could have improved the physician's estimation of the patient's survival. METHODS: Data from the POLDER trial (N = 110) were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to retrieve patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics. Two published prediction models (the SOURCE model and Steyerberg model) were used to predict three-month survival for all patients included in the POLDER trial. Predicted survival probabilities were dichotomised and the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the predictive performance. RESULTS: The SOURCE and Steyerberg model had an accuracy of 79% and 64%, and an AUC of 0.76 and 0.60 (p = .017), respectively. The SOURCE model had higher specificity across survival cut-off probabilities, the Steyerberg model had a higher sensitivity beyond the survival probability cut-off of 0.7. Using optimal cut-off probabilities, SOURCE would have wrongfully included 16/110 patients into the POLDER and Steyerberg 34/110. CONCLUSION: The SOURCE model was found to be a more useful decision aid than the Steyerberg model. Results showed that the SOURCE model could be used for three-month survival predictions for patients that are considered for palliative treatment of dysphagia caused by oesophageal cancer in addition to clinicians' judgement.

A population-based study in synchronous versus metachronous metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

Background: Real-world data on treatment and outcomes in patients with synchronous metastatic disease compared with patients with metachronous metastatic disease in esophagogastric cancer have not been published before. The aim of our study was to explore treatment, overall survival (OS), and time to treatment fialure (TTF) in patients with synchronous and metachronous metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients with synchronous metastatic disease (2015-2017) and patients with metachronous metastatic disease initially treated with curative intent for nonmetastatic disease (2015-2016) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS and TTF were assessed from metastatic diagnosis for patients with synchronous, early metachronous (⩽6 months) or late metachronous (>6 months) metastatic disease using Kaplan-Meier curves with two-sided log-rank test. Results: Median OS was 4.2, 2.1, and 4.4 months in patients with synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving systemic treatment was 41.3%, 21.5%, and 32.5% for synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively (p = 0.001). Among patients receiving systemic treatment, median OS was 8.8, 4.5, and 9.1 months (p < 0.001) and median TTF was 6.1, 3.8, and 5.7 months (p < 0.001) in synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively. Conclusion: Patients with early metachronous metastatic disease have a worse survival compared with patients with synchronous or late metachronous metastatic disease. These patients less often receive systemic treatment, and even when treated, survival is worse compared with patients with synchronous or late metachronous metastatic disease, suggesting a more aggressive tumor behavior.

Definitions and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer according to multidisciplinary tumour boards in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oesophagogastric cancer expert centres in Europe. However, high practice variability in treatment strategies exists.

Treatment patterns and survival in advanced unresectable esophageal squamous cell cancer: A population-based study.

Data on treatment and survival of patients with advanced unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from Western populations are limited. Here we describe treatment and survival in patients with advanced unresectable ESCC: patients with cT4b disease without metastases (cT4b), metastases limited to the supraclavicular lymph nodes (SCLNM) or distant metastatic ESCC at the population level. All patients with unresectable (cT4b) or synchronous metastatic ESCC at primary diagnosis (2015-2018) or patients with metachronous metastases after primary non-metastatic diagnosis in 2015-2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Fifteen percent of patients had cT4b disease (n = 146), 12% SCLNM (n = 118) and 72% distant metastases (n = 681). Median overall survival (OS) time was 6.3, 11.2, and 4.4 months in patients with cT4b, SCLNM, and distant metastases, respectively (P < .001). Multivariable Cox regression showed that patients with cT4b (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-1.99) and patients with distant metastases (hazard ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.12-1.80) had a worse survival time compared with patients with SCLNM. Among patients who received chemoradiotherapy and/or underwent resection (primary tumor and/or metastases), median OS was 11.9, 16.1, and 14.0 months in patients with cT4b, SCLNM, and distant metastases, respectively (P = .76). Patients with SCLNM had a better survival time compared with patients with cT4b and patients with distant metastases. Survival of patients with advanced unresectable ESCC in clinical practice was poor, even in patients treated with curative intent.

Randomized Study on Dose Escalation in Definitive Chemoradiation for Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer (ARTDECO Study).

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of radiation dose escalation to the primary tumor on local tumor control in definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) for patients with esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with medically inoperable and/or irresectable esophageal carcinoma, referred for dCRT, were randomly assigned between a standard dose (SD) of 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy for 5.5 weeks to the tumor and regional lymph nodes and a high dose (HD) up to a total dose of 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor. Chemotherapy consisted of courses of concurrent carboplatin (area under the curve 2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) in both arms once a week for 6 weeks. The primary end point was local progression-free survival. RESULTS: Between September 2012 and June 2018, 260 patients were included. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was present in 61% of patients, and 39% had adenocarcinoma (AC). Radiation treatment was completed by 94%, and 85% had at least five courses of chemotherapy. The median follow-up time for all patients was 50 months. The 3-year local progression-free survival (LPFS) was 70% in the SD arm versus 73% in the HD arm (not significant). The LPFS for SCC and AC was 75% versus 79% and 61% versus 61% for SD and HD, respectively (not significant). The 3-year locoregional progression-free survival was 52% and 59% for the SD and HD arms, respectively (P = .08). Overall, grade 4 and 5 common toxicity criteria were 12% and 5% in the SD arm versus 14% and 10% in the HD arm, respectively (P = .15). CONCLUSION: In dCRT for esophageal cancer, radiation dose escalation up to 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor did not result in a significant increase in local control over 50.4 Gy. The absence of a dose effect was observed in both AC and SCC.

Patient-reported outcomes after external beam radiotherapy versus brachytherapy for palliation of dysphagia in esophageal cancer: A matched comparison of two prospective trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A matched comparison of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus brachytherapy recently demonstrated that EBRT appears at least as effective for palliating dysphagia in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. The aim of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after EBRT versus brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter prospective cohort study, patients with incurable esophageal cancer requiring palliation of dysphagia were included to undergo EBRT (20 Gy in 5 fractions). This EBRT cohort was compared to the single-dose 12 Gy brachytherapy cohort of the previously reported SIREC-trial. Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for baseline imbalances. The primary endpoint of dysphagia improvement was reported previously. PROs were secondary outcomes and assessed at baseline and 3 months after treatment using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 115 enrolled EBRT patients and 93 brachytherapy patients were eligible. After matching, 69 well-balanced pairs remained. At follow-up, significant deteriorations in functioning (i.e. physical, role, social), pain, appetite loss, and trouble with taste were observed after brachytherapy. In the EBRT group, such deterioration was observed only for role functioning, while significant improvements in trouble with eating and pain were found. Between-group comparison showed mostly comparable PRO changes, but significantly favored EBRT with regard to nausea, vomiting, pain, and appetite loss. CONCLUSION: Short course EBRT results in similar or better PROs at 3 months after treatment compared to single-dose brachytherapy for the palliation of malignant dysphagia. These findings further support its use and inclusion in clinical practice guidelines.

Short-Course External Beam Radiotherapy Versus Brachytherapy for Palliation of Dysphagia in Esophageal Cancer: A Matched Comparison of Two Prospective Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Short-course external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and intraluminal brachytherapy are both accepted treatments for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. We compared the effects of both treatments from two prospective studies. METHODS: We performed a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with metastasized or otherwise incurable esophageal cancer requiring palliation of dysphagia from September 2016 to March 2019. Patients were treated with EBRT in five fractions of 4 Gy. Data were compared with all patients treated with a single brachytherapy dose of 12 Gy in the SIREC (Stent or Intraluminal Radiotherapy for inoperable Esophageal Cancer) trial, both between the original cohorts and between 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts. The primary end point was an improvement of dysphagia at 3 months without reintervention. The secondary end points included toxicity and time-to-effect. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients treated with EBRT and 93 patients who underwent brachytherapy were eligible for analysis. In the original cohorts, dysphagia improved after EBRT in 79% of patients compared with 64% after brachytherapy (p = 0.058). Propensity score matching resulted in 69 patients in each cohort well-balanced at baseline. Improvement of dysphagia was observed in 83% after EBRT versus 64% after brachytherapy (p = 0.048). In responding patients, improvement of dysphagia at 2 weeks was observed in 67% after EBRT compared with 35% after brachytherapy, and the maximum effect was reached after 4 weeks in 55% and 33%, respectively. Severe toxicity occurred in 3% of patients after EBRT compared with 13% after brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Short-course EBRT appears at least as effective as brachytherapy in the palliation of dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer.

A national study to assess outcomes of definitive chemoradiation regimens in proximal esophageal cancer.

Background: Proximal esophageal cancer (EC) is commonly treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT). The radiation dose and type of chemotherapy backbone are still under debate. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment outcomes of contemporary CRT regimens.Material and Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study, we included patients with locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the proximal esophagus, from 11 centers in the Netherlands, treated with definitive CRT between 2004 and 2014. Each center had a preferential CRT regimen, based on cisplatin (Cis) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) combined with low (≤50.4 Gy) or high (>50.4 Gy) dose radiotherapy (RT). Differences in overall survival (OS) between CRT regimens were assessed using a fully adjusted Cox proportional hazards and propensity score (PS) weighted model. Safety profiles were compared using a multilevel logistic regression model.Results: Two hundred patients were included. Fifty-four, 39, 95, and 12 patients were treated with Cis-low-dose RT, Cis-high-dose RT, CP-low-dose RT, and CP-high-dose RT, respectively. Median follow-up was 62.6 months (95% CI: 47.9-77.2 months). Median OS (21.9 months; 95% CI: 16.9-27.0 months) was comparable between treatment groups (logrank p = .88), confirmed in the fully adjusted and PS weighted model (p > .05). Grades 3-5 acute adverse events were less frequent in patients treated with CP-low-dose RT versus Cis-high-dose RT (OR 3.78; 95% CI: 1.31-10.87; p = .01). The occurrence of grades 3-5 late toxicities was not different between treatment groups.Conclusion: Our study was unable to demonstrate a difference in OS between the CRT regimens, probably related to the relatively small sample size. Based on the superior safety profile, carboplatin and paclitaxel-based CRT regimens are preferred in patients with locally advanced proximal EC.

Low-Dose Versus High-Dose Radiation Therapy for the Palliation of Dysphagia From Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Clinical evidence regarding optimal radiation dose for palliation of dysphagia from esophageal cancer is generally lacking. In an effort to investigate optimal radiation dose, we assessed 2 different radiation schedules for palliation of dysphagia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study comparing low-dose radiation therapy (LR: 5 x 4 Gy external beam radiation therapy [EBRT]) with high-dose radiation therapy (HR: 10 x 3 Gy EBRT and 12-Gy single-dose intraluminal brachytherapy) for palliation of dysphagia in patients with inoperable or metastasized esophageal cancer. Primary outcome was improvement of dysphagia at 6 weeks after start of radiation therapy. Additional outcomes were persistent and recurrent dysphagia during patients' remaining life, severe adverse events, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 292 patients (LR, n = 117; HR, n = 175) were included in this study. After matching, 144 patients (72 in each group) were compared. Improvement of dysphagia at 6 weeks was achieved in 50% of patients after LR and in 66% after HR (P = .071). Persistent or recurrent dysphagia occurred in 64% of patients after LR and in 42% after HR (P = .012). No difference in the rate of severe adverse events was found (P = .889). Median survival was 88 days (95% confidence interval, 64-112) after LR and 177 days (95% confidence interval, 131-223) after HR (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that both LR and HR were well tolerated and effective in short-term relief of dysphagia in patients with inoperable or metastasized esophageal cancer. HR was associated with better long-term relief of dysphagia compared with LR. Our findings suggest that HR could be considered for patients with a longer life expectancy, but prospective studies are required.

Trends in treatment and overall survival among patients with proximal esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures. Non-surgical treatment options like radiotherapy and definitive chemoradiation (CRT) have been implemented. The trends in (non-)surgical treatment and its impact on overall survival (OS) in patients with proximal esophageal cancer are unclear, related to its rare disease status. To optimize treatment strategies and counseling of patients with proximal esophageal cancer, it is therefore essential to gain more insight through real-life studies. AIM: To establish trends in treatment and OS in patients with proximal esophageal cancer. METHODS: In this population-based study, patients with proximal esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1989 and 2014 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The proximal esophagus consists of the cervical esophagus and the upper thoracic section, extending to 24 cm from the incisors. Trends in radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, and OS were assessed. Analyses were stratified by presence of distant metastasis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses was performed to assess the effect of period of diagnosis on OS, adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 2783 patients were included. Over the study period, the use of radiotherapy, resection, and CRT in non-metastatic disease changed from 53%, 23%, and 1% in 1989-1994 to 21%, 9%, and 49% in 2010-2014, respectively. In metastatic disease, the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased over time. Median OS of the total population increased from 7.3 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.4-8.1] in 1989-1994 to 9.5 mo (95%CI: 8.1-10.8) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). In non-metastatic disease, 5-year OS rates improved from 5% (95%CI: 3%-7%) in 1989-1994 to 13% (95%CI: 9%-17%) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated a significant treatment effect over time on survival. In metastatic disease, median OS was 3.8 mo (95%CI: 2.5-5.1) in 1989-1994, and 5.1 mo (95%CI: 4.3-5.9) in 2010-2014 (logrank P = 0.26). CONCLUSION: OS significantly improved in non-metastatic proximal esophageal cancer, likely to be associated with an increased use of CRT. Patterns in metastatic disease did not change significantly over time.

Small Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus: A Nationwide Analysis of Treatment and Outcome at Patient Level in Locoregional Disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Small cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCEC) is a rare subtype of esophageal cancer for which optimal treatment is unknown. We analyzed the impact of treatment factors on outcome in patients with nonmetastasized SCEC. METHODS: Patients with a histologically confirmed SCEC without distant metastases were analyzed in a nationwide multicenter retrospective cohort. All patients received radiotherapy as part of curative treatment between January 2000 and December 2014. Details on treatment and outcome were retrieved from individual charts. Cox regression analysis was used to determine prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were analyzed. Median survival was 16 months (95% confidence interval, 11-21 mo). Infield recurrences occurred in 25%, distant metastases in 45%, and brain metastases in 12%. In total, 63% of patients developed a recurrence. Most recurrences (67%) occurred within 1 year. In univariable analyses an increased number of chemotherapy cycles (>3) and lower radiotherapy doses (<45 Gy) were associated with improved survival. T-stage, N-stage, treatment period, type of chemotherapy, prophylactic cranial irradiation, and age were not associated with survival. In multivariable analyses, only the number of chemotherapy cycles was associated with better survival (hazard ratio, 0.78; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: SCEC recurs frequently at distant sites after definitive chemoradiotherapy and usually within 1 year after curative treatment. With a dose of 45 to 50 Gy, infield recurrence rate was low. We found a relationship between number of received chemotherapy cycles and survival with best results obtained after at least 4 cycles of chemotherapy.

Reduced inter-observer and intra-observer delineation variation in esophageal cancer radiotherapy by use of fiducial markers.

Objective: Delineation variation of esophageal tumors remains a large source of geometric uncertainty. In the present study, we investigated the inter- and intra-observer variation in esophageal gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation and the impact of endoscopically implanted fiducial markers on these variations. Material/Methods: Ten esophageal cancer patients with at least two markers endoscopically implanted at the cranial and caudal tumor borders and visible on the planning computed tomography (pCT) were included in this study. Five dedicated gastrointestinal radiation oncologists independently delineated GTVs on the pCT without markers and with markers. The GTV was first delineated on pCTs where markers were digitally removed and next on the original pCT with markers. Both delineation series were executed twice to determine intra-observer variation. For both the inter- and intra-observer analyses, the generalized conformity index (CIgen), and the standard deviation (SD) of the distances between delineated surfaces (i.e., overall, longitudinal, and radial SDs) were calculated. Linear mixed-effect models were used to compare the without and with markers series (α = 0.05). Results: Both the inter- and intra-observer CIgen were significantly larger in the series with markers than in the series without markers (p < .001). For the series without markers vs. with markers, the inter-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.63 cm vs. 0.22 cm, 1.44 cm vs. 0.42 cm, and 0.26 cm vs. 0.18 cm, respectively (p < .05); moreover, the intra-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.45 cm vs. 0.26 cm, 1.10 cm vs. 0.41 cm, and 0.22 cm vs. 0.15 cm, respectively (p < .05). Conclusion: The presence of markers at the cranial and caudal tumor borders significantly reduced both inter- and intra-observer GTV delineation variation, especially in the longitudinal direction. Our results endorse the use of markers in GTV delineation for esophageal cancer patients.

The role of definitive chemoradiation in patients with non-metastatic oesophageal cancer.

Definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) is a curative treatment option for patients with oesophageal cancer. It is effective in both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. However, locoregional control is less after dCRT compared to preoperative CRT (pCRT) followed by surgery. Also, overall survival is lower compared to pCRT followed by surgery, which can only partly be explained by a negative selection of patients. The optimal dose of radiotherapy remains to be determined, but dose escalation above 50.4Gy might be beneficial. Cisplatinum/5-FU is the most applied concurrent chemotherapy, but carboplatin/paclitaxel seems equally effective with less toxicity. The addition of 5-FU to a taxane and platinum seems promising. Accelerated fractionation and addition of cetuximab did not improve results. dCRT is a successful treatment for regional lymph node recurrences, but less so for recurrences at the anastomotic site. Re-irradiation after prior curative radiotherapy yields poor results. dCRT can be safely used in carefully selected elderly.

Survival after whole brain radiotherapy for brain metastases from lung cancer and breast cancer is poor in 6325 Dutch patients treated between 2000 and 2014.

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is considered standard of care for patients with multiple brain metastases or unfit for radical treatment modalities. Recent studies raised discussion about the expected survival after WBRT. Therefore, we analysed survival after WBRT for brain metastases 'in daily practice' in a large nationwide multicentre retrospective cohort. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2014, 6325 patients had WBRT (20 Gy in 4 Gy fractions) for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 4363 patients) or breast cancer (BC; 1962 patients); patients were treated in 15 out of 21 Dutch radiotherapy centres. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method from the first day of WBRT until death as recorded in local hospital data registration or the Dutch Municipal Personal Records Database. FINDINGS: The median survival was 2.7 months for NSCLC and 3.7 months for BC patients (p < .001). For NSCLC patients aged <50, 50-60, 60-70 and >70 years, survival was 4.0, 3.0, 2.8 and 2.1 months, respectively (p < .001). For BC patients, survival was 4.5, 3.8, 3.2 and 2.9 months, respectively (p = .047). In multivariable analyses, higher age was related to poorer survival with hazard ratios (HR) for patients aged 50-60, 60-70 and >70 years being 1.05, 1.19 and 1.34, respectively. Primary BC (HR: 0.83) and female sex (HR: 0.85) were related to better survival (p < .001). INTERPRETATION: The survival of patients after WBRT for brain metastases from NSCLC treated in Dutch 'common radiotherapy practice' is poor, in breast cancer and younger patients it is disappointingly little better. These results are in line with the results presented in the QUARTZ trial and we advocate a much more restrictive use of WBRT. In patients with a more favourable prognosis the optimal treatment strategy remains to be determined. Prospective randomized trials and individualized prognostic models are needed to identify these patients and to tailor treatment.