Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration : clinical staging data

Peer reviewe

Worldwide esophageal cancer collaboration

The aim of this study is to report assemblage of a large multi-institutional international database of esophageal cancer patients, patient and tumor characteristics, and survival of patients undergoing esophagectomy alone and its correlates. Forty-eight institutions were approached and agreed to participate in a worldwide esophageal cancer collaboration (WECC), and 13 (Asia, 2; Europe, 2; North America, 9) submitted data as of July 1, 2007. These were used to construct a de-identified database of 7884 esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy. Four thousand six hundred and twenty-seven esophagectomy patients had no induction or adjuvant therapy. Mean age was 62±11 years, 77% were men, and 33% were Asian. Mean tumor length was 3.3±2.5 cm, and esophageal location was upper in 4.1%, middle in 27%, and lower in 69%. Histopathologic cell type was adenocarcinoma in 60% and squamous cell in 40%. Histologic grade was G1 in 32%, G2 in 33%, G3 in 35%, and G4 in 0.18%. pT classification was pTis in 7.3%, pT1 in 23%, pT2 in 16%, pT3 in 51%, and pT4 in 3.3%. pN classification was pN0 in 56% and pN1 in 44%. The number of lymph nodes positive for cancer was 1 in 12%, 2 in 8%, 3 in 5%, and >3 in 18%. Resection was R0 in 87%, R1 in 11%, and R2 in 3%. Overall survival was 78, 42, and 31% at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Unlike single-institution studies, in this worldwide collaboration, survival progressively decreases and is distinctively stratified by all variables except region of the world. A worldwide esophageal cancer database has been assembled that overcomes problems of rarity of this cancer. It reveals that survival progressively (monotonically) decreased and was distinctively stratified by all variables except region of the world. Thus, it forms the basis for data-driven esophageal cancer staging. More centers are needed and encouraged to join WECC. © 2008 Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2008, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Optimum lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE: Using Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration data, we sought to (1) characterize the relationship between survival and extent of lymphadenectomy, and (2) from this, define optimum lymphadenectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: What constitutes optimum lymphadenectomy to maximize survival is controversial because of variable goals, analytic methodology, and generalizability of the underpinning data. METHODS: A total of 4627 patients who had esophagectomy alone for esophageal cancer were identified from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration database. Patient-specific risk-adjusted survival was estimated using random survival forests. Risk-adjusted 5-year survival was averaged for each number of lymph nodes resected and its relation to cancer characteristics explored. Optimum number of nodes that should be resected to maximize 5-year survival was determined by random forest multivariable regression. RESULTS: For pN0M0 moderately and poorly differentiated cancers, and all node-positive (pN+) cancers, 5-year survival improved with increasing extent of lymphadenectomy. In pN0M0 cancers, no optimum lymphadenectomy was defined for pTis; optimum lymphadenectomy was 10 to 12 nodes for pT1, 15 to 22 for pT2, and 31 to 42 for pT3/T4, depending on histopathologic cell type. In pN+M0 cancers and 1 to 6 nodes positive, optimum lymphadenectomy was 10 for pT1, 15 for pT2, and 29 to 50 for pT3/T4. CONCLUSIONS: Greater extent of lymphadenectomy was associated with increased survival for all patients with esophageal cancer except at the extremes (TisN0M0 and ≥7 regional lymph nodes positive for cancer) and well-differentiated pN0M0 cancer. Maximum 5-year survival is modulated by T classification: resecting 10 nodes for pT1, 20 for pT2, and ≥30 for pT3/T4 is recommended. Copyright © 2009 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data.

We report data-simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non-risk-adjusted survival-for patients with pathologically staged cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction after resection or ablation with no preoperative therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted de-identified data using standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 13,300 patients, 5,631 had squamous cell carcinoma, 7,558 adenocarcinoma, 85 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 26 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (62 years) men (80%) with normal body mass index (51%), little weight loss (1.8 kg), 0-2 ECOG performance status (83%), and a history of smoking (70%). Cancers were pT1 (24%), pT2 (15%), pT3 (50%), pN0 (52%), pM0 (93%), and pG2-G3 (78%); most involved distal esophagus (71%). Non-risk-adjusted survival for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma was monotonic and distinctive across pTNM. Survival was more distinctive for adenocarcinoma than squamous cell carcinoma when pT was ordered by pN. Survival for pTis-1 adenocarcinoma was better than for squamous cell carcinoma, although monotonic and distinctive for both. WECC pathologic staging data is improved over that of the 7th edition, with more patients studied and patient and cancer variables collected. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics, and should direct 9th edition data collection. However, the role of pure pathologic staging as the principal point of reference for esophageal cancer staging is waning

Board of Editors

To address uncertainty of whether pathologic stage groupings after neoadjuvant therapy (ypTNM) for esophageal cancer share prognostic implications with pathologic groupings after esophagectomy alone (pTNM), we report data—simple descriptions of patient characteristics, cancer categories, and non–risk-adjusted survival—for pathologically staged cancers after neoadjuvant therapy from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration (WECC). Thirty-three institutions from six continents submitted data using variables with standard definitions: demographics, comorbidities, clinical cancer categories, and all-cause mortality from first management decision. Of 7,773 pathologically staged neoadjuvant patients, 2,045 had squamous cell carcinoma, 5,686 adenocarcinoma, 31 adenosquamous carcinoma, and 11 undifferentiated carcinoma. Patients were older (61 years) men (83%) with normal (40%) or overweight (35%) body mass index, 0-1 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (96%), and a history of smoking (69%). Cancers were ypT0 (20%), ypT1 (13%), ypT2 (18%), ypT3 (44%), ypN0 (55%), ypM0 (94%), and G2-G3 (72%); most involved the distal esophagus (80%). Non–risk-adjusted survival for yp categories was unequally depressed, more for earlier categories than later, compared with equivalent categories from prior WECC data for esophagectomy-alone patients. Thus, survival of patients with ypT0-2N0M0 cancers was intermediate and similar regardless of ypT; survival for ypN+ cancers was poor. Because prognoses for ypTNM and pTNM categories are dissimilar, prognostication should be based on separate ypTNM categories and groupings. These data will be the basis for the 8th edition cancer staging manuals following risk adjustment for patient, cancer, and treatment characteristics and should direct 9th edition data collection