Outcome of Patients Treated Within and Outside a Randomized Clinical Trial on Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Plus Surgery for Esophageal Cancer

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can provide a high level of evidence for medical decision making, but it is unclear if the results apply to patients treated outside such trials. Objective: The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer treated within and outside an RCT. Methods: All patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery for esophageal cancer between 2002 and 2008 (ChemoRadiotherapy for Esophageal cancer followed by Surgery Study [CROSS] cohort) who participated in multicenter, phase II–III trials were compared with patients who underwent the same treatment outside the trial between 2008 and 2013 (post-CROSS cohort). The differences between these cohorts were analyzed using t tests, while logistic regression models were used to evaluate adverse events. Overall and disease-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analyses. Results: A total of 208 CROSS patients and 173 post-CROSS patients were included in this study. Patients from the post-CROSS cohort were older, had more co morbidities, and had poorer performance status. Clinical N stage, but not cT stage, was worse in the post-CROSS cohort. There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events (pulmonary, cardiac, or anastomotic complications) or survival between the comparison cohorts. Conclusion: The outcomes of patients treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy for cancer have a high external consistency and can be extrapolated to the daily practice of physicians involved in the treatment and care of esophageal cancer patients

Polymorphisms in Genes of Relevance for Oestrogen and Oxytocin Pathways and Risk of Barrett's Oesophagus and Oesophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Pooled Analysis from the BEACON Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The strong male predominance in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and Barrett's oesophagus (BO) continues to puzzle. Hormonal influence, e.g. oestrogen or oxytocin, might contribute. METHODS: This genetic-epidemiological study pooled 14 studies from three continents, Australia, Europe, and North America. Polymorphisms in 3 key genes coding for the oestrogen pathway (receptor alpha (ESR1), receptor beta (ESR2), and aromatase (CYP19A1)), and 3 key genes of the oxytocin pathway (the oxytocin receptor (OXTR), oxytocin protein (OXT), and cyclic ADP ribose hydrolase glycoprotein (CD38)), were analysed using a gene-based approach, versatile gene-based test association study (VEGAS). RESULTS: Among 1508 OAC patients, 2383 BO patients, and 2170 controls, genetic variants within ESR1 were associated with BO in males (p = 0.0058) and an increased risk of OAC and BO combined in males (p = 0.0023). Genetic variants within OXTR were associated with an increased risk of BO in both sexes combined (p = 0.0035) and in males (p = 0.0012). We followed up these suggestive findings in a further smaller data set, but found no replication. There were no significant associations between the other 4 genes studied and risk of OAC, BO, separately on in combination, in males and females combined or in males only. CONCLUSION: Genetic variants in the oestrogen receptor alpha and the oxytocin receptor may be associated with an increased risk of BO or OAC, but replication in other large samples are needed

Interactions Between Genetic Variants and Environmental Factors Affect Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 20 susceptibility loci for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) and Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, variants in these loci account for a small fraction of cases of EA and BE. Genetic factors might interact with environmental factors to affect risk of EA and BE. We aimed to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that may modify the associations of body mass index (BMI), smoking, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), with risks of EA and BE. METHODS: We collected data on single BMI measurements, smoking status, and symptoms of GERD from 2284 patients with EA, 3104 patients with BE, and 2182 healthy individuals (controls) participating in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium GWAS, the UK Barrett's Esophagus Gene Study, and the UK Stomach and Oesophageal Cancer Study. We analyzed 993,501 SNPs in DNA samples of all study subjects. We used standard case-control logistic regression to test for gene-environment interactions. RESULTS: For EA, rs13429103 at chromosome 2p25.1, near the RNF144A-LOC339788 gene, showed a borderline significant interaction with smoking status (P = 2.18×10-7). Ever smoking was associated with an almost 12-fold increase in risk of EA among individuals with rs13429103-AA genotype (odds ratio=11.82; 95% CI, 4.03-34.67). Three SNPs (rs12465911, rs2341926, rs13396805) at chromosome 2q23.3, near the RND3-RBM43 gene, interacted with GERD symptoms (P = 1.70×10-7, P = 1.83×10-7, and P = 3.58×10-7, respectively) to affect risk of EA. For BE, rs491603 at chromosome 1p34.3, near the EIF2C3 gene, and rs11631094 at chromosome 15q14, at the SLC12A6 gene, interacted with BMI (P = 4.44×10-7) and pack-years of smoking history (P = 2.82×10-7), respectively. CONCLUSION: The associations of BMI, smoking, and GERD symptoms with risks of EA and BE appear to vary with SNPs at chromosomes 1, 2, and 15. Validation of these suggestive interactions is warranted.UK funding from MRC and Cancer Research U

A Newly Identified Susceptibility Locus near FOXP1 Modifies the Association of Gastroesophageal Reflux with Barrett's Esophagus

Important risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) and its precursor, Barrett’s esophagus (BE) include gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, and cigarette-smoking. Recently, genome-wide association studies have identified seven germline single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are associated with risk of BE and EA. Whether these genetic susceptibility loci modify previously identified exposure-disease associations is unclear

Germline variation in inflammation-related pathways and risk of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) incidence has risen sharply in Western countries over recent decades. Local and systemic inflammation, operating downstream of disease-associated exposures, is considered an important contributor to EA pathogenesis. Several risk factors have been identified for EA and its precursor, Barrett’s esophagus (BE), including symptomatic reflux, obesity, and smoking. The role of inherited genetic susceptibility remains an area of active investigation. To explore whether germline variation related to inflammatory processes influences susceptibility to BE/EA, we used data from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 2,515 EA cases, 3,295 BE cases, and 3,207 controls. Our analysis included 7,863 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 449 genes assigned to five pathways: cyclooxygenase (COX), cytokine signaling, oxidative stress, human leukocyte antigen, and NFκB. A principal components-based analytic framework was employed to evaluate pathway-level and gene-level associations with disease risk. We identified a significant signal for the COX pathway in relation to BE risk (P=0.0059, FDR q=0.03), and in gene-level analyses found an association with MGST1 (microsomal glutathione-S-transferase 1; P=0.0005, q=0.005). Assessment of 36 MGST1 SNPs identified 14 variants associated with elevated BE risk (q<0.05). Of these, four were subsequently confirmed (P<5.5 × 10−5) in a meta-analysis encompassing an independent set of 1,851 BE cases and 3,496 controls. Three of these SNPs (rs3852575, rs73112090, rs4149204) were associated with similar elevations in EA risk. This study provides the most comprehensive evaluation of inflammation-related germline variation in relation to risk of BE/EA, and suggests that variants in MGST1 influence disease susceptibility

Sex-Specific Genetic Associations for Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Acknowledgments We thank Dr Stuart MacGregor for his input on the study proposal and review of prior versions of this manuscript. We also thank all patients and controls for participating in this study. The MD Anderson controls were drawn from dbGaP (study accession: phs000187.v1.p1). Genotyping of these controls were done through the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) and the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). We acknowledge the principal investigators of this study: Christopher Amos, Qingyi Wei, and Jeffrey E. Lee. Controls from the Genome-Wide Association Study of Parkinson Disease were obtained from dbGaP (study accession: phs000196.v2.p1). This work, in part, used data from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) dbGaP database from the CIDR: NeuroGenetics Research Consortium Parkinson’s disease study. We acknowledge the principal investigators and coinvestigators of this study: Haydeh Payami, John Nutt, Cyrus Zabetian, Stewart Factor, Eric Molho, and Donald Higgins. Controls from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) were drawn from dbGaP (study accession: phs000524.v1.p1). The CRIC study was done by the CRIC investigators and supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Data and samples from CRIC reported here were supplied by NIDDK Central Repositories. This report was not prepared in collaboration with investigators of the CRIC study and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the CRIC study, the NIDDK Central Repositories, or the NIDDK. We acknowledge the principal investigators and the project officer of this study: Harold I Feldman, Raymond R Townsend, Lawrence J. Appel, Mahboob Rahman, Akinlolu Ojo, James P. Lash, Jiang He, Alan S Go, and John W. Kusek. The following UK hospitals participated in sample collection through the Stomach and Oesophageal Cancer Study (SOCS) collaboration network: Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University College London, Bedford Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Peterborough City Hospital, West Suffolk Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Churchill Hospital, John Hospital, Velindre Hospital, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Queen’s Burton, Queen Elisabeth Hospital, Diana Princess of Wales, Scunthorpe General Hospital, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, New Cross Hospital, Belfast City Hospital, Good Hope Hospital, Heartlands Hospital, South Tyneside District General Hospital, Cumberland Infirmary, West Cumberland Hospital, Withybush General Hospital, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Wycombe General Hospital, Wexham Park Hospital, Southend Hospital, Guy’s Hospital, Southampton General Hospital, Bronglais General Hospital, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Manor Hospital, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Lincoln County Hospital, Pilgrim Hospital, Grantham & District Hospital, St Mary’s Hospital London, Croydon University Hospital, Whipps Cross University Hospital, Wansbeck General Hospital, Hillingdon Hospital, Milton Keynes General Hospital, Royal Gwent Hospital, Tameside General Hospital, Castle Hill Hospital, St Richard’s Hospital, Ipswich Hospital, St Helens Hospital, Whiston Hospital, Countess of Chester Hospital, St Mary’s Hospital IOW, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Darent Valley Hospital, Royal Derby Hospital, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Scarborough General Hospital, Kettering General Hospital, Kidderminster General Hospital, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Furness General Hospital, Westmorland General Hospital, James Cook University Hospital, Friarage Hospital, Stepping Hill Hospital, St George’s Hospital London, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Maidstone Hospital, Tunbridge Hospital, Prince Charles Hospital, Hartlepool Hospital, University Hospital of North Tees, Ysbyty Gwynedd, St. Jame’s University Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary, North Hampshire Hospital, Royal Preston Hospital, Chorley and District General, Airedale General Hospital, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Torbay District General Hospital, Leighton Hospital, Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Burnley General Hospital, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Freeman Hospital, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Victoria Hospital Blackpool, Weston Park Hospital, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Conquest Hospital, Royal Bournemouth General Hospital, Mount Vernon Hospital, Lister Hospital, William Harvey Hospital, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Great Western Hospital, Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, Poole General Hospital, St Hellier Hospital, North Devon District Hospital, Salisbury District Hospital, Weston General Hospital, University Hospital Coventry, Warwick Hospital, George Eliot Hospital, Alexandra Hospital, Nottingham University Hospital, Royal Chesterfield Hospital, Yeovil District Hospital, Darlington Memorial Hospital, University Hospital of North Durham, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Musgrove Park Hospital, Rochdale Infirmary, North Manchester General, Altnagelvin Area Hospital, Dorset County Hospital, James Paget Hospital, Derriford Hospital, Newham General Hospital, Ealing Hospital, Pinderfields General Hospital, Clayton Hospital, Dewsbury & District Hospital, Pontefract General Infirmary, Worthing Hospital, Macclesfield Hospital, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Salford Royal Hospital, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, and Manchester Royal Infirmary. Conflict of interest The authors disclose no conflicts. Funding This work was primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01CA136725). The funders of the study had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor in writing or publication decisions related to this article. Jing Dong was supported by a Research Training Grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT; RP160097) and the Research and Education Program Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin (AHW). Quinn T. Ostrom was supported by RP160097. Puya Gharahkhani was supported by a grant from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1123248). Geoffrey Liu was supported by the Alan B. Brown Chair in Molecular Genomics and by the CCO Chair in Experimental Therapeutics and Population Studies. The University of Cambridge received salary support for Paul D. Pharoah from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. Brian J. Reid was supported by a grant (P01CA91955) from the NIH/National Cancer Institute (NCI). Nicholas J. Shaheen was supported by a grant (P30 DK034987) from NIH. Thomas L. Vaughan was supported by NIH Established Investigator Award K05CA124911. Michael B. Cook was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services. Douglas A. Corley was supported by the NIH grants R03 KD 58294, R21DK077742, and RO1 DK63616 and NCI grant R01CA136725. Carlo Maj was supported by the BONFOR-program of the Medical Faculty, University of Bonn (O-147.0002). Jesper Lagergren was supported by the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Research Prize. David C. Whiteman was supported by fellowships from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1058522, 1155413).Peer reviewedPostprin

No Association Between Vitamin D Status and Risk of Barrett's Esophagus or Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Epidemiology studies of circulating concentrations of 25 hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) have produced conflicting results. We conducted a Mendelian randomization study to determine the associations between circulating concentrations of 25(OH)D and risks of EAC and its precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE). METHODS: We conducted a Mendelian randomization study using a 2-sample (summary data) approach. Six single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; rs3755967, rs10741657, rs12785878, rs10745742, rs8018720, and rs17216707) associated with circulating concentrations of 25(OH)D were used as instrumental variables. We collected data from 6167 patients with BE, 4112 patients with EAC, and 17,159 individuals without BE or EAC (controls) participating in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium, as well as studies from Bonn, Germany, and Cambridge and Oxford, United Kingdom. Analyses were performed separately for BE and EAC. RESULTS: Overall, we found no evidence for an association between genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentration and risk of BE or EAC. The odds ratio per 20 nmol/L increase in genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentration for BE risk estimated by combining the individual SNP association using inverse variance weighting was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.77-1.92; P = .41). The odds ratio for EAC risk, estimated by combining the individual SNP association using inverse variance weighting, was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.39-1.19; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: In a Mendelian randomization study, we found that low genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentrations were not associated with risk of BE or EAC