Pattern of recurrence in patients with a pathologically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and surgery is a widely used treatment for locally advanced resectable oesophageal cancer, with 20-50 per cent of patients having a pathological complete response (pCR). Disease, however, still recurs in 20-30 per cent of these patients. The aim of this study was to assess the pattern of recurrence in patients with a pCR after nCRT and surgery. METHODS: All patients with a pCR after nCRT and surgery included in the phase II and III CROSS (ChemoRadiotherapy for Oesophageal followed by Surgery Study) trials (April 2001 to December 2008) and after the CROSS trials (September 2009 to October 2017) were identified. The site of recurrence was compared with the applied radiation and surgical fields. Outcomes were median time to recurrence, and overall and progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 141 patients with a median follow-up of 100 (i.q.r. 64-134) months were included. Some 29 of 141 patients (20,6 per cent) developed recurrence. Of these, four had isolated locoregional recurrence, 15 had distant recurrence only, and ten had both locoregional and distant recurrence. Among the 14 patients with locoregional recurrences, five had recurrence within the radiation field, seven outside the radiation field, and two at the border. Median time to recurrence was 24 (10-62) months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 74 per cent and the recurrence-free survival rate was 70 per cent. CONCLUSION: Despite good overall survival, recurrence still occurred in 21 per cent of patients. Most recurrences were distant, outside the radiation and surgical fields.

Quality of Life During and After Completion of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal and Junctional Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The course of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during and after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal or junctional carcinoma is unknown. METHODS: This study was a multicenter prospective cohort investigation. Patients with esophageal or cancer to be treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy were eligible for inclusion in the study. The HRQOL of the patients was measured with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, QLQ-OG25, and QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaires before and during nCRT, then 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 weeks after nCRT and before surgery. Predefined end points were based on the hypothesized impact of nCRT. The primary end points were physical functioning, odynophagia, and sensory symptoms. The secondary end points were global quality of life, fatigue, weight loss, and motor symptoms. Mixed modeling analysis was used to evaluate changes over time. RESULTS: Of 106 eligible patients, 96 (91%) were included in the study. The rate of questionnaires returned ranged from 94% to 99% until week 12, then dropped to 78% in week 16 after nCRT. A negative impact of nCRT on all HRQOL end points was observed during the last cycle of nCRT (all p < 0.001) and 2 weeks after nCRT (all p < 0.001). Physical functioning, odynophagia, and sensory symptoms were restored to pretreatment levels respectively 8, 4, and 6 weeks after nCRT. The secondary end points were restored to baseline levels 4-6 weeks after nCRT. Odynophagia, fatigue, and weight loss improved after nCRT compared with baseline levels at respectively 6 (p < 0.001), 16 (p = 0.001), and 12 weeks (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After completion of nCRT for esophageal cancer, HRQOL decreases significantly, but all HRQOL end points are restored to baseline levels within 8 weeks. Odynophagia, fatigue, and weight loss improved 6-16 weeks after nCRT compared with baseline levels.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal cancer.

At present, treatment of potentially curable oesophageal cancer includes neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy. Alternatively, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used. To date, strong evidence on the superiority of one modality over the other has not been provided. Currently, up to one-third of patients show a pathologically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. To optimise the efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment for individual patients, prediction of response to neoadjuvant treatment is highly desired. Therefore, several clinical diagnostic modalities have been investigated for early response evaluation, of which positron emission tomography (PET) has been studied most extensively. To identify patients who might benefit from postponing or even omitting surgery, recent advances have been made in evaluating response after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This review provides an overview of current evidence and recent advances in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer and discusses the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to chemoradiotherapy. Moreover, clinical response evaluation to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is reviewed.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on health-related quality of life in long-term survivors of esophageal or junctional cancer: results from the randomized CROSS trial.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard of care for patients with esophageal or junctional cancer, but the long-term impact of nCRT on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is unknown. The purpose of this study is to compare very long-term HRQOL in long-term survivors of esophageal cancer who received nCRT plus surgery or surgery alone. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive nCRT (carboplatin/paclitaxel with 41.4-Gy radiotherapy) plus surgery or surgery alone. HRQOL was measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30, EORTC-QLQ-OES24 and K-BILD questionnaires after a minimum follow-up of 6 years. To allow for examination over time, EORTC-QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES24 questionnaire scores were compared with pretreatment and 12 months postoperative questionnaire scores. Physical functioning (QLQ-C30), eating problems (QLQ-OES24) and respiratory problems (K-BILD) were predefined primary end points. Predefined secondary end points were global quality of life and fatigue (both QLQ-C30). Results: After a median follow-up of 105 months, 123/368 included patients (33%) were still alive (70 nCRT plus surgery, 53 surgery alone). No statistically significant or clinically relevant differential effects in HRQOL end points were found between both groups. Compared with 1-year postoperative levels, eating problems, physical functioning, global quality of life and fatigue remained at the same level in both groups. Compared with pretreatment levels, eating problems had improved (Cohen's d -0.37, P = 0.011) during long-term follow-up, whereas physical functioning and fatigue were not restored to pretreatment levels in both groups (Cohen's d -0.56 and 0.51, respectively, both P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although physical functioning and fatigue remain reduced after long-term follow-up, no adverse impact of nCRT is apparent on long-term HRQOL compared with patients who were treated with surgery alone. In addition to the earlier reported improvement in survival and the absence of impact on short-term HRQOL, these results support the view that nCRT according to CROSS can be considered as a standard of care. Trial registration number: Netherlands Trial Register NTR487.

Active surveillance in clinically complete responders after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery is standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer in many countries. After nCRT up to one third of all patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen, posing an ethical imperative to reconsider the necessity of standard surgery in all operable patients after nCRT. An active surveillance strategy following nCRT, in which patients are subjected to frequent clinical investigations after the completion of neoadjuvant therapy, has been evaluated in other types of cancer with promising results. In esophageal cancer, both patients who are cured by neoadjuvant therapy alone as well as patients with subclinical disseminated disease at the time of completion of neoadjuvant therapy may benefit from such an organ sparing approach. Active surveillance is currently applied in selected patients with esophageal cancer who refuse surgery or are medically unfit for major surgery after completion of nCRT, but this strategy is not (yet) adopted as an alternative to standard surgery or definitive chemoradiation. The available literature is scarce, but suggests that long-term oncological outcomes after active surveillance are noninferior compared to standard surgical resection, providing justification for comparison of both treatments in a phase III trial. This review gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding active surveillance after completion of nCRT in esophageal cancer and outlines future research perspectives.

Multimodality treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma: multi-center propensity-score matched study.

Background: The primary aim of this study was to compare survival from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (NCRS) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (NCS) for the treatment of esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. The secondary aims were to compare pathological effects, short-term mortality and morbidity, and to evaluate the effect of lymph node harvest upon survival in both treatment groups. Methods: Data were collected from 10 European centers from 2001 to 2012. Six hundred and eight patients with stage II or III oesophageal or oesophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinoma were included; 301 in the NCRS group and 307 in the NCS group. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: NCRS resulted in significant pathological benefits with more ypT0 (26.7% versus 5%; P < 0.001), more ypN0 (63.3% versus 32.1%; P < 0.001), and reduced R1/2 resection margins (7.7% versus 21.8%; P < 0.001). Analysis of short-term outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in 30-day or 90-day mortality, but increased incidence of anastomotic leak (23.1% versus 6.8%; P < 0.001) in NCRS patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in 3-year overall survival (57.9% versus 53.4%; Hazard Ratio (HR)= 0.89, 95%C.I. 0.67-1.17, P = 0.391) nor disease-free survival (52.9% versus 48.9%; HR = 0.90, 95%C.I. 0.69-1.18, P = 0.443). The pattern of recurrence was also similar (P = 0.660). There was a higher lymph node harvest in the NCS group (27 versus 14; P < 0.001), which was significantly associated with a lower recurrence rate and improved disease free survival within the NCS group. Conclusion: The survival differences between NCRS and NCS maybe modest, if present at all, for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. Future large-scale randomized trials must control and monitor indicators of the quality of surgery, as the extent of lymphadenectomy appears to influence prognosis in patients treated with NCS, from this large multi-center European study.

Prediction of survival in patients with oesophageal or junctional cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery.

BACKGROUND: The value of conventional prognostic factors is unclear in the era of multimodal treatment for oesophageal cancer. This study aimed to quantify the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and surgery on well established prognostic factors, and to develop and validate a prognostic model. METHODS: Patients treated with nCRT plus surgery were included. Multivariable Cox modelling was used to identify prognostic factors for overall survival. A prediction model for individual survival was developed using stepwise backward selection. The model was internally validated leading to a nomogram for use in clinical practice. RESULTS: Some 626 patients who underwent nCRT plus surgery were included. In the multivariable model, only pretreatment cN category and ypN category were independent prognostic factors. The final prognostic model included cN, ypT and ypN categories, and had moderate discrimination (c-index at internal validation 0·63). CONCLUSION: In patients with oesophageal or oesophagogastric cancer treated with nCRT plus surgery, overall survival can best be estimated using a prediction model based on cN, ypT and ypN categories. Predicted survival according to this model showed only moderate correlation with observed survival, emphasizing the need for new prognostic factors to improve survival prediction.

Induction chemotherapy followed by surgery for advanced oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with locoregionally advanced oesophageal tumours or disputable distant metastases are referred for induction chemotherapy with the aim to downstage the tumour before an oesophagectomy is considered. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent induction chemotherapy between January 2005 and December 2012 were identified from an institutional database. Treatment plan was discussed in the multidisciplinary team. Response to chemotherapy was assessed by CT. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: In total 124 patients received induction chemotherapy mainly for locoregionally advanced disease (n = 80). Surgery was withheld in 35 patients because of progressive disease (n = 16) and persistent unresectability (n = 19). The median overall survival of this group was 13 months (IQR: 8-19). The remaining 89 patients underwent surgery of which 13 still had unresectable tumour or distant metastases. Of the 76 patients that underwent an oesophagectomy, 50 patients had tumour free resection margins (66%) with an estimated 5-year survival of 37%. A positive resection margin (HR 4.148, 95% CI 2.298-7.488, p < 0.0001) was associated with a worse survival in univariable analysis, but only pathological lymph node status with increasing hazard ratio's (6.283-10.283, p = 0.001) remained significant after multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Induction chemotherapy downstages the tumour and facilitates a radical oesophagectomy in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer. Pathological lymph node status is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival.

A phase I pharmacokinetic study of the vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin (AVE8062) and docetaxel in advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: The vascular disrupting agent ombrabulin shows synergy with docetaxel in vivo. Recommended phase II doses were determined in a dose escalation study in advanced solid tumours. METHODS: Ombrabulin (30-min infusion, day 1) followed by docetaxel (1-h infusion, day 2) every 3 weeks was explored. Ombrabulin was escalated from 11.5 to 42 mg m(-2) with 75 mg m(-2) docetaxel, then from 30 to 35 mg m(-2) with 100 mg m(-2) docetaxel. Recommended phase II dose cohorts were expanded. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were treated. Recommended phase II doses were 35 mg m(-2) ombrabulin with 75 mg m(-2) docetaxel (35/75 mg m(-2); 13 patients) and 30 mg m(-2) ombrabulin with 100 mg m(-2) docetaxel (30/100 mg m(-2); 16 patients). Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 fatigue (two patients; 42/75, 35/100), grade 3 neutropaenic infection (25/75), grade 3 headache (42/75), grade 4 febrile neutropaenia (30/100), and grade 3 thrombosis (35/100). Toxicities were consistent with each agent; mild nausea/vomiting, asthaenia/fatigue, alopecia, and anaemia were common, as were neutropaenia and leukopaenia. Diarrhoea, nail disorders and neurological symptoms were frequent at 100 mg m(-2) docetaxel. Pharmacokinetic analyses did not show any relevant drug interactions. Ten patients had partial responses (seven at 30 mg m(-2) ombrabulin), eight lasting >3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential administration of ombrabulin with 75 or 100 mg m(-2) docetaxel every 3 weeks is feasible.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of patients with esophageal or esophagogastric-junction cancer is not well established. We compared chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in this patient population. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with resectable tumors to receive surgery alone or weekly administration of carboplatin (doses titrated to achieve an area under the curve of 2 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area) for 5 weeks and concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week), followed by surgery. RESULTS: From March 2004 through December 2008, we enrolled 368 patients, 366 of whom were included in the analysis: 275 (75%) had adenocarcinoma, 84 (23%) had squamous-cell carcinoma, and 7 (2%) had large-cell undifferentiated carcinoma. Of the 366 patients, 178 were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, and 188 to surgery alone. The most common major hematologic toxic effects in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group were leukopenia (6%) and neutropenia (2%); the most common major nonhematologic toxic effects were anorexia (5%) and fatigue (3%). Complete resection with no tumor within 1 mm of the resection margins (R0) was achieved in 92% of patients in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group versus 69% in the surgery group (P<0.001). A pathological complete response was achieved in 47 of 161 patients (29%) who underwent resection after chemoradiotherapy. Postoperative complications were similar in the two treatment groups, and in-hospital mortality was 4% in both. Median overall survival was 49.4 months in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group versus 24.0 months in the surgery group. Overall survival was significantly better in the chemoradiotherapy-surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.657; 95% confidence interval, 0.495 to 0.871; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival among patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric-junction cancer. The regimen was associated with acceptable adverse-event rates. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Foundation [KWF Kankerbestrijding]; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR487.).

Phase I and pharmacological study of the broad-spectrum tyrosine kinase inhibitor JNJ-26483327 in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: JNJ-26483327 is an oral, potent, multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, inhibiting kinases of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-1, -2 and -4, rearranged during transfection (RET) receptor, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-3 and Src family (Lyn, Fyn, Yes) at low nanomolar concentrations. This phase I, accelerated titration study assessed maximum tolerated dose, safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic effects of JNJ-26483327. METHODS: Nineteen patients with advanced cancers received JNJ-26483327 continuous twice daily (BID) in escalating dose cohorts ranging from 100 to 2100 mg. Pharmacodynamic effects were assessed in paired skin biopsies and blood. RESULTS: JNJ-26483327 was well tolerated in doses up to 1500 mg BID, with target-inhibition-related toxicity such as diarrhoea and skin rash, and other common reported toxicities being nausea, vomiting, anorexia and fatigue. At 2100 mg, two episodes of dose-limiting toxicity were observed, consisting of grade 3 anorexia and a combination of grade 3 anorexia and fatigue, respectively. Pharmacokinetics were dose proportional up to 1500 mg in which plasma levels were obtained showing anti-tumour activity in xenograft mouse models. Pharmacodynamic analysis did not show a substantial effect on expression of Ki-67, p27(kip1), phosphorylated mitogen-activated protein kinase, phosphorylated Akt and EGFR, and serum levels of sVEGFR-2, VEGF-C and VEGF-D remained unchanged. Stable disease was noted in six patients (32%). CONCLUSION: JNJ-26483327 is well tolerated and shows a predictable pharmacokinetic profile; the recommended dose for further studies is 1500 mg BID.

The addition of pravastatin to chemotherapy in advanced gastric carcinoma: a randomised phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Statins have for long been considered to play a potential role in anticancer treatment based upon their ability to inhibit the mevalonate synthesis pathway. This randomised phase II trial compared the efficacy and safety of pravastatin added to epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECC versus ECC+P) in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive up to six cycles of 3-weekly ECC with or without pravastatin (40 mg, once daily from day 1 of the first cycle until day 21 of the last cycle). Primary end-point was progression-free rate at 6 months (PFR(6 months)). Secondary end-points were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. For early termination in case of futility, a two-stage design was applied (P(0) = 50%; P(1) = 70%; α = 0.05; ß = 0.10). RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. PFR(6 months) was 6/14 patients (42.8%) in the ECC+P arm, and 7/15 patients (46.7%) in the control arm, and therefore the study was terminated after the first stage. In the ECC and ECC+P arm, RR was 7/15 (46.7%) and 5/15 (33.3%), median PFS was 5 and 6 months and median OS was 6 and 8 months, respectively. Toxicity data showed no significant differences, although there was a trend towards more gastrointestinal side-effects such as diarrhoea and stomatitis in the ECC+P arm. CONCLUSION: In this randomised phase II trial the addition of pravastatin to ECC did not improve outcome in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Therefore, further testing of this combination in a randomised phase III trial cannot be recommended.

Chemotherapy followed by surgery in patients with carcinoma of the distal esophagus and celiac lymph node involvement.

BACKGROUND: Patients with carcinoma of the distal esophagus and metastatic celiac lymph nodes (M1a) have a poor prognosis and are often denied surgery. In this study, we evaluated our treatment strategy of chemotherapy followed by surgery in patients with M1a disease. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients who received chemotherapy for carcinoma of the distal esophagus with celiac lymph node involvement between 2000 and 2007 were identified from a prospective database. Clinical and histopathological responses to chemotherapy were analyzed and follow-up comprised review of medical charts. RESULTS: Twelve non-responding patients were not eligible for surgery. Twenty-six patients with partial responses or stable disease were operated on. The resectability rate was 96% (25/26) and tumor-free resection margins (R0) were achieved in 68% (17/25). The overall survival of patients with M1a disease was 16 months. Patients who received chemotherapy alone had a median survival of 10 months; patients who underwent additional surgery had a median survival of 26 months (log-rank P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The overall survival of patients with carcinoma of the distal esophagus and clinical celiac lymph node involvement is poor. Tumor-free resection margins (R0) in M1a patients with clinical response to chemotherapy are likely to be achieved and contributes to prolonged survival.

Pathological analysis after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma: the Rotterdam experience.

Multimodality treatment is increasingly used in the treatment for esophageal cancer. We determined the tumor regression grade after preoperative chemoradiation and correlated the effect of specific pathologic and clinical findings to overall survival. For this purpose esophageal biopsies and surgical specimens of 67 patients treated with neoadjuvant paclitaxel and carboplatin concurrent with radiotherapy were reviewed. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy led to a significant downstaging. Complete tumor regression was found in 24% of the patients resulting in a trend towards better survival. It was found more frequently in poorly differentiated tumors. Patients with pre-treatment nodal involvement, assessed by endoscopic ultrasound, had a significantly worse survival compared to patients without. Contrastingly, this was not found for post-treatment nodal involvement, as determined by pathological examination, speculating that survival is more determined by (submicroscopic) distant disease, than by locoregional tumor cells.

Nurse-led follow-up of patients after oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer surgery: a randomised trial.

Between January 2004 and February 2006, 109 patients after intentionally curative surgery for oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer were randomised to standard follow-up of surgeons at the outpatient clinic (standard follow-up; n=55) or by regular home visits of a specialist nurse (nurse-led follow-up; n=54). Longitudinal data on generic (EuroQuol-5D, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30) and disease-specific quality of life (EORTC QLQ-OES18), patient satisfaction and costs were collected at baseline and at 6 weeks and 4, 7 and 13 months afterwards. We found largely similar quality-of-life scores in the two follow-up groups over time. At 4 and 7 months, slightly more improvement on the EQ-VAS was noted in the nurse-led compared with the standard follow-up group (P=0.13 and 0.12, respectively). Small differences were also found in patient satisfaction between the two groups (P=0.14), with spouses being more satisfied with nurse-led follow-up (P=0.03). No differences were found in most medical outcomes. However, body weight of patients of the standard follow-up group deteriorated slightly (P=0.04), whereas body weight of patients of the nurse-led follow-up group remained stable. Medical costs were lower in the nurse-led follow-up group (2600 euro vs 3800 euro), however, due to the large variation between patients, this was not statistically significant (P=0.11). A cost effectiveness acceptability curve showed that the probability of being cost effective for costs per one point gain in general quality-of-life exceeded 90 and 75% after 4 and 13 months of follow-up, respectively. Nurse-led follow-up at home does not adversely affect quality of life or satisfaction of patients compared with standard follow-up by clinicians at the outpatient clinic. This type of care is very likely to be more cost effective than physician-led follow-up.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery versus surgery alone for patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (CROSS).

BACKGROUND: A surgical resection is currently the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer if the tumor is considered to be resectable without evidence of distant metastases (cT1-3 N0-1 M0). A high percentage of irradical resections is reported in studies using neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone and in trials in which patients are treated with surgery alone. Improvement of locoregional control by using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy might therefore improve the prognosis in these patients. We previously reported that after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with weekly administrations of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel combined with concurrent radiotherapy nearly always a complete R0-resection could be performed. The concept that this neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimen improves overall survival has, however, to be proven in a randomized phase III trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The CROSS trial is a multicenter, randomized phase III, clinical trial. The study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer, with inclusion of 175 patients per arm.The objectives of the CROSS trial are to compare median survival rates and quality of life (before, during and after treatment), pathological responses, progression free survival, the number of R0 resections, treatment toxicity and costs between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone for surgically resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma. Over a 5 week period concurrent chemoradiotherapy will be applied on an outpatient basis. Paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) and Carboplatin (Area-Under-Curve = 2) are administered by i.v. infusion on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29. External beam radiation with a total dose of 41.4 Gy is given in 23 fractions of 1.8 Gy, 5 fractions a week. After completion of the protocol, patients will be followed up every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the second year, and then at the end of each year until 5 years after treatment. Quality of life questionnaires will be filled out during the first year of follow-up. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the evidence on any benefits of neoadjuvant treatment in esophageal cancer patients using a promising chemoradiotherapy regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN80832026.

First-line treatment with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer: a phase II study.

This phase II study assessed the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer. Fifty-one eligible patients received oxaliplatin 130 mg m(-2) intravenously on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2) orally twice daily on days 1 to 14 in a 21-day treatment cycle as first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal cancer. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in one patient and anaemia in another patient. No grade 4 haematological toxicities were observed. Grade 4 non-haematological toxicity (lethargy) occurred in one patient (2%). Grade 3 non-haematological toxicity was seen in 14 (27%) patients (vomiting and polyneuropathy (8%); nausea (6%); lethargy and hand-foot syndrome (4%); and anorexia, diarrhoea, and hyperbilirubinaemia (each in one patient)). In 22% of the patients, toxicity was the reason for stopping the treatment. The overall response rate was 39%. The median overall survival was 8 months; the 1-year survival rate was 26%. In the quality of life (QoL) analysis, the emotional well-being improved during treatment, but the physical functioning scores declined. The fatigue score on the symptom scales increased. Overall, the global QoL score did not change during treatment. In conclusion, the activity of oxaliplatin and capecitabine is comparable with other chemotherapy regimens in advanced oesophageal cancer with a low frequency of grade 3/4 toxicity. Because this treatment can be given on an outpatient basis, it is probably less toxic than cisplatin-based therapy and preserves QoL during treatment, it is a viable treatment option in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer.

The role of socio-economic status in the decision making on diagnosis and treatment of oesophageal cancer in The Netherlands.

In the United States (USA), a correlation has been demonstrated between socio-economic status (SES) of patients on the one hand, and tumour histology, stage of the disease and treatment modality of various cancer types on the other hand. It is unknown whether such correlations are also involved in patients with oesophageal cancer in The Netherlands. Between 1994 and 2003, 888 oesophageal cancer patients were included in a prospective database with findings on the diagnostic work-up and treatment of oesophageal cancer. Socio-economic status of patients was defined as the average net yearly income. Linear-by-linear association testing revealed that oesophageal adenocarcinoma was more frequently observed in patients with higher SES and squamous cell carcinoma in patients with lower SES (P=0.02). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed no correlation between SES and staging procedures and preoperative TNM stage. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for stent placement was 0.82 (95% CI 0.71-0.95), indicating that with an increase in SES by 1200 [euro], the likelihood that a stent was placed declined by 18%. Patients with a higher SES more frequently underwent resection or were treated with chemotherapy (OR: 1.15; 95% CI 1.01-1.32 and OR: 1.16; 95% CI 1.02-1.32, respectively). Socio-economic factors are involved in oesophageal cancer in The Netherlands, as patients with a higher SES are more likely to have an adenocarcinoma and patients with a lower SES a squamous cell carcinoma. Moreover, the correlations between SES and different treatment modalities suggest that both patient and doctor determinants contribute to the decision on the most optimal treatment modality in patients with oesophageal cancer.

Experiences and expectations of patients after oesophageal cancer surgery: an explorative study.

We investigated which problems patients experience after resection for oesophageal cancer and what care they expect, in order to devise a better-tailored follow-up policy. Thirty patients, all within 1 year after surgery, filled in a one-time questionnaire on experienced physical, psychological and social problems and on expected care for these problems. Additionally, a semi-structured interview was performed. Frequencies of experienced problems and expected care over time were analysed. The majority of patients experienced physical problems such as 'early satiety' (97%) and 'fatigue' (84%) after oesophagectomy. In addition, patients often felt depressed (64%), were afraid of metastases (80%) and death (47%). Over time, the frequency of problems such as 'fatigue' (P = 0.035) and 'being dependent' (P = 0.012) decreased. Patients particularly expected professional care for physical issues related to their disease, whereas they often managed psychosocial problems in their own social network. Patients indicated that nurses' involvement during follow-up might improve their possibility to satisfactorily deal with problems. Patients frequently experience physical problems after oesophagectomy, and professional care is expected for these issues. Psychosocial problems are also present, but care is less commonly expected. Nurses' involvement during follow-up could be a way to optimize patients' management after oesophageal cancer surgery.

[Guideline 'Diagnosis and treatment of oesophageal carcinoma']. / Richtlijn 'Diagnostiek en behandeling oesofaguscarcinoom'.

An evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of oesophageal carcinoma was developed on the initiative of the Netherlands Society of Gastroenterohepatology in cooperation with the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO) and the Dutch Association of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. If a patient with oesophageal carcinoma is eligible for treatment with curative intent, they should undergo thoracic and abdominal CT, ultrasound investigation of the supraclavicular region and endoscopic ultrasonography for staging purposes. Endoscopic therapy is the preferred treatment for high-grade dysplasia or early cancer in Barrett's oesophagus confined to the mucosa. Surgical resection is indicated if the tumour invades the submucosa. If resection of the oesophageal carcinoma is performed with curative intent, one should aim for radical resection. The type and extent of the resection depends on the location of the tumour. There is evidence that the mortality rate following surgery can be reduced by performing it in centres with ample experience with oesophageal cancer surgery. Preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy may improve survival in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. Palliative treatment for oesophageal carcinoma should be considered in cases of local invasion of surrounding organs, metastases, poor physical condition of the patient or recurrent disease after previous curative treatment. Psychosocial support is an important element in the follow-up of patients with oesophageal carcinoma.