Clinical Outcome in Patients with Carcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction Treated with Neoadjuvant Radiochemotherapy or Perioperative Chemotherapy: A Two-Center Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) is a rare but rising tumor entity in the Western world. Treatment is complex, as multimodality is key to optimal results. However, trials solely including AEG are rare, and the question if neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (NRCT) or neoadjuvant/perioperative chemotherapy (NACT) is superior remains unanswered. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with AEG I-III treated between October 2010 and August 2019 at the Ordensklinikum Linz or the Kepler University Hospital were identified either from a monitored tumor registry or by chart review. Time-to-event data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier product limit estimation. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Fisher's exact test were used for comparing continuous and categorical data, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients (median age 63 years; median Charlson Comorbidity Index 3; 98.8% ECOG PS 0-1) were analyzed. Of these, 52 patients received NRCT (81% CROSS protocol) and 33 NACT (65% EOX and 35% FLOT protocol). There was a significantly higher pathological complete response rate in the NRCT group (30 vs. 12%; p = 0.010); distant relapse rates were higher in the NRCT group and local relapse rates were higher in the NACT group (both not significant). These differences, however, did not translate into a different disease-free survival (20 months; 95% CI: 13-34) or overall survival (44 months; 95% CI: 33-NA). Patients >65 years old had the same advantage from treatment as patients <65 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment of AEG is complex, the progress documented over the last centuries can be reproduced in our real-life setting. Data regarding the superiority of either type of neoadjuvant/perioperative treatment are sparse. We assume no difference between EOX-based NACT and NRCT.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness and humoral vaccination response in radiation oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection has been and, in some parts, still is a threat to oncologic patients, making it crucial to understand perception of vaccination and immunologic responses in this vulnerable patient segment. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in relation to malignant disease characteristics and therapies have so far not been studied consecutively in larger oncologic patient populations. This study captures SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness and humoral immune response in a large consecutive oncologic patient collective at the beginning of 2021. METHODS: 1142 patients were consecutively recruited over 5.5 months at a tertiary department for radiation oncology and were assessed for vaccination willingness via a standardized interview. In already vaccinated patients total SARS-CoV-2 S antibody titres against the spike protein (Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S) and were evaluated 35 days or later after the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. RESULTS: Vaccination willingness was high with a rate of 90 %. The most frequent reasons for rejection were: undecided/potential vaccination after therapy, distrust in the vaccine and fear of interaction with comorbidities. Factors associated with lower vaccination willingness were: worse general condition, lower age and female sex. 80 % of the participants had been previously vaccinated, 8 % reported previous infection and 16 % received vaccination during antineoplastic therapy. In 97.5 % of the vaccinated patients Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S was detected. In a univariable analysis parameters associated with non-conversion were: lower performance status, spread to the local lymphatics (N + ), hematologic disease and diffuse metastases. All patients with oligometastatic disease achieved positive Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titres. For patients with two vaccinations several risk factors were identified, that were associated with low antibody concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination willingness among oncologic patients was high in the first months after its availability, and most patients had already received one or two doses. Over 97 % of vaccinated patients had measurable anti-SARS-CoV-2 S titres. Our data supports early identification of low humoral responders after vaccination and could facilitate the design of future oncologic vaccine trials (clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04918888).

Additional Value of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT Comparing to MRI in Treatment Approach of Anal Cancer Patients.

Accurate staging and treatment planning are imperative for precise management in Anal Cancer (ACa) patients. We aimed to evaluate the additive and prognostic value of pre-treatment 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (2-[18F]FDG PET/CT) in the staging and management of ACa compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This retrospective study was conducted on 54 patients. Pre-treatment 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT studies and MRI reports were compared considering the primary tumor, pelvic lymph nodes, and metastatic lesions. The impact of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in the management and its prognostic value, using maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), were assessed. Discordant findings were found in 46.3% of patients (5 in T; 1 in T and N; 18 in N; and 1 in M stage). 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT resulted in up-staging in 9.26% and down-staging in 3.7% of patients. Perirectal lymph nodes were metabolically inactive in 12.9% of patients. Moreover, 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT resulted in management change in 24.1% of patients. Finally, SUVmax provided no prognostic value. 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT altered staging and management in a sizable number of patients in this study, and supports a need for a change in guidelines for it to be used as a routine complementary test in the initial management of ACa.