Transitioning to Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Trends and Surgical Outcomes in a Regionalized Pulmonary Oncology Network.

BACKGROUND: Several regulatory agencies have approved the use of the neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy for resectable stage II and III of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and numerous trials investigating novel agents are underway. However, significant concerns exist around the feasibility and safety of offering curative surgery to patients treated within such pathways. The goal in this study was to evaluate the impact of a transition towards a large-scale neoadjuvant therapy program for NSCLC. METHODS: Medical charts of patients with clinical stage II and III NSCLC who underwent resection from January 2015 to December 2020 were reviewed. The primary outcome was perioperative complication rate between neoadjuvant-treated versus upfront surgery patients. Multivariable logistic regression estimated occurrence of postoperative complications and overall survival was assessed as an exploratory secondary outcome by Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 428 patients included, 106 (24.8%) received neoadjuvant therapy and 322 (75.2%) upfront surgery. Frequency of minor and major postoperative complications was similar between groups (P = .22). Occurrence in postoperative complication was similar in both cohort (aOR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.73-2.34). Neoadjuvant therapy administration increased from 10% to 45% with a rise in targeted and immuno-therapies over time, accompanied by a reduced rate of preoperative radiation therapy use. 1-, 2-, and 5-year overall survival was higher in neoadjuvant therapy compared to upfront surgery patients (Log-Rank P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in perioperative outcomes and survival were observed in resectable NSCLC patients treated by neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery. Transition to neoadjuvant therapy among resectable NSCLC patients is safe and feasible from a surgical perspective.

Docetaxel-Based Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by En Bloc Resection for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A 15-Year Retrospective Analysis from a Regional Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Network.

BACKROUND: Real-world, long-term survival outcomes of neoadjuvant, docetaxel-based therapy for esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma are lacking. This study describes the long-term survival outcomes of patients with esophageal and junctional adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel-based chemotherapy and en bloc transthoracic esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of a prospectively maintained database from a regional upper gastrointestinal cancer network in Quebec, Canada, was performed. From January 2007 to December 2021, all patients with locally advanced (cT3 and/or N1) esophageal/Siewert I/II adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant DCFx3 (Docetaxel/Cisplatin/5FU) or FLOTx4 (5FU/Leucovorin/Oxaliplatin/Docetaxel) and transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy were identified. Postoperative, pathological, and survival outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 236 of 420 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tumor location was esophageal/Siewert I/Siewert II (118/33/85), most were cT3-4 (93.6%) and cN+ (61.0%). DCF and FLOT were used in 127 of 236 (53.8%) and 109 of 236 (46.2%). All neoadjuvant cycles were completed in 87.3% with no difference between the regimens. Operative procedures included Ivor Lewis (81.8%), left thoraco-abdominal esophagectomy (10.6%) and McKeown (7.6%) with an R0 resection in 95.3% and pathological complete response in 9.7% (DCF 12.6%/FLOT 6.4%, p = 0.111). The median lymph node yield was 32 (range 4-79), and 60.6% were ypN+. Median follow-up was longer for the DCF group (74.8 months 95% confidence interval [CI] 4-173 vs. 37.8 months 95% CI 2-119, p <0.001. Overall survival was similar between the groups (FLOT 97.3 months, 78.6-115.8 vs. DCF 92.9, 9.2-106.5, p = 0.420). CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant DCF and FLOT followed by transthoracic en bloc resection are both highly effective regimens for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma with equivalent survival outcomes despite high disease load.

Neoadjuvant Prehabilitation Therapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Optimizing Outcomes Throughout the Trajectory of Care.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation is well established for improving outcomes in cancer surgery. Combining prehabilitation with neoadjuvant treatments may provide an opportunity to rapidly initiate cancer-directed therapy while improving functional status in preparation for local consolidation. In this proof-of-concept study, we analyzed non-small-cell lung cancer patients who underwent simultaneous prehabilitation and neoadjuvant therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer followed by curative intent surgery between 2015 and 2021. Patients who were screened for the prehabilitation program were identified. The screening included assessment of physical performance, nutritional status, and signs of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: We identified a total of 141 patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Twenty patients were screened to undergo a prehabilitation program. Four patients did not complete the exercise program (1 surgical intervention too soon, 1 drop-out after the first session, and 2 patients were deemed fit without intervention). The postoperative median length of stay was 2 days (range 1-18). Patients improved their 6-minute-walk test despite undergoing neoadjuvant treatment by a mean of 33 meters (± 50, P = .1). Self-reported functional status (DASI) showed significant improvement by a mean of 10 points (± 11, P = .03), and HADS-anxiety-score was significantly reduced after the prehabilitation program by a mean of 1.5 points (± 1, P = .005). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant prehabilitation therapy is feasible and associated with encouraging results. The performance of all measures remains a logistic challenge. With multimodal strategies for lung cancer treatment becoming key to optimal outcomes, neoadjuvant prehabilitation therapy is a concept worthy of prospective multi-center evaluation.

Phosphorylated transducer and activator of transcription-3 (pSTAT3) immunohistochemical expression in paired primary and metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription-3 (STAT3) mediates cellular functions. We assessed the IHC expression of phosphorylated STAT3 (pSTAT3) in paired primary tumors and liver metastases in patients with advanced stage colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: We included patients with tissue blocks available from both the primary CRC and a surgically resected liver metastasis. The IHC pSTAT3 expression agreement was measured using Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS: The study included 103 patients, 55% male, median age was 64. 43% tumors originated in rectum, and 63% of the primary tumors were synchronous. Expression of pSTAT3 was 76% in liver metastases and 71% in primary tumors. A difference in pSTAT3 staining between the primary tumor and liver metastases was noted in 64%. There was lost expression of pSTAT3 in the liver metastases in 28% and gained expression in 36% of cases compared to the primary. The kappa statistic comparing agreement between staining patterns of the primary tumors and liver metastases was a "less-than-chance", at -0.02. Median survival was 4.9 years, with no difference in survival outcomes by pSTAT3 expression in the primary tumor or liver metastases. DISCUSSION: STAT3 is not a prognostic marker in the selective setting of metastatic CRC to liver, but it may remain a potential therapeutic target given most liver metastases expressed pSTAT3. Discordant pSTAT3 expression in between primary tumors and paired liver metastases suggests that use of this class of drug to treat liver predominant metastatic colorectal cancer in a biomarker-driven approach may require confirmatory liver tumor biopsy.

Chemotherapy in the oldest old: The feasibility of delivering cytotoxic therapy to patients 80 years old and older.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer is predominantly a disease of the elderly. While "older" patients are frequently considered for chemotherapy, little data exist in the population 80 years and older (80+). We investigated outcomes of patients 80+ who received chemotherapy at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients 80+ initiating chemotherapy for malignant solid tumors from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Baseline demographics, cancer type and chemotherapy data were collected. Primary outcome was the rate of discontinuation due to toxicity. Secondary outcomes included the rate of dose reduction/omission/delay (ROD), hospitalization and blood transfusion. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was initiated in 318 patients. Baseline demographics included the following: median age 82 years (80-92 years), 56% male, 55% ECOG PS 0-1, 43% Charlson index score of 0-1; 38% were taking ≥ 6 prescription medications. Common malignancies were colorectal (32%), lung (20%), and breast (12%). Most patients (68%) had metastatic disease or received palliative intent therapy (71%). Treatment was first line in 89% of patients, and an up front dose reduction was ordered in 41%. Toxicity caused therapy discontinuation in 32% of cases, while 52% experienced dose ROD. Hospitalization occurred in 32%; 18% required blood transfusions. Baseline polypharmacy was associated with increased hospitalization risk (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.34-3.88, p=0.002), but dose adjustments were not correlated with any outcome. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed a high risk of hospitalization or treatment discontinuation due to toxicity, despite frequent dose modifications. As the cancer population ages, validated tools are needed to better select patients for therapy.