Perioperative Chemotherapy for Gastro-Esophageal or Gastric Cancer: Anthracyclin Triplets versus FLOT.

Background: The FLOT4-AIO trial (2019) showed improved survival with perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) compared to anthracyclin triplets in gastric cancer treatment. It is unclear whether these results extend to real-world scenarios in the Netherlands. This study aimed to compare outcomes of perioperative FLOT to anthracyclin triplets in a real-world Dutch gastric cancer population. Methods: Patients diagnosed with resectable (cT2-4a/cTxN0-3/NxM0) gastric or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma between 2015-2021 who received neoadjuvant FLOT or anthracyclin triplets were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), analyzed through multivariable Cox regression. Secondary outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR), neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycle completion, surgical resection rates, and adjuvant therapy. Results: Adjusted OS showed no significant survival benefit (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.77-1.01, p = 0.07), even though the median OS was numerically improved by 8 months with FLOT compared to anthracyclin triplets (48.1 vs. 39.9 months, p = 0.16). FLOT patients were more likely to undergo diagnostic staging laparoscopies (74.2% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.001), had higher rates of completing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.68, p = 0.007), receiving adjuvant therapy (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.66, p = 0.08), and achieving pCR (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.20, p = 0.03). No significant differences were observed in (radical) resection rates. Conclusion(s): Real-world data showed no significant OS improvement for FLOT-treated patients compared to anthracyclin triplets, despite more staging laparoscopies. However, FLOT patients demonstrated higher rates of neoadjuvant therapy completion, proceeding to adjuvant therapy, and increased pCR rates. Therefore, we recommend the continued use of neoadjuvant FLOT therapy in the current clinical setting.

Tumor-positive peritoneal cytology in patients with gastric cancer is associated with poor outcome: A nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of tumor-positive peritoneal cytology (CYT+) in gastric cancer (GC) patients is unclear. This nationwide cohort study aimed to i) assess the frequency of cytological analysis at staging laparoscopy; ii) determine the prevalence of CYT+GC; and iii) compare overall survival (OS) in CYT+ patients versus those with (PM+) and those without (PM-) macroscopic peritoneal disease. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with cT1-4, cN0-2 and M0 or synchronous PM GC between 2016-2021 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry database and linked to the nationwide pathology database. RESULTS: A total of 4397 patients was included, of which 40 % underwent cytological assessment following staging laparoscopy (863/1745). The prevalence of CYT+ was 8 %. A total of 69 patients had CYT+(1.6 %), 789 (17.9 %) had PM+ and 3539 (80.5 %) had PM- disease. Hazard ratio for OS in CYT+ versus PM+ was 0.86 (95 %CI 0.64-1.17, p-value=0.338), and in PM- versus PM+0.43 (95 %CI 0.38-0.49, p-value<0.001). No survival difference was found between systemic chemotherapy versus surgical resection in CYT+ patients. DISCUSSION: In this nationwide study, OS for gastric cancer patients with CYT+ was equally unfavorable as for those with PM+ and significantly worse as compared to those with PM-. The optimal treatment strategy has yet to be established.

Peritoneal metastases from gastric cancer in a nationwide cohort: Incidence, treatment and survival.

The aims of this study were to investigate incidence, risk factors and treatment of synchronous or metachronous peritoneal metastases (PM) from gastric cancer and to estimate survival of these patients using population-based data. Patients diagnosed with gastric cancer in 2015 to 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The incidence of synchronous and metachronous PM were calculated. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the occurrence of PM. Treatment and survival were compared between patients with synchronous and metachronous PM. Of 2206 patients with gastric cancer, 741 (34%) were diagnosed with PM. Of these, 498 (23%) had synchronous PM. The cumulative incidence of metachronous PM in patients who underwent potentially curative treatment (n = 675) was 22.8% at 3 years. A factor associated with synchronous and metachronous PM was diffuse type histology. Patients diagnosed with synchronous PM more often received systemic treatment than patients with metachronous PM (35% vs 18%, respectively, P < .001). Median overall survival was comparable between synchronous and metachronous PM (3.2 vs 2.3 months, respectively, P = .731). Approximately one third of all patients with gastric cancer are diagnosed with PM, either at primary diagnosis or during 3-year follow-up after potentially curative treatment. Patients with metachronous PM less often received systemic treatment than those with synchronous PM but survival was comparable between both groups. Future trials are warranted to detect gastric cancer at an earlier stage and to examine strategies that lower the risk of peritoneal dissemination. Also, specific treatment options for patients with gastric PM should be further investigated.

Multimodal Therapy Versus Primary Surgery for Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Diffuse Type Carcinoma, with a Focus on Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma: A Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse type adenocarcinoma and, more specifically, signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) have a poor prognosis and the value of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy (nCRT) is unclear. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for diffuse type gastric and GEJ carcinoma between 2004 and 2015 were retrospectively included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was overall survival after surgery. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted. Furthermore, multivariable Poisson and Cox regressions were performed, correcting for confounders. To comply with the Cox regression proportional hazard assumption, gastric cancer survival was split into two groups, i.e. <90 days and >90 days, postoperatively by adding an interaction variable. RESULTS: Analyses included 2046 patients with diffuse type cancer: 1728 gastric cancers (50% SRCC) and 318 GEJ cancers (39% SRCC). In the gastric cancer group, 49% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and 51% received primary surgery (PS). All-cause mortality within 90 days postoperatively was lower after nCT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.44; p < 0.001). Also after 90 days, mortality was lower in the nCT group (HR for the interaction variable 2.84, 95% CI 1.87-4.30, p < 0.001; total HR 0.29*2.84 = 0.84). In the GEJ group, 38% received nCT, 22% received nCRT, and 39% received PS. All-cause mortality was lower after nCT (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.93; p = 0.020) compared with PS. The nCRT group was removed from the Cox regression analysis since the Kaplan-Meier curves of nCRT and PS intersected. The results for gastric and GEJ carcinomas were similar between the SRCC and non-SRCC subgroups. CONCLUSION: For gastric and GEJ diffuse type cancer, including SRCC, nCT was associated with increased survival.

Assessing real-world representativeness of prospective registry cohorts in oncology: insights from patients with esophagogastric cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the real-world representativeness of a prospective registry cohort with active accrual in oncology, applying a representativeness metric that is novel to health care. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP) registry and from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We used Representativeness-indicators (R-indicators) and overall survival to investigate the degree to which the POCOP cohort and clinically relevant subgroups were a representative sample compared to the NCR database. Calibration using inverse propensity score weighting was applied to correct differences between POCOP and NCR. RESULTS: The R-indicator of the entire POCOP registry was 0.72 95% confidence interval [0.71, 0.73]. Representativeness of palliative patients was higher than that of potentially curable patients (R-indicator 0.88 [0.85, 0.90] and 0.70 [0.68, 0.71], respectively). Stratification to clinically relevant subgroups based on treatment resulted in higher R-indicators of the respective subgroups. Both after stratification and calibration weighting survival estimates in the POCOP registry were more similar to that in the NCR population. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the assessment of real-world representativeness of patients who participated in a prospective registry cohort and showed that real-world representativeness improved when the variability in treatment was accounted for.

The association between hospital variation in curative treatment for esophagogastric cancer and health-related quality of life and survival.

BACKGROUND: As previous studies showed significant hospital variation in curative treatment of esophagogastric cancer, this study assesses the association between this variation and overall, cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival, and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with potentially curable esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2018 as registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. Data on overall survival was available for all patients, data on cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival and HRQoL was available for subgroups. Patients were classified according to diagnosis in hospitals with low, medium or high probability of treatment with curative intent (LP, MP or HP). Multivariable models were used to assess the association between LP, MP and HP hospitals and HRQoL and survival. RESULTS: This study includes 7,199 patients with esophageal, and 2,407 with gastric cancer. Overall and cancer-specific survival was better for patients diagnosed in HP versus LP hospitals for both esophageal (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.77-0.88 and HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.75-0.91, respectively), and gastric cancer (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.73-0.92 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI:0.64-0.87, respectively). These differences disappeared after adjustments for treatment. Recurrence-free survival was worse for gastric cancer patients diagnosed in HP hospitals (HR = 1.50, 95%CI:1.14-1.96), which disappeared after adjustment for radicality of surgery. Minor, but no clinically relevant, differences in HRQoL were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed in hospitals with a high probability of treatment with curative intent have a better overall and cancer-specific but not recurrence-free survival, while minor differences in HRQoL were observed.

Gender differences in tumor characteristics, treatment and survival of colorectal cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The importance of sex and gender as modifiers of health and disease is increasingly recognized. The aim of this study was to analyze gender differences in incidence, tumor characteristics, treatment and relative survival (RS) in colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Observational population-based study including patients diagnosed with CRC in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2020. Stratified by localization (colon/rectum) and age (18-55/56-70/≥71years), gender differences in incidence, tumor characteristics, treatment and RS were analyzed. Multivariable regression was used to analyze the influence of gender on treatment and RS. RESULTS: The age-standardized incidence per 100,000 person-years of colon and rectal cancer is higher among men than women (colon: 41.2 versus 32.4, rectum: 22.8 versus 12.6). Besides differences in patient- and tumor characteristics, differences in treatment allocation and RS were observed. Most strikingly, women aged ≥ 71 years with stage IV colon cancer are less often treated with systemic therapy (31.3 % versus 28.4 %, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.63, 95 % CI 0.48-0.83) and more often receive best supportive care only (47.6 % versus 40.0 %, adjusted OR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.19-2.11). CONCLUSION: Statistically significant and clinically relevant gender differences in incidence, patient- and tumor characteristics and treatment allocation are observed in patients with CRC. Reasons for differences in treatment allocation deserve further investigation.

Incidence, Stage, Treatment, and Survival of Noncardia Gastric Cancer.

Importance: Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, and investigating its incidence, characteristics, treatment, and outcomes over the past decades can help in selecting clinical strategies and future research directions. Objective: To analyze the trends in incidence, staging, and treatment of gastric cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide, population-based cohort study included patients diagnosed with noncardia gastric cancer (NCGC) between 1989 and 2021 in the Netherlands. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in tumor characteristics, treatment, and survival were analyzed per fixed time periods (1989-1993, 1994-1998, 1999-2003, 2004-2008, 2009-2013, 2014-2018, and 2019-2021). Results: In total, 47 014 patients (median [IQR] age, 73 [64-80] years; 28 032 [60%] male patients) were identified with mostly adenocarcinomas of the antrum region (when location was known). Age-standardized incidence decreased from 20.3 to 6.1 per 100 000 person-years between 1989 and 2021. During the study period, unknown T and N stages were recorded less frequently, and metastatic disease was diagnosed more frequently (1989-1993: 2633 of 9493 patients [28%]; 2019-2021: 1503 of 3200 patients [47%] in 2019-2021). Over time, fewer patients with metastatic disease underwent surgery with or without other treatment modalities (68% in 1989-1993 vs 64% in 2019-2021), and palliative chemotherapy in metastatic NCGC increased from 9% to 40%. For patients with nonmetastatic disease, 5-year relative survival improved from 28% (95% CI, 26.5%-29.2%) to 36% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.6%) between 1989 and 2021. For patients with nonmetastatic disease undergoing a resection, 5-year survival increased from 40% (95% CI, 38.3%-41.8%) to 51% (95% CI, 47.9%-53.3%). For patients with metastatic disease, 1-year relative survival increased from 10% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.1%) to 19% (95% CI, 17.2%-21.6%), but 3-year relative survival remained poor at 5% (95% CI, 3.6%-7.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nationwide cohort study involving 47 014 patients diagnosed with NCGC (1989-2021), the results showed a decrease in incidence, more accurate staging, a shift in treatment modalities, and improved patient survival.

Long-term health-related quality of life in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer receiving first-line systemic therapy.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of systemic therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer in daily clinical practice. This study assessed the HRQoL of patients with esophagogastric cancer during first-line systemic therapy, at disease progression, and after progression in a real-world context. METHODS: Patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer (2014-2021) receiving first-line systemic therapy registered in the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Oesophageal-gastric cancer (POCOP) were included (n = 335). HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25. Outcomes of mixed-effects models were presented as adjusted mean changes. RESULTS: Results of the mixed-effect models showed the largest significant improvements during systemic therapy for odynophagia (- 18.9, p < 0.001), anxiety (- 18.7, p < 0.001), and dysphagia (- 13.8, p < 0.001) compared to baseline. After progression, global health status (- 6.3, p = 0.002) and cognitive (- 6.2, p = 0.001) and social functioning (- 9.7, p < 0.001) significantly worsened. At and after progression, physical (- 9.0, p < 0.001 and - 8.8, p < 0.001) and role functioning (- 15.2, p = 0.003 and - 14.7, p < 0.001) worsened, respectively. Trouble with taste worsened during systemic therapy (11.5, p < 0.001), at progression (12.0, p = 0.004), and after progression (15.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In general, HRQoL outcomes in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer improved during first-line therapy. Deterioration in outcomes was mainly observed at and after progression. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Identification of HRQoL aspects is important in shared decision-making and to inform patients on the impact of systemic therapy on their HRQoL.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis, stage, and treatment of esophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire global healthcare system, including oncological care. This study investigated the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis, stage, and treatment of esophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. METHODS: Patients diagnosed in 2020 were divided into 5 periods, based on the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, and compared to patients diagnosed in the same period in the years 2017-2019. Patient characteristics and treatments were evaluated for esophageal cancer (EC) and gastric cancer (GC) separately. RESULTS: The number of esophagogastric cancer diagnoses decreased prominently during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, a significantly higher percentage of GC patients was diagnosed with incurable disease (52.5% in 2017-2019 and 67.7% in 2020, p = 0.011). We observed a significant reduction in the percentage of patients with potentially curable EC treated with resection and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (from 35.0% in 2017-2019 to 27.3% in 2020, p < 0.001). Also, patients diagnosed with incurable GC were treated less frequently with a resection (from 4.6% in 2017-2019 to 1.5% in 2020, p = 0.009) in the second half of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to previous years, the number of esophagogastric cancer diagnoses decreased in the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, while an increased percentage of patients was diagnosed with incurable disease. Both in the curative and palliative setting, patients were less likely to be treated with a surgical resection.

Gastrointestinal Symptoms After Resection of Esophagogastric Cancer: A Longitudinal Study on Their Incidence and Impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This study assesses the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the first year after resection of esophageal or gastric cancer and its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, work productivity, and daily activities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2021, who underwent a resection, and completed ≥ 2 questionnaires from the time intervals prior to resection and 0-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months after resection were included. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to assess changes in gastrointestinal symptoms over time and the impact of the number of gastrointestinal symptoms on HRQoL, functioning, work productivity, and daily activities for patients who underwent an esophagectomy or gastrectomy separately. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 961 (78.8%) and 259 (21.2%) patients who underwent an esophagectomy and gastrectomy, respectively. For both groups, the majority of gastrointestinal symptoms changed significantly over time. Most clinically relevant differences were observed 0-3 after resection compared with prior to resection and included increased diarrhea, appetite loss, and eating restrictions, and specifically after esophagectomy dry mouth, trouble with coughing, and trouble talking. At 9-12 after resection one or more severe gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 38.9% after esophagectomy and 33.7% after gastrectomy. A higher number of gastrointestinal symptoms was associated with poorer functioning, lower HRQoL, higher impairment in daily activities, and lower work productivity. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently observed and burdensome after esophagectomy or gastrectomy, highlighting the importance to address these sequelae for high quality survivorship.

A population-based comparison of patients with metastatic esophagogastric carcinoma between Japan and the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: Differences exist between Asian and Western patients with esophagogastric cancer, for example in terms of histological subtype and treatment strategies. This study aimed to compare characteristics and treatment between patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer from Japan and the Netherlands using nationwide cancer registry data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer were included from the nationwide national cancer registry of Japan (2016-2019) and the Netherlands (2015-2020). Treatment strategies were analyzed using chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with metastatic esophageal (16.0% vs 34.2%) and gastric cancer (14.9% vs 45.2%) were lower in Japan compared to the Netherlands. Japanese patients with metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) or gastric cancer (GC) were more often male and older compared to Dutch patients. Proportion of patients with metastatic disease who received surgical resection was higher in Japan compared to the Netherlands (EAC 9.3 vs 1.4%, p < 0.001; ESCC 10.7% vs 2.3%, p < 0.001; GC 12.0% vs 3.6% p < 0.001). Proportion of patients who received systemic therapy was also higher (EAC 44.8% vs 30.4%, p < 0.001; ESCC 26.6% vs 12.0%, p < 0.001; GC 50.7% vs 35.8% p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Japanese patients less often presented with metastatic esophagogastric cancer and more often underwent surgical resection or received systemic therapy compared to Dutch patients. Further investigation should elucidate what the deliberations are in both Japan and the Netherlands and if more patients in the Netherlands could benefit from surgical resection or systemic therapy and whether this would translate in better survival and quality of life.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In trials evaluating perioperative chemotherapy for gastric cancer, which serve as the basis for treatment guidelines, patients are selected. The generalizability of these trial findings to older patients is uncertain. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study compared the survival outcomes of patients ≥ 75 years with gastric adenocarcinoma treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 2015 and 2019. Additionally, the percentage of patients < 75 years and ≥ 75 years who did not proceeded to surgery after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1995 patients, of whom 1249 aged < 75 years and 746 aged ≥ 75 years, were included. In the group of patients ≥ 75 years, 275 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 471 patients were directly scheduled for gastrectomy. Patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy differed significantly from one and another in characteristics. Overall survival of patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not significantly different (median 34.9 vs. 32.3 months; P = 0.506), also after adjusting for potential confounders (HR 0.87; P = 0.263). Of patients ≥ 75 years who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 43 (15.6%) did not proceed to surgery compared to 111 (8.9%) patients < 75 years (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients ≥ 75 years treated with or without chemotherapy were highly selected, and overall survival was not significantly different between both groups. Nonetheless, the proportion of patients who did not proceed to surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was higher in patients ≥ 75 years compared to patients < 75 years. Therefore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered with more caution in patients ≥ 75 years, while identifying those who may benefit.

Pros and cons of streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems to future-proof oncological multidisciplinary team meetings.

Introduction: Nowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants' characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed. Results: Thirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice. Conclusion: To make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs.

Sex differences in treatment allocation and survival of potentially curable gastroesophageal cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Although curative treatment options are identical for male and female gastroesophageal cancer patients, access to care and survival may vary. This study aimed to compare treatment allocation and survival between male and female patients with potentially curable gastroesophageal cancer. METHODS: Nationwide cohort study including all patients with potentially curable gastroesophageal squamous cell or adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2006 and 2018 registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The main outcome, treatment allocation, was compared between male and female patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Additionally, 5-year relative survival with relative excess risk (RER), that is, adjusted for the normal life expectancy, was compared. RESULTS: Among 27,496 patients (68.8% men), most were allocated to curative treatment (62.8%), although rates dropped to 45.6%>70 years. Curative treatment rates were comparable among younger male and female patients (≤70 years) with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, while older females with EAC were less frequently allocated to curative treatment than males (OR = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.99). For those allocated to curative treatment, relative survival was superior for female patients with EAC (RER = 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96) and ESCC (RER = 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.91), and comparable for males and females with GAC (RER = 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: While curative treatment rates were comparable between younger male and female patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, treatment disparities were present between older patients. When treated, the survival of females with EAC and ESCC was superior to males. The treatment and survival gaps between male and female patients with gastroesophageal cancer warrant further exploration and could potentially improve treatment strategies and survival.

Late Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Definitive Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a treatment option with curative intent for patients with esophageal cancer that could result in late toxicities and affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to investigate the effect of dCRT on late toxicities and HRQoL in esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO. Prospective phase II and III clinical trials, population-based studies, and retrospective chart reviews investigating late toxicity or HRQoL after dCRT (≥50 Gy) were included. The HRQoL outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models with restricted cubic spline transformation. Any HRQoL changes of ≥10 points were considered clinically relevant. The risk of toxicities was calculated using the number of events and the total study population. RESULTS: Among 41 included studies, 10 assessed HRQoL and 31 late toxicity. Global health status remained stable over time and improved after 36 months compared with baseline (mean change, +11). Several tumor-specific symptoms, including dysphagia, eating restrictions, and pain, improved after 6 months compared with baseline. Compared with baseline, dyspnea worsened after 6 months (mean change, +16 points). The risk of any late toxicity was 48% (95% CI, 33%-64%). Late toxicity risk of any grade for the esophagus was 17% (95% CI, 12%-21%), pulmonary 21% (95% CI, 11%-31%), cardiac 12% (95% CI, 6%-17%), and any other organ 24% (95% CI, 2%-45%). CONCLUSIONS: Global health status remained stable over time, and tumor-specific symptoms improved within 6 months after dCRT compared with baseline, with the exception of dyspnea. In addition, substantial risks of late toxicity were observed.

Hospital practice variation in the proportion of patients with esophagogastric cancer discussed during an expert multidisciplinary team meeting.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) and especially MDTMs in which expert centres are involved (expert MDTMs) are a key element in adequate cancer care. However, variation among hospitals in the proportion of patients presented during an expert MDTM has been described. This study aims to investigate national practice variation in the proportion of patients with oesophageal or gastric cancer being discussed during an expert MDTM. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer in 2018-2019 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 6,921). Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to analyse the association between patient, and tumour characteristics, and the probability to be discussed in an expert MDTM. Variation was analysed according to the hospital and region of diagnosis for: all patients, patients with a potentially curable (cT1-4A cTX, any cN, cM0) or incurable tumour stage (cT4b and/or cM1). RESULTS: In total, 79% of patients were discussed during an expert MDTM, of whom 84% (n = 3,424) and 71% (n = 2,018) with potentially curable, or incurable oesophageal or gastric cancer, respectively. The proportion of patients discussed during an expert MDTM ranged from 54% to 98%, and 17% to 100% between hospitals for potentially curable and incurable patients, respectively (all p < 0.0001). Adjusted analyses showed significant hospital (all p < 0.0001), but no regional variation regarding the patients discussed during an expert MDTM. CONCLUSION: For patients with oesophageal or gastric cancer the probability of being discussed during an expert MDTM varies considerably according to the hospital of diagnosis.

Trends in best-case, typical and worst-case survival scenarios of patients with non-metastatic esophagogastric cancer between 2006 and 2020: A population-based study.

New treatment options and centralization of surgery have improved survival for patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. It is unknown, however, which patients benefitted the most from treatment advances. The aim of this study was to identify best-case, typical and worst-case scenarios in terms of survival time, and to assess if survival associated with these scenarios changed over time. Patients with non-metastatic potentially resectable esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Best-case (20th percentile), upper-typical (40th percentile), typical (median), lower-typical (60th percentile) and worst-case (80th percentile) survival scenarios were defined, and regression analysis was used to investigate the change in survival time for each scenario across years. For patients with esophageal cancer (N = 24 352) survival time improved on average 12.0 (until 2011), 1.5 (until 2018), 0.7, 0.4 and 0.2 months per year for the best-case, upper-typical, median, lower-typical and worst-case scenario, respectively. For patients with gastric cancer (N = 9993) survival time of the best-case scenario remained constant, whereas the upper-typical, median, lower-typical and worst-case scenario improved on average with 1.0 (until 2018), 0.5, 0.2 and 0.2 months per year, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that, survival scenarios improved for nearly all patients across treatment groups and for patients with squamous cell carcinomas or adenocarcinomas. Survival improved for almost all patients suggesting that in clinical practice the vast majority of patients benefitted from treatment advances. The clinically most meaningful survival advantage was observed for the best-case scenario of esophageal cancer.

Comparing treatment and outcomes in advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinomas: a population-based study.

Background: Treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) follows the guidelines for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJC) and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC), but patients with EAC are often excluded from clinical studies of GEJC/GAC. Objectives: Here we describe treatment and survival of patients with advanced EAC, GEJC, and GAC to provide population-based evidence on distinctions and similarities between these populations. Design: Retrospective cohort study of patients with unresectable advanced (cT4b) or metastatic (cM1) EAC, GEJC, or GAC (2015-2020) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Methods: Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods, log-rank tests, and multivariable Cox regression. Results: In all, 7391 patients were included (EAC: n = 3346, GEJC: n = 1246, and GAC: n = 2798). Patients with EAC were more often males and more often had ⩾2 metastatic locations. First-line systemic therapy was received by 42%, 47%, and 36% of patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively. Median OS was 5.0, 5.1, and 4.0 months for all patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively (p < 0.001). Median OS from start of first-line therapy of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative adenocarcinomas was 7.6, 7.8, and 7.5 months (p = 0.12) and of patients with HER2-positive carcinoma receiving first-line trastuzumab-containing therapy was 11.0, 13.3, and 9.5 months (p = 0.37) in EAC, GEJC, and GAC, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, no difference in OS for patients with EAC, GEJC, and GAC was observed. Conclusion: Despite differences in clinical characteristics and treatment strategies, survival between patients with advanced EAC, GEJC, and GAC was similar. We advocate that EAC patients should not be excluded from clinical trials for patients with molecularly similar GEJC/GAC.