¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT to Detect Pathological Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients with Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction:Accuracy and Long-Term Implications

Purpose : The curative strategy for patients with esophageal cancer without distant metastases consists of esophagectomy with preceding chemo(radio)therapy (CRT). In 10–40% of patients treated with CRT, no viable tumor is detectable in the resection specimen (pathological complete response (pCR)). This study aims to define the clinical outcomes of patients with a pCR and to assess the accuracy of post-CRT FDG-PET/CT in the detection of a pCR. Methods: Four hundred sixty-three patients with cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who underwent esophageal resection after CRT between 1994 and 2013 were included. Patients were categorized as pathological complete responders or noncomplete responders. Standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios of 135 post-CRT FDG-PET/CTs were calculated and compared with the pathological findings in the corresponding resection specimens. Results: Of the 463 included patients, 85 (18.4%) patients had a pCR. During follow-up, 25 (29.4%) of these 85 patients developed recurrent disease. Both 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) were significantly higher in complete responders compared to noncomplete responders (5y-DFS 69.6% vs. 44.2%; P = 0.001 and 5y-OS 66.5% vs. 43.7%; P = 0.001). Not pCR, but only pN0 was identified as an independent predictor of (disease-free) survival. Conclusion: Patients with a pCR have a higher probability of survival compared to noncomplete responders. One third of patients with a pCR do develop recurrent disease, and pCR can therefore not be equated with cure. FDG-PET/CT was inaccurate to predict pCR and therefore cannot be used as a sole diagnostic tool to predict pCR after CRT for esophageal cancer.</p

A palaeoenvironmental reconstruction (based on palaeobotanical data and diatoms) of the Middle Pleistocene elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus) butchery site at Marathousa, Megalopolis, Greece

Bioarchaeolog

Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak in patients after oesophagectomy:the SEAL score

Background Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common but severe complication after oesophagectomy. It is unknown how to determine the severity of AL objectively at diagnosis. Determining leak severity may guide treatment decisions and improve future research. This study aimed to identify leak-related prognostic factors for mortality, and to develop a Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score. Methods This international, retrospective cohort study in 71 centres worldwide included patients with AL after oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Leak-related prognostic factors were identified after adjusting for confounders and were included in multivariable logistic regression to develop the SEAL score. Four classes of leak severity (mild, moderate, severe, and critical) were defined based on the risk of 90-day mortality, and the score was validated internally. Results Some 1509 patients with AL were included and the 90-day mortality rate was 11.7 per cent. Twelve leak-related prognostic factors were included in the SEAL score. The score showed good calibration and discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 0.81). Higher classes of leak severity graded by the SEAL score were associated with a significant increase in duration of ICU stay, healing time, Comprehensive Complication Index score, and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group classification. Conclusion The SEAL score grades leak severity into four classes by combining 12 leak-related predictors and can be used to the assess severity of AL after oesophagectomy.The Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score was developed using data from the TENTACLE-Esophagus study, an international, multicentre retrospective cohort study including 1509 patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. The SEAL score was developed to determine anastomotic leak severity at diagnosis, and combines 12 leak-related parameters at diagnosis. The score may be useful in clinical practice and could improve future research.</p

Treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer:large, collaborative, observational TENTACLE cohort study

Background: Anastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Results: Of 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies. Conclusion: Less extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.</p

Chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone in patients with resectable oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial

Background: This is a randomized, controlled trial of preoperative chemotherapy in patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Patients were allocated to chemotherapy, consisting of 2-4 cycles of cisplatin and etoposide, followed by surgery (CS group) or surgery alone (S group). Initial results reported only in abstract form in 1997, demonstrated an advantage for overall survival in the CS group. The results of this trial have been updated and discussed in the timeframe in which this study was performed.Methods: This trial recruited 169 patients with OSCC, 85 patients assigned to preoperative chemotherapy and 84 patients underwent immediate surgery. The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS), secondary endpoints were disease free survival (DFS) and pattern of failure. Survival has been determined from Kaplan-Meier curves and treatment comparisons made with the log-rank test.Results: There were 148 deaths, 71 in the CS and 77 in the S group. Median OS time was 16 months in the CS group compared with 12 months in the S group; 2-year survival rates were 42% and 30%; and 5-year survival rates were 26% and 17%, respectively. Intention to treat analysis showed a significant overall survival benefit for patients in the CS group (P = 0.03, by the log-rank test; hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95%CI 0.51-0.98). DFS (from landmark time of 6 months after date of randomisation) was also better in the CS-group than in the S group (P = 0.02, by the log-rank test; HR 0.72; 95%CI 0.52-1.0). No difference in failure pattern was observed between both treatment arms.Conclusions: Preoperative chemotherapy with a combination of etoposide and cisplatin significantly improved overall survival in patients with OSCC

Management of Solid-pseudopapillary Neoplasms of the Pancreas: a Comparison with Standard Pancreatic Neoplasms

BACKGROUND: Solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms (SPNs) of the pancreas are increasingly diagnosed, but the exact surgical management in terms of extent of the resection is not well defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients operated on in our hospital between January 1993 and March 2005 formed the study groups. RESULTS: From 659 consecutive resections for pancreatic neoplasms, 12 female patients (1.8%) with a median age of 21 years who underwent resection for (SPN) are compared with the remaining 647 pancreatic resection patients. Jaundice (SPN 0 versus PR 73%, p < 0.001) and weight loss (SPN 0 versus PR 49%, p = 0.001) occurred significantly less often. Neoplasms were distributed equally among the pancreatic head (SPN 5 out of 12 patients versus PR 88%, p < 0.001) and corpus/tail (SPN 6 out of 12 patients versus PR 8%, p < 0.001). The operative time was significantly shorter (SPN 233 min versus PR 280 min, p = 0.012), and there were significantly fewer complications (SPN 1 of 12 patients versus PR 48%, p = 0.007). The mortality was not different (SPN 0 versus PR 1.6%, p = 1.000), and the hospital stay was significantly shorter (SPN 9 days versus PR 15 days, p = 0.012). The median size of the neoplasms was significantly larger (SPN 6.9 cm versus PR 2.5 cm). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was significantly fewer (SPN 1 versus PR 6, p = 0.001), and lymph node metastases occurred significantly less often (SPN 0 versus PR 64%, p < 0.001). The 5-year survival of SPN patients was 100% and is significantly better compared with survival of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (12%, p < 0.001) and ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma (22%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas present differently and the course of the disease is more benign. These patients can be adequately managed by pylorus-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy or spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy with excellent early and long-term result

Patients with Rare Cancers in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) Benefit from Genomics-Guided Treatment

Purpose: Patients with rare cancers (incidence less than 6 cases per 100,000 persons per year) commonly have less treatment opportunities and are understudied at the level of genomic targets. We hypothesized that patients with rare cancer benefit from approved anticancer drugs outside their label similar to common cancers. Experimental Design: In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with therapy-refractory metastatic cancers harboring an actionable molecular profile are matched to FDA/European Medicines Agency–approved targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Patients are enrolled in parallel cohorts based on the histologic tumor type, molecular profile and study drug. Primary endpoint is clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥ 16 weeks). Results: Of 1,145 submitted cases, 500 patients, including 164 patients with rare cancers, started one of the 25 available drugs and were evaluable for treatment outcome. The overall clinical benefit rate was 33% in both the rare cancer and nonrare cancer subgroup. Inactivating alterations of CDKN2A and activating BRAF aberrations were overrepresented in patients with rare cancer compared with nonrare cancers, resulting in more matches to CDK4/6 inhibitors (14% vs. 4%; P ≤ 0.001) or BRAF inhibitors (9% vs. 1%; P ≤ 0.001). Patients with rare cancer treated with small-molecule inhibitors targeting BRAF experienced higher rates of clinical benefit (75%) than the nonrare cancer subgroup. Conclusions: Comprehensive molecular testing in patients with rare cancers may identify treatment opportunities and clinical benefit similar to patients with common cancers. Our findings highlight the importance of access to broad molecular diagnostics to ensure equal treatment opportunities for all patients with cancer