Clinical T2N0M0 Esophageal Cancer-Is Treatment Pathway Associated With Overall Survival?

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal cancer therapy is commonly multimodal. The CROSS trial demonstrated a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus surgery alone in T1N1 or T2-3N0-1 patients. Theoretically, chemoradiation should be most beneficial to patients with advanced disease. Treating the intermediary stage, T2N0M0, is challenging as national guidelines offer multiple options. This study aims to compare survival outcomes and associated factors in clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer via treatment modality and compare clinical to pathological stage. The authors conclude that neoadjuvant therapy use has increased; however, there is no associated survival benefit, which may be due to over- or under-staging. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using the National Cancer Database (2006-2016). Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (NCRT + ESOPH) were compared to patients who underwent esophagectomy first (ESOPH). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with treatment pathway. Overall survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests at 1-, 3-, and 5-y post-treatment. Additionally, a multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with adjuvant therapy in ESOPH patients. RESULTS: There were 1662 patients (NCRT + ESOPH: 904 [54.4%], ESOPH: 758 [45.6%]). There was no difference in 5-y survival between NCRT + ESOPH and ESOPH patients. Despite this, NCRT + ESOPH treatment rates rose from 33% to 74% between 2006 and 2016. Patients who received NCRT + ESOPH were younger and more commonly had no Charlson-Deyo comorbidities. Notably, 41% of patients were over-staged (T1 or lower), and 32.8% were under-staged (N ≥ 1). CONCLUSIONS: T2N0M0 remains difficult to characterize, and pathological staging corresponds poorly to clinical staging. Neoadjuvant therapy use has increased; however, the lack of a significant survival benefit to correlate with such may be secondary to over- or under-staging.

Outcomes of Type II Endoleak Treatment Using Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol Copolymer (OnyxTM).

INTRODUCTION: This study reports our experience with the use of an ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx™) for the treatment of type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) in comparison to coils and cyanoacrylate glue. METHODS: Clinical data of all patients treated for type II endoleak following EVAR between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter and AAA sac volume during follow-up were measured using computed tomography angiography (CTA). Treatment failure variables were created for the change in sac diameter and volume. An increase in sac diameter ≥ 5 mm was considered a failure, as was an increase ≥ 10% in AAA sac volume. RESULTS: 35 patients underwent treatment for a persistent type II endoleak following EVAR. Of these patients, 18 (51.4%) were treated with Onyx and 17 (48.6%) were treated with coils ± cyanoacrylate glue embolization. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to demographics. The average volume of Onyx used per treatment was 13.4 ml (range 4.5 ml- 39 ml). There was no difference in efficacy between the Onyx and non-Onyx group. Complications were limited to 1 non-target embolization without significant clinical sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: Ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx™) embolization is similarly effective compared to traditional cyanoacrylate glue or coil embolization in the treatment of type II endoleak after EVAR.

Quality Improvement for Surgical Resection of Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma : Hospital and Surgeon Predictors of Higher Than Expected R1 Resection Using the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection; however, positive surgical margins remain commonplace. We identified hospitals with higher than predicted rates of positive margins and isolated factors that caused this discordance. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients with head of the pancreas adenocarcinoma in the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2015. A nomogram was used to calculate the observed to expected positive margin rates (O/E) for facilities. If the O/E differed significantly (P < .05), it was considered an outlier. RESULTS: Among a total of 19 968 patients, 24.3% had positive margins. Among hospitals with lower than expected positive margin rates, 73.6% were academic or research programs, 17% were comprehensive community cancer programs, and none were community cancer programs (P = .0002). Within the group with higher than expected positive margin rates, 47% were comprehensive community cancer programs and 38.6% were academic or research programs (P = .0002). The mean hospital volume was higher in the low positive margin group (110.4 vs 48.8, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Facility type and hospital volume can predict improvement in the O/E ratio for margin positivity in pancreatic adenocarcinoma resection. Surgeons should consider referral to academic or research facilities with higher case volumes for improved surgical resection.