Adjuvant Therapy for Patients with a Tumor-Positive Resection Margin After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4-9% of patients have a tumor-positive resection margin after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and esophagectomy. Although it is associated with decreased survival, Western guidelines do not recommend adjuvant treatment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the proportion of patients who received adjuvant therapy, and to evaluate overall survival (OS) after esophagectomy in patients with a tumor-positive resection margin. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with resectable (cT2-4a/cTxN0-3/NxM0) esophageal cancer between 2015 and 2022, and treated with nCRT followed by irradical esophagectomy, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a tumor-positive resection margin who started adjuvant treatment ≤16 weeks after esophagectomy, including chemotherapy/radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or targeted therapy. OS was calculated from the date of surgery until the date of death or last day of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 376 patients were included in our study, of whom 357 were treated with nCRT. Of these 357 patients, 98.3% had a microscopically irradical resection and 1.7% had a macroscopically irradical resection. Approximately 72.3% of tumors showed a partial response (Mandard 2-3) and 11.8% showed little/no pathological response (Mandard 4-5) to nCRT. One of 357 patients underwent adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 39 patients (61%) underwent adjuvant immunotherapy (nivolumab). The median and 5-year OS rate of all patients was 16.4 months (95% confidence interval 13.1-19.8) and 21%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Real-world population-level data showed that no patients with a tumor-positive resection margin underwent adjuvant therapy following nCRT and esophagectomy prior to 2021. Interestingly, 61% of patients were treated with adjuvant nivolumab in 2021-2022. OS after irradical esophagectomy is poor and long-term data will explore the added value of nivolumab.

Survival after Ivor Lewis versus McKeown esophagectomy for cancer: propensity score matched analysis.

It is unknown whether Ivor Lewis (IL) or McKeown (McK) esophagectomy is preferred in patients with potentially curable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Patients with mid- and distal esophageal and GEJ cancer without distant metastases who underwent IL or McK esophagectomy in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2017, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were propensity score matched for sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist classification, comorbidity, tumor type, tumor location, clinical stage, neoadjuvant treatment and year of diagnosis. The primary outcome was a 3-year relative survival (RS). Secondary outcome parameters were number of lymph nodes examined, number of positive lymph nodes, radical resection rate, tumor regression grade, post-operative complications and mortality. A total of 1627 patients who underwent IL (n = 1094) or McK (n = 533) esophagectomy were included. Patient and tumor characteristics were balanced after propensity score matching, leaving 658 patients to be compared. The 3-year RS was 54% after IL and 50% after McK esophagectomy, P = 0.140. The median number of lymph nodes examined, median number of positive lymph nodes, radical resection rate and tumor regression grade were comparable between both groups. Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (2 vs. 5%, P = 0.006) occurred less frequently after IL esophagectomy. No differences were observed in post-operative anastomotic leakage rate, pulmonary complication rate and mortality rates. There was no statistically significant difference in the 3-year RS between IL and McK esophagectomy. Based on these results, both IL and McK esophagectomy can be performed in patients with mid to distal esophageal and GEJ cancer.

Non-excisional techniques for the treatment of intergluteal pilonidal sinus disease: a systematic review.

Non-excisional techniques for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) have gained popularity over the last years. The aim of this study was to review short and long-term outcomes for non-excisional techniques with special focus on the additive effect of treatment of the inner lining of the sinus cavity and the difference between primary and recurrent PSD. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases for studies on non-excisional techniques for PSD including pit picking techniques with or without additional laser or phenol treatment, unroofing, endoscopic techniques and thrombin gelatin matrix application. Outcomes were recurrence rates, healing rates, complication rates, wound healing times and time taken to return to daily activities. In total, 31 studies comprising 8100 patients were included. Non-excisional techniques had overall healing rates ranging from 67 to 100%. Recurrence rates for pit picking, unroofing and gelatin matrix application varied from 0 to 16% depending on the follow-up time. Recurrence rates after additional laser, phenol and endoscopic techniques varied from 0 to 29%. Complication rates ranged from 0 to 16%, and the wound healing time was between three and forty-seven days. The return to daily activities varied from one to nine days. Non-excisional techniques are associated with fast recovery and low morbidity but recurrence rates are high. Techniques that attempt to additionally treat the inner lining of the sinus have worse recurrence rates than pit picking alone. Recurrence rates do not differ between primary and recurrent disease.

Supervised exercise after oesophageal cancer surgery: the PERFECT multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated whether a supervised exercise programme improves quality of life (QoL), fatigue and cardiorespiratory fitness in patients in the first year after oesophagectomy. METHODS: The multicentre PERFECT trial randomly assigned patients to an exercise intervention (EX) or usual care (UC) group. EX patients participated in a 12-week moderate- to high-intensity aerobic and resistance exercise programme supervised by a physiotherapist. Primary (global QoL, QoL summary score) and secondary (QoL subscales, fatigue and cardiorespiratory fitness) outcomes were assessed at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks and analysed as between-group differences using either linear mixed effects models or ANCOVA. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients (mean(s.d.) age 64(8) years) were included and randomized to EX (61 patients) or UC (59 patients). Patients in the EX group participated in 96 per cent (i.q.r. 92-100 per cent) of the exercise sessions and the relative exercise dose intensity was high (92 per cent). At 12 weeks, beneficial EX effects were found for QoL summary score (3.5, 95 per cent c.i. 0.2 to 6.8) and QoL role functioning (9.4, 95 per cent c.i. 1.3 to 17.5). Global QoL was not statistically significant different between groups (3.0, 95 per cent c.i. -2.2 to 8.2). Physical fatigue was lower in the EX group (-1.2, 95 per cent c.i. -2.6 to 0.1), albeit not significantly. There was statistically significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness following EX compared with UC (peak oxygen uptake (1.8 ml/min/kg, 95 per cent c.i. 0.6 to 3.0)). After 24 weeks, all EX effects were attenuated. CONCLUSIONS: A supervised exercise programme improved cardiorespiratory fitness and aspects of QoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR 5045 (www.trialregister.nl/trial/4942).

Patient-reported outcomes after oesophagectomy in the multicentre LASER study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the long-term symptom burden in patients surviving oesophageal cancer surgery are scarce. The aim of this study was to identify the most prevalent symptoms and their interactions with health-related quality of life. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study of patients who underwent oesophageal cancer surgery in 20 European centres between 2010 and 2016. Patients had to be disease-free for at least 1 year. They were asked to complete a 28-symptom questionnaire at a single time point, at least 1 year after surgery. Principal component analysis was used to assess for clustering and association of symptoms. Risk factors associated with the development of severe symptoms were identified by multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 1081 invited patients, 876 (81.0 per cent) responded. Symptoms in the preceding 6 months associated with previous surgery were experienced by 586 patients (66.9 per cent). The most common severe symptoms included reduced energy or activity tolerance (30.7 per cent), feeling of early fullness after eating (30.0 per cent), tiredness (28.7 per cent), and heartburn/acid or bile regurgitation (19.6 per cent). Clustering analysis showed that symptoms clustered into six domains: lethargy, musculoskeletal pain, dumping, lower gastrointestinal symptoms, regurgitation/reflux, and swallowing/conduit problems; the latter two were the most closely associated. Surgical approach, neoadjuvant therapy, patient age, and sex were factors associated with severe symptoms. CONCLUSION: A long-term symptom burden is common after oesophageal cancer surgery.

Fit-for-Discharge Criteria after Esophagectomy: An International Expert Delphi Consensus.

There are no internationally recognized criteria available to determine preparedness for hospital discharge after esophagectomy. This study aims to achieve international consensus using Delphi methodology. The expert panel consisted of 40 esophageal surgeons spanning 16 countries and 4 continents. During a 3-round, web-based Delphi process, experts voted for discharge criteria using 5-point Likert scales. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Consensus was reached if agreement was ≥75% in round 3. Consensus was achieved for the following basic criteria: nutritional requirements are met by oral intake of at least liquids with optional supplementary nutrition via jejunal feeding tube. The patient should have passed flatus and does not require oxygen during mobilization or at rest. Central venous catheters should be removed. Adequate analgesia at rest and during mobilization is achieved using both oral opioid and non-opioid analgesics. All vital signs should be normal unless abnormal preoperatively. Inflammatory parameters should be trending down and close to normal (leucocyte count ≤12G/l and C-reactive protein ≤80 mg/dl). This multinational Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process for consensus criteria to determine 'fit-for-discharge' status after esophagectomy. Results of this Delphi survey may be applied to clinical outcomes research as an objective measure of short-term recovery. Furthermore, standardized endpoints identified through this process may be used in clinical practice to guide decisions regarding patient discharge and may help to reduce the risk of premature discharge or prolonged admission.

Residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer: locations undetected by endoscopic biopsies in the preSANO trial.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance has been proposed for patients with oesophageal cancer in whom there is a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). However, endoscopic biopsies have limited negative predictive value in detecting residual disease. This study determined the location of residual tumour following surgery to improve surveillance and endoscopic strategies. METHODS: The present study was based on patients who participated in the prospective preSANO trial with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction treated in four Dutch hospitals between 2013 and 2016. Resection specimens and endoscopic biopsies taken during clinical response evaluations after nCRT were reviewed by two expert gastrointestinal pathologists. The exact location of residual disease in the oesophageal wall was determined in resection specimens. Endoscopic biopsies were assessed for the presence of structures representing the submucosal layer of the oesophageal wall. RESULTS: In total, 119 eligible patients underwent clinical response evaluations after nCRT followed by standard surgery. Residual tumour was present in endoscopic biopsies from 70 patients, confirmed on histological analysis of the resected organ. Residual tumour was present in the resection specimen from 27 of the other 49 patients, despite endoscopic biopsies being negative. Of these 27 patients, residual tumour was located in the mucosa in 18, and in the submucosa beneath tumour-free mucosa in eight. One patient had tumour in muscle beneath tumour-free mucosa and submucosa. CONCLUSION: Most residual disease after nCRT missed by endoscopic biopsies was located in the mucosa. Active surveillance could be improved by more sampling and considering submucosal biopsies.

ANTECEDENTES: Se ha propuesto un seguimiento activo para los pacientes con cáncer de esófago en los que se logra una respuesta clínica completa tras quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante (neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, nCRT). Sin embargo, las biopsias endoscópicas tienen un valor predictivo limitado para detectar la enfermedad residual. En este estudio se evaluó la localización del tumor residual tras la cirugía para poder determinar estrategias de seguimiento y endoscópicas. MÉTODOS: Este estudio se basa en pacientes que participaron en el ensayo prospectivo preSANO (adenocarcinoma o carcinoma escamoso del esófago o unión esofagogástrica en cuatro hospitales de los Países Bajos entre 2013 y 2016). Los especímenes quirúrgicos, así como las biopsias endoscópicas efectuadas durante las evaluaciones de la respuesta clínica después de nCRT fueron revisadas por dos patólogos gastrointestinales expertos. En los especímenes de resección, se determinó la localización exacta de la enfermedad residual en la pared del esófago. Se evaluaron las biopsias endoscópicas para identificar estructuras que constituyeran la capa submucosa de la pared del esófago. RESULTADOS: En total, 119 pacientes elegibles fueron sometidos a evaluaciones de la respuesta clínica tras nCRT seguida de cirugía estándar. Se detectó tumor residual en las biopsias endoscópicas de 70 pacientes, luego confirmadas en la histología de la pieza extirpada. Se identificó tumor residual en la pieza de resección de 27 de los otros 49 pacientes, a pesar de que las biopsias endoscópicas fueron negativas. En estos 27 pacientes, 18 presentaban tumor residual en la mucosa y ocho pacientes en la submucosa mas allá de una mucosa libre de tumor. Un paciente tenía tumor en el músculo más allá de una mucosa y submucosa libres de tumor. CONCLUSIÓN: La mayoría de los casos de enfermedad residual tras nCRT que no se detectaron en las biopsias endoscópicas, se localizaban en la mucosa. El seguimiento activo podría mejorar con la toma de más muestras y considerando las biopsias submucosas.

Diagnostic criteria and symptom grading for delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy for cancer: international expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process.

Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or >100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.

Benchmarking Complications Associated with Esophagectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Utilizing a standardized dataset with specific definitions to prospectively collect international data to provide a benchmark for complications and outcomes associated with esophagectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outcome reporting in oncologic surgery has suffered from the lack of a standardized system for reporting operative results particularly complications. This is particularly the case for esophagectomy affecting the accuracy and relevance of international outcome assessments, clinical trial results, and quality improvement projects. METHODS: The Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) involving 24 high-volume esophageal surgical centers in 14 countries developed a standardized platform for recording complications and quality measures associated with esophagectomy. Using a secure online database (ESODATA.org), ECCG centers prospectively recorded data on all resections according to the ECCG platform from these centers over a 2-year period. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2016, 2704 resections were entered into the database. All demographic and follow-up data fields were 100% complete. The majority of operations were for cancer (95.6%) and typically located in the distal esophagus (56.2%). Some 1192 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (46.1%) and 763 neoadjuvant chemotherapy (29.5%). Surgical approach involved open procedures in 52.1% and minimally invasive operations in 47.9%. Chest anastomoses were done most commonly (60.7%) and R0 resections were accomplished in 93.4% of patients. The overall incidence of complications was 59% with the most common individual complications being pneumonia (14.6%) and atrial dysrhythmia (14.5%). Anastomotic leak, conduit necrosis, chyle leaks, recurrent nerve injury occurred in 11.4%, 1.3%, 4.7%, and 4.2% of cases, respectively. Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ IIIb occurred in 17.2% of patients. Readmissions occurred in 11.2% of cases and 30- and 90-day mortality was 2.4% and 4.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Standardized methods provide contemporary international benchmarks for reporting outcomes after esophagectomy.

Impact of Age and Comorbidity on Choice and Outcome of Two Different Treatment Options for Patients with Potentially Curable Esophageal Cancer.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to assess the impact of age and comorbidity on choice and outcome of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery. METHODS: In this population-based study, all patients with potentially curable EC (cT1N+/cT2-3, TX, any cN, cM0) diagnosed in the South East of the Netherlands between 2004 and 2014 were included. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank tests and multivariable Cox regression analysis were used to compare overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 702 patients was included. Age ≥ 75 years and multiple comorbidities were associated with a higher probability for dCRT (odds ratio [OR] 8.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.72-15.58; and OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.93-4.93). The strongest associations were found for the combination of hypertension plus diabetes (OR 3.80; 95% CI 1.97-7.32) and the combination of cardiovascular with pulmonary comorbidity (OR 3.18; 95% CI 1.57-6.46). Patients with EC who underwent dCRT had a poorer prognosis than those who underwent nCRT plus surgery, irrespective of age, number, and type of comorbidities. In contrast, for patients with squamous cell carcinoma with ≥ 2 comorbidities or age ≥ 75 years, OS was comparable between both groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.52; 95% CI 0.78-2.97; and HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.13-4.14). CONCLUSIONS: Histological tumor type should be acknowledged in treatment choices for patients with esophageal cancer. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery should basically be advised as treatment of choice for operable esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with ≥ 2 comorbidities or age ≥ 75 years, dCRT may be the preferred strategy.

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.

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus palliative systemic chemotherapy in stomach cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination, the study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (PERISCOPE II).

BACKGROUND: At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3-4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression. DISCUSSION: The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherapy, gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC have a survival benefit over patients treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy only. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03348150 ; registration date November 2017; first enrolment November 2017; expected end date December 2022; trial status: Ongoing.

Resection of hepatic and pulmonary metastasis from metastatic esophageal and gastric cancer: a nationwide study.

The standard of care for gastroesophageal cancer patients with hepatic or pulmonary metastases is best supportive care or palliative chemotherapy. Occasionally, patients can be selected for curative treatment instead. This study aimed to evaluate patients who underwent a resection of hepatic or pulmonary metastasis with curative intent. The Dutch national registry for histo- and cytopathology was used to identify these patients. Data were retrieved from the individual patient files. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Between 1991 and 2016, 32,057 patients received a gastrectomy or esophagectomy for gastroesophageal cancer in the Netherlands. Of these patients, 34 selected patients received a resection of hepatic metastasis (n = 19) or pulmonary metastasis (n = 15) in 21 different hospitals. Only 4 patients received neoadjuvant therapy before metastasectomy. The majority of patients had solitary, metachronous metastases. After metastasectomy, grade 3 (Clavien-Dindo) complications occurred in 7 patients and mortality in 1 patient. After resection of hepatic metastases, the median potential follow-up time was 54 months. Median overall survival (OS) was 28 months and the 1-, 3-, and 5- year OS was 84%, 41%, and 31%, respectively. After pulmonary metastases resection, the median potential follow-up time was 80 months. The median OS was not reached and the 1-, 3-, and 5- year OS was 67%, 53%, and 53%, respectively. In selected patients with gastroesophageal cancer with hepatic or pulmonary metastases, metastasectomy was performed with limited morbidity and mortality and offered a 5-year OS of 31-53%. Further prospective studies are required.

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.

A Population-based Study on Lymph Node Retrieval in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit.

BACKGROUND: For esophageal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) is often used as a quality indicator. The aim of this study is to analyze the number of retrieved LNs in The Netherlands, assess factors associated with LN yield, and explore the association with short-term outcomes. This is a population-based study on lymph node retrieval in patients with esophageal cancer, presenting results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. STUDY DESIGN: For this retrospective national cohort study, patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy between 2011 and 2016 were included. The primary outcome was the number of retrieved LNs. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to test for association with ≥ 15 LNs. PATIENTS AND RESULTS: 3970 patients were included. Between 2011 and 2016, the median number of LNs increased from 15 to 20. Factors independently associated with ≥ 15 LNs were: 0-10 kg preoperative weight loss (versus: unknown weight loss, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.71 [0.57-0.88]), Charlson score 0 (versus: Charlson score 2: 0.76 [0.63-0.92]), cN2 category (reference: cN0, 1.32 [1.05-1.65]), no neoadjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (reference: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 1.73 [1.29-2.32] and 2.15 [1.54-3.01]), minimally invasive transthoracic (reference: open transthoracic, 1.46 [1.15-1.85]), open transthoracic (versus open and minimally invasive transhiatal, 0.29 [0.23-0.36] and 0.43 [0.32-0.59]), hospital volume of 26-50 or > 50 resections/year (reference: 0-25, 1.94 [1.55-2.42] and 3.01 [2.36-3.83]), and year of surgery [reference: 2011, odds ratios (ORs) 1.48, 1.53, 2.28, 2.44, 2.54]. There was no association of ≥ 15 LNs with short-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The number of LNs retrieved increased between 2011 and 2016. Weight loss, Charlson score, cN category, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical approach, year of resection, and hospital volume were all associated with increased LN yield. Retrieval of ≥ 15 LNs was not associated with increased postoperative morbidity/mortality.

Interobserver variability in the classification of appendicitis during laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The intraoperative classification of appendicitis dictates the patient's postoperative management. Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for complex appendicitis (gangrenous, perforated, abscess), whereas preoperative prophylaxis suffices for simple appendicitis. Distinguishing these two conditions can be challenging. The aim of this study was to assess interobserver variability in the classification of appendicitis during laparoscopy. METHODS: Short video recordings taken during laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis were shown to surgeons and surgical residents. They were asked to: classify the appendix as indicative of no, simple or complex appendicitis; categorize the appendix as normal, phlegmonous, gangrenous, perforated and/or abscess; and decide whether they would prescribe postoperative antibiotics. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Fleiss' κ score and the S* statistic. RESULTS: Some 80 assessors participated in the study. Video recordings of 20 patients were used. Interobserver agreement was minimal for both the classification of appendicitis (κ score 0·398, 95 per cent c.i. 0·385 to 0·410) and the decision to prescribe postoperative antibiotic treatment (κ score 0·378, 0·362 to 0·393). Agreement was slightly higher when published criteria were applied (κ score 0·552, 0·537 to 0·568). CONCLUSION: There is considerable variability in the intraoperative classification of appendicitis and the decision to prescribe postoperative antibiotic treatment.

Patients' preferences for treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery for oesophageal cancer, 29 per cent of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. Active surveillance after nCRT (instead of standard oesophagectomy) may improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but patients need to undergo frequent diagnostic tests and it is unknown whether survival is worse than that after standard oesophagectomy. Factors that influence patients' preferences, and trade-offs that patients are willing to make in their choice between surgery and active surveillance were investigated here. METHODS: A prospective discrete-choice experiment was conducted. Patients with oesophageal cancer completed questionnaires 4-6 weeks after nCRT, before surgery. Patients' preferences were quantified using scenarios based on five aspects: 5-year overall survival, short-term HRQoL, long-term HRQoL, the risk that oesophagectomy is still necessary, and the frequency of clinical examinations using endoscopy and PET-CT. Panel latent class analysis was used. RESULTS: Some 100 of 104 patients (96·2 per cent) responded. All aspects, except the frequency of clinical examinations, influenced patients' preferences. Five-year overall survival, the chance that oesophagectomy is still necessary and long-term HRQoL were the most important attributes. On average, based on calculation of the indifference point between standard surgery and active surveillance, patients were willing to trade off 16 per cent 5-year overall survival to reduce the risk that oesophagectomy is necessary from 100 per cent (standard surgery) to 35 per cent (active surveillance). CONCLUSION: Patients are willing to trade off substantial 5-year survival to achieve a reduction in the risk that oesophagectomy is necessary.

Surgical management of esophageal sarcoma: a multicenter European experience.

Esophageal sarcomas are rare and evidence in literature is scarce making their management difficult. The objective is to report surgical and oncological outcomes of esophageal sarcoma in a large multicenter European cohort. This is a retrospective multicenter study including all patients who underwent en-bloc esophagectomy for esophageal sarcoma in seven European tertiary referral centers between 1987 and 2016. The main outcomes and measures are pathological results, early and long-term outcomes. Among 10,936 esophageal resections for cancer, 21 (0.2%) patients with esophageal sarcoma were identified. The majority of tumors was located in the middle (n = 7) and distal (n = 9) third of the esophagus. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was performed in five patients. All the patients underwent en-bloc transthoracic esophagectomy (19 open, 2 minimally invasive). Postoperative mortality occurred in 1 patient (5%). One patient received adjuvant chemotherapy. Definitive pathological results were carcinosarcoma (n = 7), leiomyosarcoma (n = 5), and other types of sarcoma (n = 9). Microscopic R1 resection was present in one patient (5%) and seven patients (33%) had positive lymph nodes. Median follow-up was 16 (3-79) months in 20 of 21 patients (95%). One-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 74%, 43%, and 35%, respectively. One-, 3- and 5-years disease-free survival rates were 58%, 40%, and 33%, respectively. Median overall survival was 6 months in N+ patients vs. 37 months for N0 patients (p = 0.06). At the end of the follow-up period, nine patients had died from cancer recurrences (43%), three patients died from other reasons (14%), one patient was still alive with recurrence (5%) and the seven remaining patients were free of disease (33%). Recurrence was local (n = 3), metastatic (n = 3), or both (n = 4). In conclusion, carcinosarcoma and leiomyosarcoma were the most common esophageal sarcoma histological subtypes. Lymph node involvement was seen in one third of cases. A transthoracic en-bloc esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy should be the best surgical option to achieve complete resection. Long-term survival remained poor with a high local and distant recurrence rate.

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.

Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Non-Pretreated Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: While the curative approach to gastric cancer includes perioperative regimens in several countries, a substantial proportion of patients may not receive treatment prior to surgery. This study examines the adjuvant provision of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for non-pretreated patients with cancer of the stomach including the gastric cardia. METHODS: All surgically treated patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the stomach and gastric cardia diagnosed between January 2004-December 2013 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients who did not receive neoadjuvant treatment were included. Early gastric cancers (cT1), postoperative deaths within 90 days, patients with metastatic disease (M1), patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and patients with macroscopic tumor after surgery (R2) were excluded. RESULTS: Some 3277 patients underwent surgery, and 99 patients (3%) received adjuvant CRT. Treatment was more often administered in patients with a younger age (<65 years) and a high socioeconomic status (SES), in case of non-cardia cancer, positive lymph nodes, and positive resection margins (R1). Median survival time was 28 months (95% CI 17-39), compared to 35 months (95% CI 33-38) in CRT-naïve patients. After adjustment for confounders, a small net benefit for adjuvant CRT was found (hazard ratio, HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.96). In subgroup analyses, benefit was most pronounced for patients with seven or more lymph metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal survival benefit was observed for adjuvant CRT in gastric cancer patients who did not receive neoadjuvant treatment. Treatment could be considered for patients with disease involving nodal invasion and those left with microscopic residual disease after surgery.