Does Loosening the Inclusion Criteria of the CROSS Trial Impact Outcomes in the Curative-Intent Trimodality Treatment of Oesophageal and Gastroesophageal Cancer Patients?

AIM: To determine the efficacy of preoperative chemoradiotherapy as per the CROSS protocol for oesophageal/gastroesophageal junction cancer (OEGEJC), when expanded to patients outside of the inclusion/exclusion criteria defined in the original clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively on 229 OEGEJC patients referred for curative-intent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Outcomes including pathological complete response (pCR), overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients who met CROSS inclusion criteria (MIC) versus those who failed to meet criteria (FMIC) were determined. RESULTS: In total, 42.8% of patients MIC, whereas 57.2% FMIC; 16.6% of patients did not complete definitive surgery. The MIC cohort had higher rates of pCR, when compared with the FMIC cohort (33.3% versus 20.6%, P = 0.039). The MIC cohort had a better RFS, cancer-specific survival and OS compared with the FMIC cohort (P = 0.006, P = 0.004 and P = 0.009, respectively). Age >75 years and pretreatment weight loss >10% were not associated with a poorer RFS (P = 0.541 and 0.458, respectively). Compared with stage I-III patients, stage IVa was associated with a poorer RFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.158; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.339-3.480, P = 0.001). Tumours >8 cm in length or >5 cm in width had a trend towards worse RFS (HR = 2.060; 95% CI = 0.993-4.274, P = 0.052). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the robust requirements of the CROSS trial may limit treatment for patients with potentially curable OEGEJC and can be adapted to include patients with a good performance status who are older than 75 years or have >10% pretreatment weight loss. However, the inclusion of patients with celiac nodal metastases or tumours >8 cm in length or >5 cm in width may be associated with poor outcomes.

A glance back in time, 1965: the dilemma of women leaders.

As individuals, we have history, presence, and future. Each of us is the embodiment of these experiences. In order to understand nursing today and its future paths, our history needs exploration. In an effort to provide the reader a perspective on where we were, how far we have traveled, or, in some instances, how little has changed, we reprint this article from Nursing Forum, 1965, 4(2), 54-67.