[Gastric stump carcinoma: frequency, treatment, complications and prognosis]. / Magenstumpfkarzinom: Häufigkeit, Therapie, Komplikationen und Prognose.

BACKGROUND: Gastric stump carcinoma develops in the gastric remnant after partial gastrectomy. While the frequency of gastric cancer is declining, the incidence of gastric stump carcinoma has remained stable due to the long latency period. As the surgical treatment of gastric ulcers by partial gastrectomy has become much less important, more and more gastric stump carcinomas develop after oncological resection. AIM: This study compared the surgical therapy of gastric stump carcinoma with the therapy of primary gastric cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2014 a total of 24 patients were surgically treated for gastric stump carcinoma in the University Hospital of Heidelberg. In the same time 428 patients underwent resection due to primary gastric cancer. Both groups were analyzed and compared with a focus on preoperative therapy, intraoperative differences, complications and overall survival. RESULTS: Patients with gastric stump carcinoma were older at disease onset (68 years vs. 62 years, p = 0.003). Compared with primary gastric cancer, patients with gastric stump carcinoma were more often suspected of having lymph node (cN+) involvement (51.4 % vs. 41.7 %, p < 0.001) but neoadjuvant therapy was applied less often (48.7 % vs. 14.3 %, p < 0.01). For resection of gastric stump carcinoma, extended resections were more often necessary (54.5 % vs. 28.2 %, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mean overall survival between the two patient groups (64.4 months vs. 45.8 months, p = 0.34) CONCLUSION: Despite the differences described, the treatment of gastric stump carcinoma does not essentially differ from that of primary gastric cancer. Carcinomas of the gastric stump are more often locally advanced and in our opinion a neoadjuvant therapy should be applied analogue to gastric cancer even if evidence-based data on this point are limited.

[Salvage surgery in esophageal cancer : Feasibility in patients after definitive radiochemotherapy (> 50 Gy)]. / Salvage-Chirurgie bei Ösophaguskarzinomen : Sinnvoll bei Patienten nach definitiver Radio(chemo)therapie (> 50 Gy)?

BACKGROUND: Salvage surgery as an additional therapy option is currently discussed for an increasing number of patients with esophageal cancer after definitive radio(chemo)therapy after tumor progression, recurrence or on explicit request of the patient. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was an analysis of the surgical option of salvage esophagectomy after definitive radiation in patients with esophageal cancer. Additionally the current literature on this topic was evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 92 patients with esophageal cancer from a prospective database were included in this study who underwent esophagectomy either after neoadjuvant radio(chemo)therapy (< 50 Gy) or definitive radio(chemo)therapy (> 50 Gy) between 2002 and 2012. The analysis was performed retrospectively. RESULTS: The median survival of the two groups of patients was not significantly different after initial diagnosis with 24.2 months (95 % CI 0.0-51.93) for patients undergoing definitive radio(chemo)therapy and 30.7 months (95 % CI 9.3-52.2) for patients after neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.96). Both patient groups showed no differences in pretherapeutic characteristics and response to radio(chemo)therapy. Postoperative complications and perioperative mortality were not different. DISCUSSION: Salvage esophagectomy is now an additional treatment option after definitive radio(chemo)therapy in patients with esophageal cancer. In preselected patients with tumor recurrence, progression or with a strong wish for surgical therapy, salvage surgery should be discussed in interdisciplinary tumor boards after exclusion of distant metastases.

A reliable risk score for stage IV esophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of surgery for patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGC) is not defined. The purpose of this study was to define selection criteria for patients who may benefit from resection following systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: From 1987 to 2007, 160 patients presenting with synchronous metastatic EGC (cT3/4 cNany cM0/1 finally pM1) were treated with chemotherapy followed by resection of the primary tumor and metastases. Clinical and histopathological data, site and number of metastases were analyzed. A prognostic score was established and validated in a second cohort from another academic center (n = 32). RESULTS: The median survival (MS) in cohort 1 was 13.6 months. Significant prognostic factors were grading (p = 0.046), ypT- (p = 0.001), ypN- (p = 0.011) and R-category (p = 0.015), lymphangiosis (p = 0.021), clinical (p = 0.004) and histopathological response (p = 0.006), but not localization or number of metastases. The addition of grading (G1/2:0 points; G3/4:1 points), clinical response (responder: 0; nonresponder: 1) and R-category (complete:0; R1:1; R2:2) defines two groups of patients with significantly different survival (p = 0.001) [low risk group (Score 0/1), n = 22: MS 35.3 months, 3-year-survival 47.6%); high risk group (Score 2/3/4) n = 126: MS 12.0 months, 3-year-survival 14.2%]. The score showed a strong trend in the validation cohort (p = 0.063) [low risk group (MS not reached, 3-year-survival 57.1%); high risk group (MS 19.9 months, 3-year-survival 6.7%)]. CONCLUSION: We observed long-term survival after resection of metastatic EGC. A simple clinical score may help to identify a subgroup of patients with a high chance of benefit from resection. However, the accurate estimation of achieving a complete resection, which is an integral element of the score, remains challenging.

Preoperative therapy of esophagogastric cancer: the problem of nonresponding patients.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative treatment is nowadays standard for locally advanced esophagogastric cancer in Europe. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to nonresponders so far. The aim of our retrospective exploratory study was the comparison of responder, nonresponder, and primary resected patients in respect of outcome considering the tumor entity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2001-2011, 607 patients with locally advanced esophagogastric carcinoma (adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG), n = 293; squamous cell cancer (SCC), n = 111; gastric cancer, n = 203) after preoperative treatment (n = 281) or primary resection (n = 326) were included. Histopathological response evaluation (Becker criteria) was available for 263. RESULTS: A total of 76/263 (28.9 %) were responders (<10 % residual tumor). There was an association of response with increased R0 resections (p < 0.001) but also with a higher complication rate (p = 0.008) compared to nonresponse and primary surgery. Mortality was not influenced. Increased R0 resections after response were confirmed in every tumor entity (AEG, p = 0.010; SCC, p = 0.023; gastric cancer, p = 0.006). Median survival was best for responders with 43.5 months [95 % confidence interval (CI), 27.9-59.1], followed by nonresponders with 24.3 months (95 % CI, 21.6-27.0) and primary resected patients with 20.8 months (95 % CI, 17.7-23.9; p = 0.002). AEG (p = 0.012) and gastric cancer (p = 0.017) revealed identical results, but in the subgroup of SCC, the survival of nonresponders (median, 11.6 months; 95 % CI, 6.9-16.3) was even worse than for primary resected patients (median, 23.8 months; 95 % CI, 1.7-46.0; p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The histopathological response rate was low. Generally, nonresponding patients with AEG or gastric cancer seem not to have a disadvantage compared to primary resected patients, but nonresponders with SCC have a worse prognosis, which strengthens the demand for a critical patient selection in surgery for this tumor entity.

[Squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus]. / Plattenepithelkarzinom des Ösophagus.

The prognosis of locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) of the esophagus after surgery only is poor. Therefore a definitive chemoradiotherapy (RCTx) was also discussed as the therapy of choice. Besides tumor biology, patient-related factors, such as alcohol and nicotine abuse increase the perioperative mortality and morbidity. Multimodal treatment can improve the outcome in comparison to surgery alone. A recently published meta-analysis confirmed that preoperative RCTx followed by surgery improves the prognosis compared to surgery alone in SCC of the esophagus. After chemotherapy this effect is less pronounced. Patients with a complete histopathological response (pCR) after preoperative RCTx have a 5-year survival rate of more than 55% and a low probability of local recurrence. However, a pCR cannot be predicted neither by negative biopsy nor by negative FDG-PET uptake after RCTx. Up to now FDG-PET has shown a low impact for response prediction or therapy modification in SCC of the esophagus in clinical studies. Responding patients should be transferred to surgery after preoperative treatment, because of a reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality and improved prognosis.