Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Patients Do Not Require Shorter Intervals for Post-Surgical Surveillance Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC), diagnosed before age 50, is rising in incidence worldwide. Although post-surgical colonoscopy surveillance strategies exist, appropriate intervals in EO-CRC remain elusive, as long-term surveillance outcomes remain scant. We sought to compare findings of surveillance colonoscopies of EO-CRC to average onset colorectal cancer (AO-CRC) patients to help define surveillance outcomes in these groups. METHODS: Single institution retrospective chart review identified EO-CRC and AO-CRC patients with colonoscopy and no evidence of disease. Surveillance intervals and time to development of advanced neoplasia (CRC and advanced polyps (adenoma/sessile serrated)) were examined. For each group, three serial surveillance colonoscopies were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed utilizing log-ranked Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: A total of 1259 CRC patients were identified, with 612 and 647 patients in the EO-CRC and AO-CRC groups, respectively. Compared to AO-CRC patients, EO-CRC patients had a 29% decreased risk of developing advanced neoplasia from time of initial surgery to first surveillance colonoscopy (HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.52 - 1.0). Average follow-up time from surgical resection to first surveillance colonoscopy was 12.6 months for both cohorts. Overall surveillance findings differed between cohorts (p=0.003), and EO-CRC were found to have less advanced neoplasia compared to AO-CRC counterparts (12.4% vs 16.0%, respectively). Subsequent colonoscopies found that while EO-CRC patients returned for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy earlier than AO-CRC patients, the EO-CRC cohort did not have more advanced neoplasia nor non-advanced adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: EO-CRC patients do not have an increased risk of advanced neoplasia compared to AO-CRC patients and therefore do not require more frequent colonoscopy surveillance than current guidelines recommend.

Morbidity and mortality in patients with stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma and acute cholangitis: Outcomes and risk prognostication.

BACKGROUND: Acute cholangitis (AC) is a common complication of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Herein, we evaluated outcomes after the first AC episode and predictors of mortality and AC recurrence in patients with stage IV PDAC. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective observational study using institutional databases. Clinical data and outcomes for patients with stage IV PDAC and at least one documented episode of AC, were assessed. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox regression model was employed to identify predictors of AC recurrence and mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four patients with stage IV PDAC and AC identified between January 01, 2014 and October 31, 2020 were included. Median OS after first episode of AC was 4.1 months (95 % CI, 4.0-5.5), and 30-day, 6, and 12-month survival was 86.2 % (95 % CI, 80.3-92.5), 37 % (95 % CI, 29.3-46.6 %) and 18.9 % (95 % CI, 13.1-27.3 %), respectively. Primary tumor in pancreatic body/tail (HR 2.29, 95 % CI: 1.26 to 4.18, p = 0.011), concomitant metastases to liver and other sites (HR 1.96, 95 % CI: 1.16 to 3.31, p = 0.003) and grade 3 AC (HR 2.26, 95 % CI: 1.45 to 3.52, p < 0.001), predicted worse outcomes. Intensive care unit admission, sepsis, systemic therapy, treatment regimen, and time to intervention did not predict survival or risk of recurrence of AC. CONCLUSIONS: AC confers significant morbidity and mortality in advanced PDAC. Worse outcomes are associated with higher grade AC, primary tumor location in pancreatic body/tail, and metastases to liver and other sites.

Treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with a history of bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The relationship among obesity, bariatric surgery, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is complex, given that some bariatric procedures are thought to be associated with increased incidence of reflux and Barrett's esophagus. Previous bariatric surgery may complicate the use of the stomach as a conduit for esophagectomy. In this study, we presented our experience with patients who developed EAC after bariatric surgery and described the challenges encountered and the techniques used. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of our institutional database to identify all patients at our institution who were treated for EAC after previously undergoing bariatric surgery. RESULTS: In total, 19 patients underwent resection with curative intent for EAC after bariatric surgery, including 10 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. The median age at diagnosis of EAC was 63 years; patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy were younger (median age, 56 years). The median time from bariatric surgery to EAC was 7 years. Most patients had a body mass index (BMI) score of >30 kg/m2 at the time of diagnosis of EAC; approximately 40% had class III obesity (BMI score > 40 kg/m2). Six patients (32%) had known Barrett's esophagus before undergoing a reflux-increasing bariatric procedure. Sleeve gastrectomy patients underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit, colonic interposition, or esophagojejunostomy. Only 1 patient had an anastomotic leak (after esophagojejunostomy). CONCLUSION: Endoscopy should be required both before (for treatment selection) and after all bariatric surgical procedures. Resection of EAC after bariatric surgery requires a highly individualized approach but is safe and feasible.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of early-onset vs average-onset esophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The rate of esophagogastric cancer is rising among individuals under 50 years of age. It remains unknown whether early-onset esophagogastric cancer represents a unique entity. This study investigated the clinical and molecular characteristics of early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer . METHODS: We reviewed the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center gastric, esophageal, and gastroesophageal junction cancer database. Associations between baseline characteristics and tumor and germline molecular alterations were compared between those with early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer using Fisher exact tests and the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple-hypothesis correction. RESULTS: We included 1123 patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 219; median age = 43 years [range = 18-49 years]) and average-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 904; median age = 67 years [range = 50-94 years]) treated between 2005 and 2018. The early-onset group had more women (39% vs 28%, P = .002). Patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer were more likely to have a gastric primary site (64% vs 44%, P < .0001). The signet ring cell and/or diffuse type was 3 times more common in the early-onset esophagogastric cancer group (31% vs 9%, P < .0001). Early-onsite tumors were more frequently genomically stable (31% vs 18%, P = .0002) and unlikely to be microsatellite instability high (2% vs 7%, P = .003). After restricting to adenocarcinoma and signet ring cell and/or diffuse type carcinomas, we observed no difference in stage (P = .40) or overall survival from stage IV diagnosis (median = 22.7 vs 22.1 months, P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supported a preponderance of gastric primary disease sites, signet ring histology, and genomically stable molecular subtypes in early-onset esophagogastric cancer. Our findings highlight the need for further research to define the underlying pathogenesis and strategies for early detection and prevention.

First-line regorafenib with nivolumab and chemotherapy in advanced oesophageal, gastric, or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in the USA: a single-arm, single-centre, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced oesophagogastric (oesophageal, gastric, or gastro-oesophageal junction) adenocarcinoma; however, outcomes remain poor. We assessed the safety and activity of regorafenib in combination with nivolumab and chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, single-arm, phase 2 trial in adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with previously untreated, HER2-negative, metastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma was done at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, NY, USA). Eligible patients had measurable disease or non-measurable disease that was evaluable (defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST] version 1.1) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients received FOLFOX chemotherapy (fluorouracil [400 mg/m2 bolus followed by 2400 mg/m2 over 48 h], leucovorin [400 mg/m2], and oxaliplatin [85 mg/m2]) and nivolumab (240 mg) intravenously on days 1 and 15, and oral regorafenib (80 mg) on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression (defined by RECIST version 1.1), unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival in the per-protocol population (ie, all participants who received a dose of all study treatments). The regimen would be considered worthy of further investigation if at least 24 of 35 patients were progression free at 6 months. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04757363, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2021, and May 4, 2022, 39 patients were enrolled, received at least one dose of study drug, and were included in safety analyses. 35 patients were evaluable for 6-month progression-free survival. Median age was 57 years (IQR 52-66), nine (26%) patients were women, 26 (74%) were men, 28 (80%) were White, and seven (20%) were Asian. At data cutoff (March 3, 2023), median follow-up was 18·1 months (IQR 12·7-20·4). The primary endpoint was reached, with 25 (71%; 95% CI 54-85) of 35 patients progression free at 6 months. Nine (26%) of 35 patients had disease progression and one (3%) patient died; the death was unrelated to treatment. The most common adverse event of any grade was fatigue (36 [92%] of 39). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (18 [46%]), hypertension (six [15%]), dry skin, pruritus, or rash (five [13%]), and anaemia (four [10%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in ten (26%) patients, which were acute kidney injury (three [8%]), hepatotoxicity (two [5%]), sepsis (two [5%]), dry skin, pruritus, or rash (one [3%]), nausea (one [3%]), and gastric perforation (one [3%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib can be safely combined with nivolumab and chemotherapy and showed promising activity in HER2-negative metastatic oesophagogastric cancer. A randomised, phase 3 clinical trial is planned. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer and National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute.

Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency Induced by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Scant data describe exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) secondary to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use. The goal of this study is to describe the incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of patients with ICI-related EPI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A single center, retrospective case-control study was performed of all ICI-treated patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between January 2011 and July 2020. ICI-related EPI patients had steatorrhea with or without abdominal discomfort or weight loss, started pancrelipase after initiation of ICI, and demonstrated symptomatic improvement with pancrelipase. Controls were matched 2:1 by age, race, sex, cancer type, and year of ICI start. RESULTS: Of 12 905 ICI-treated patients, 23 patients developed ICI-related EPI and were matched to 46 controls. The incidence rate of EPI was 1.18 cases per 1000 person-years and the median onset of EPI was 390 days after the first dose of ICI. All 23 (100%) EPI cases had steatorrhea that improved with pancrelipase, 12 (52.2%) had weight loss, and 9 (39.1%) had abdominal discomfort; none had changes of chronic pancreatitis on imaging. Nine (39%) EPI patients had episodes of clinical acute pancreatitis preceding the onset of EPI, compared to 1 (2%) control (OR 18.0 (2.5-789.0), P < .001). Finally, the EPI group exhibited higher proportions of new or worsening hyperglycemia after ICI exposure compared with the control group (9 (39.1%) vs. 3 (6.5%), P < .01). CONCLUSION: ICI-related EPI is a rare but clinically significant event that should be considered in patients with late onset diarrhea after ICI treatment and often is associated with development of hyperglycemia and diabetes.

A Prospective Clinical Trial to Evaluate Mesothelin as a Biomarker for the Clinical Management of Patients With Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of serum soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP) and tumor mesothelin expression in the management of esophageal adenocarcinoma (ADC). BACKGROUND: Clinical management of esophageal ADC is limited by a lack of accurate evaluation of tumor burden, treatment response, and disease recurrence. Our retrospective data showed that tumor mesothelin and its serum correlate, SMRP, are overexpressed and associated with poor outcomes in patients with esophageal ADC. METHODS: Serum SMRP and tumoral mesothelin expression from 101 patients with locally advanced esophageal ADC were analyzed before induction chemoradiation (pretreatment) and at the time of resection (posttreatment), as a biomarker for treatment response, disease recurrence, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Pre and posttreatment serum SMRP was ≥1 nM in 49% and 53%, and pre and post-treatment tumor mesothelin expression was >25% in 35% and 46% of patients, respectively. Pretreatment serum SMRP was not significantly associated with tumor stage ( P = 0.9), treatment response (radiologic response, P = 0.4; pathologic response, P = 0.7), or recurrence ( P =0.229). Pretreatment tumor mesothelin expression was associated with OS (hazard ratio: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.14-3.79; P = 0.017) but had no statistically significant association with recurrence ( P = 0.9). Three-year OS of patients with pretreatment tumor mesothelin expression of ≤25% was 78% (95% CI: 68%-89%), compared with 49% (95% CI: 35%-70%) among those with >25%. CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment tumor mesothelin expression is prognostic of OS for patients with locally advanced esophageal ADC, whereas serum SMRP is not a reliable biomarker for monitoring treatment response or recurrence.

Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Cancers originating in the esophagus or esophagogastric junction constitute a major global health problem. Esophageal cancers are histologically classified as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma, which differ in their etiology, pathology, tumor location, therapeutics, and prognosis. In contrast to esophageal adenocarcinoma, which usually affects the lower esophagus, esophageal SCC is more likely to localize at or higher than the tracheal bifurcation. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1, has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on the management of recurrent or metastatic disease.

Endoscopic stenting for malignant biliary obstruction is technically successful in patients with preexisting duodenal stents.

Background and study aims There are limited data on the success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction with a preexisting duodenal stent. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient and procedural outcomes of a cohort of patients with preexisting duodenal stents who underwent an attempt at ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Patients and methods This was a single-center retrospective study on consecutive patients with a preexisting duodenal stent who underwent attempted ERCP for MBO. Technical success was defined as successful cannulation of the common bile duct, with successful dilation and/or deployment of a biliary stent under fluoroscopy. Clinical success was defined as number of patients in the entire group who underwent ERCP successfully with resolution of symptoms. Results We identified 64 patients (73 % men, 74 % white, median age 62 years) with a preexisting duodenal stent who underwent 85 attempts at ERCP. ERCP was technically successful in 50 of 85 procedures (59 %). Overall ERCP was successful in 41 of 85 patients (48 %). ERCP was more likely to be successful in patients with Type 1 and 3 duodenal strictures than with Type 2 strictures (83 % and 92 % vs. 42 %, P  < 0.01), in patients with a preexisting sphincterotomy (79% vs. 20 %, P  = 0.01) or preexisting biliary stent (66 % vs. 34 %, P  = 0.04). Adverse events included bleeding (n = 3), post-procedure fever (n = 3) and abdominal pain (n = 1). Conclusions Although biliary stenting via ERCP is often technically challenging in patients with a prior duodenal stent, it is a safe and effective method of biliary drainage. ERCP should be attempted in patients with Type 1 and 3 duodenal strictures, a prior sphincterotomy or an indwelling biliary stent.

Gastric Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

Effectiveness of a surveillance program of upper endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal cancers in Lynch syndrome patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer and is associated with an increased lifetime risk of gastric and duodenal cancers of 8-16% and 7%, respectively; therefore, we aim to describe an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) surveillance program for upper gastrointestinal (GI) precursor lesions and cancer in LS patients. METHODS: Patients who either had positive genetic testing or met clinical criteria for LS who had a surveillance EGD at our institution from 1996 to 2017 were identified. Patients were included if they had at least two EGDs or an upper GI cancer detected on the first surveillance EGD. EGD and pathology reports were extracted manually. RESULTS: Our cohort included 247 patients with a mean age of 47.1 years (SD 12.6) at first EGD. Patients had a mean of 3.5 EGDs (range 1-16). Mean duration of follow-up was 5.7 years. Average interval between EGDs was 2.3 years. Surveillance EGD detected precursor lesions in 8 (3.2%) patients, two (0.8%) gastric cancers and two (0.8%) duodenal cancers. Two interval cancers were diagnosed: a duodenal adenocarcinoma was detected 2 years, 8 months after prior EGD and a jejunal adenocarcinoma was detected 1 year, 9 months after prior EGD. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that surveillance EGD is a useful tool to help detect precancerous and cancerous upper GI lesions in LS patients. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine a program of surveillance EGDs in LS patients. More data are needed to determine the appropriate surveillance interval.

Bevacizumab does not increase risk of perforation in patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or jejunostomy placement.

INTRODUCTION: Bevacizumab is a humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and recurrent glioblastomas. Its approval by US FDA was issued with a black box warning that its use has been associated with a risk of gastrointestinal (GI) tract perforation and that it should be discontinued in patients who have experienced such. The reported incidence of GI perforation in those receiving bevacizumab is as high as 3%. However, the incidence of GI perforation in those receiving bevacizumab undergoing GI endoscopic procedures has not been well studied. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center observational study was conducted at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) between 2011 and 2018. All patients who underwent upper GI endoscopy with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ) tube placement and received bevacizumab within 6 months of their endoscopic procedure were included. RESULTS: We identified 176 patients who underwent PEG or PEJ tube placement and received bevacizumab within 6 months. Eighty-one percent of patients were female (n = 144) and the median age was 61 years. Prior to endoscopic procedures, patients received a median of seven doses of bevacizumab. Patients received bevacizumab from 170 days before to 170 days after their endoscopic procedures (median 44 days). No GI perforations were observed during or after the time of the endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that receiving bevacizumab within 6 months prior to their endoscopic procedure was not associated with an increased risk of GI tract perforation and thus not an absolute contraindication to proceeding with PEG and PEJ tube placement in these patients.

Defining low-risk lesions in early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: As endoscopic approaches become more widely used to treat early-stage esophageal cancer, reliably identifying patients with less-aggressive tumors is paramount. We sought to identify risk factors for recurrence in patients with completely resected T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a single-institutional database for all patients with completely resected pathologic T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (1996-2016). Risk factors for recurrence were identified using competing-risk regression methods. Risk stratification was performed on the basis of known preoperative clinicopathologic factors; this model's discriminative power for overall survival was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Of 243 patients, 32 experienced recurrence. At a median follow-up among survivors of 4 years (range, 0.05-19 years), the 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 15%, and median time to recurrence was 2 years (range, 0.26-6.13 years). On univariable analysis, submucosal invasion, N1 disease, poor differentiation, tumor length, lymphovascular invasion, and multicentricity were significantly associated with recurrence. On multivariable analysis, N1 disease (hazard ratio, 2.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-7.34; P = .022) and tumor length (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.86; P = .004) were independently associated with recurrence. Risk stratification showed that patients without lymphovascular invasion and a with median tumor length of 0.8 cm (range, 0.10-1.70 cm) had a <10% risk of recurrence and improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic T1 tumors have a 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence of 15%. Nodal involvement and tumor length were independent risk factors for recurrence, whereas tumors <2 cm in length without lymphovascular invasion were associated with a low risk of recurrence.

Indications for Total Gastrectomy in CDH1 Mutation Carriers and Outcomes of Risk-Reducing Minimally Invasive and Open Gastrectomies.

Importance: CDH1 variants are increasingly identified on commercially available multigene panel tests, calling for data to inform counseling of individuals without a family history of gastric cancer. Objectives: To assess association between CDH1 variant pathogenicity or family history of gastric or lobular breast cancer and identification of signet ring cell cancer and to describe outcomes of risk-reducing minimally invasive and open total gastrectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was performed from January 1, 2006, to January 1, 2020, in 181 patients with CDH1 germline variants from a single institution. Interventions: Genetic counseling, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and possible total gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: CDH1 variant classification, family cancer history, findings of signet ring cell carcinoma at esophagogastroduodenoscopy and surgery, postoperative events and weight changes, and follow-up. Results: Of 181 individuals with CDH1 germline variants (mean [SD] age at time of testing, 44 [15] years; 126 [70%] female), 165 harbored a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Of these patients, 101 underwent open (n = 58) or minimally invasive (n = 43) total gastrectomy. Anastomotic leaks that required drainage were infrequent (n = 3), and median long-term weight loss was 20% (interquartile range [IQR], 10%-23%). In those undergoing minimally invasive operations, more lymph nodes were retrieved (median, 28 [IQR, 20-34] vs 15 [IQR, 9-19]; P < .001) and the hospital stay was 1 day shorter (median, 6 [IQR, 5-7] vs 7 [IQR, 6-7] days; P = .04). Signet ring cell cancer was identified in the surgical specimens of 85 of 95 patients (89%) with a family history of gastric cancer and 4 of 6 patients (67%) who lacked a family history. Among the latter 6 patients, 4 had a personal or family history of lobular breast cancer, including 2 with signet ring cell cancer. Of the 16 patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic CDH1 variants who presented with locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, 3 (19%) had no family history of gastric cancer or personal or family history of lobular breast cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: Total gastrectomy may be warranted for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic CDH1 variants and a family history of gastric or lobular breast cancer and may be appropriate for those without a family history. A minimally invasive approach is feasible and may be preferred for selected patients.

Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histology in Eastern Europe and Asia, and adenocarcinoma is most common in North America and Western Europe. Surgery is a major component of treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer, and randomized trials have shown that the addition of preoperative chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy to surgery significantly improves survival. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with esophageal and EGJ cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on recommendations for the management of locally advanced and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and EGJ.

Endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage of post-operative peripancreatic fluid collections following pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) is a common complication following pancreatic resection which can be managed with endoscopic or percutaneous drainage. METHODS: Patients who underwent either endoscopic or percutaneous drainage of post-operative PFC were extracted from a prospectively-maintained database. The two groups were matched for surgery type, presence of a surgical drain and timing of drainage. RESULTS: Thirty-nine matched patients were identified in each group with a median age of 62 years. For primary drainage, technical success was achieved in almost all patients in both endoscopic and percutaneous groups (100% and 97%, p = NS); clinical success was achieved in 67% and 59%, respectively (p = 0.63). At least one "salvage" drainage procedure was required in 13 endoscopic patients versus 16 in the percutaneous group. Clinical success was achieved following the first salvage. Procedure in 85% of the endoscopic patients and 88% of the percutaneous patients (p = 0.62). Stent/drain duration (59 vs 33 days, p < 0.001) and number of post-procedural CT studies (2 vs 1, p = 0.02) were significantly higher in the endoscopic group. There was no difference in length of stay, complication, or recurrence between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic drainage of post-operative PFC appears to be safe and effective with comparable success rates and outcomes to percutaneous drainage.

Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Jejunostomy: Procedural and Nutrition Outcomes in a Large Patient Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is used for enteral nutrition (EN) in patients with postoperative anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy/gastrectomy and at high risk for aspiration. We characterized the indications, technical success, procedural/nutrition outcomes, and adverse events in a large cohort of patients undergoing DPEJ insertion. METHODS: Patients undergoing DPEJ insertion between January 2009 and March 2015 were identified from an institutional endoscopy database. Demographic, procedural, and nutrition outcome data were collected from electronic medical records. Regression analyses were used to identify predictors of adverse events and procedural success. RESULTS: A total of 452 patients underwent 480 attempts at DPEJ insertion. Indications included preoperative or postoperative weight loss (64%), postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) anastomotic leak (13%), aspiration prevention (10%), and other (13%). Of attempted procedures, 398 (83%) were successful. Feeding was initiated in 389 (98%) of patients; a median of 1775 calories was delivered daily. Median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 22.9 (11.4-44.7) and did not change over follow-up. Median change in BMI after DPEJ was similar in groups that received EN with palliative and curative intent. Adverse events following 480 attempted DPEJ insertions included 13 (3%) immediate and 74 (15%) delayed, 13 (3%) of which were serious. Patients with head and neck cancer had more adverse events than those with esophageal cancer (P = .020). CONCLUSION: DPEJ is a successful and safe procedure that effectively provides access for EN support in malnourished patients and patients with postoperative UGI cancer.

Predictors of Nodal Metastases for Clinical T2N0 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Induction therapy has not been proven to be beneficial for patients with clinical T2N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. Surgery alone is associated with disappointing survival for patients found to have nodal disease on final pathologic examination. The aim of this study was to identify factors that predict pathologic nodal involvement in patients with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-proven T2N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with EUS-staged T2N0 (uT2N0) esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with surgery alone. Final pathologic staging was compared with clinical staging. Demographic and clinicopathologic variables were evaluated as putative risk factors for nodal metastases. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with nodal involvement. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare overall and recurrence-free survival between patients with (N+) and without (N-) nodal disease. RESULTS: We identified 80 patients with uT2N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with surgery alone. Clinical staging with EUS was inaccurate for 73 patients (91%). Twenty-eight patients (35%) had pathologic N+ disease at resection. Five-year overall survival was 67% for N- patients and 41% for N+ patients (p = 0.006). Recurrence-free survival was 65% for N- patients and 32% for N+ patients (p = 0.0043). Univariable analysis identified vascular invasion and neural invasion as risk factors for nodal metastasis. Multivariable analysis identified vascular invasion as an independent predictor of pathologic nodal involvement. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is inaccurate for staging of T2N0 esophageal adenocarcinoma and often fails to identify nodal involvement. Identification of vascular invasion on preoperative biopsy should be explored as a prognostic marker to select patients for induction therapy.

Endoluminal high-dose-rate brachytherapy for locally recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: Management of locally recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer (EC) after standard chemoradiation is challenging. This study updates our experience of treating medically inoperable EC patients with endoluminal high-dose-rate brachytherapy (EHDRBT) including the patients treated with a novel multiballoon channel centering esophageal applicator. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-three consecutive patients with early-stage primary (n = 7), posttreatment persistent (n = 7), and recurrent (n = 19) EC treated with EHDRBT at our institution were included. Median dose and treatment lengths were 14 Gy (range 10-17.5 Gy) and 6 cm (3.5-9.0 cm), respectively. Endoscopy and biopsy were performed 3 months after EHDRBT and then every 3-6 months thereafter. RESULTS: Median followup was 17.4 months (range 5.0-88.3). Grade 1 and 2 toxicities were observed in 13 (44.8%) and 11 (37.9%) patients, respectively. Grade 3 toxicity (tracheoesophageal fistula) was observed in 1 patient who had previously received two courses of external beam radiotherapy as well as a stent insertion. Median overall survival (OS) for entire cohort was 20.9 months, and 1-year OS was 78%. Complete response was achieved in 58.6% of patients with median time to failure and 1-year disease-free survival of 10.3 months (range 5.4-28.2) and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For medically inoperable patients with early-stage primary or local posttreatment residual or recurrent EC, EHDRBT is a well-tolerated treatment option with minimal Grade ≥3 toxicity. Brachytherapy in our hands continues to be a safe treatment option. Although 58.6% of patients achieved a complete response and the OS of this cohort is relatively good, long-term local control and cure remains a challenge.

Quality of Endoscopy Reports for Esophageal Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS: As treatment for esophageal cancer often involves a multidisciplinary approach, the initial endoscopic report is essential for communication between providers. Several guidelines have been established to standardize endoscopic reporting. This study evaluates the compliance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) reporting with the current national guidelines. METHODS: Combining the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines, 11 quality indicators (QIs) for EGD and 8 for EUS were identified. We evaluated initial EGD and EUS reports from our institution (Memorial Sloan Kettering [MSK]) and outside hospitals (OSHs) and calculated individual and overall quality measure scores. Scores between locations were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar's test for paired data. RESULTS: In total, 115 initial EGD reports and 105 EUS reports were reviewed for patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer between 2014 and 2016. The median number of QIs reported for the initial EGD was 4 (IQR, 3-6)-only 34% of reports qualified as "good quality" (those with ≥ 6 QIs). None of the reports included all QIs. For patients who underwent EGD at both MSK and an OSH, 32% of reports from OSHs were good quality, compared with 68% from MSK (p < 0.001). Compliance with QIs was better for EUS reports: 71% of OSH reports and 72% of MSK reports were good quality. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed information on the initial endoscopic assessment is essential in today's age of multidisciplinary care. Identification and adoption of QIs for endoscopic reporting is warranted to ensure the provision of appropriate treatment.