ESTS guidelines for preoperative lymph node staging for non-small cell lung cancer

Accurate preoperative staging and restaging of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is of paramount importance. It will guide choices of treatment and determine prognosis and outcome. Over the last years, different techniques have become available. They vary in accuracy and procedure-related morbidity. The Council of the ESTS initiated a workshop on preoperative mediastinal lymph node staging. This resulted in guidelines for primary staging and restaging. For primary staging, mediastinoscopy remains the gold standard for the superior mediastinal lymph nodes. Invasive procedures can be omitted in patients with peripheral tumors and negative mediastinal positron emission tomography (PET) images. However, in case of central tumors, PET hilar N1 disease, low fluorodeoxyglucose uptake of the primary tumor and LNs≥16mm on CT scan, invasive staging remains indicated. PET positive mediastinal findings should always be cyto-histologically confirmed. Transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), ultrasound-guided bronchoscopy with fine needle aspiration (EBUS-FNA) and endoscopic esophageal ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are new techniques that provide cyto-histological diagnosis and are minimally invasive. Their specificity is high but the negative predictive value is low. Because of this, if they yield negative results, an invasive surgical technique is indicated. However, if fine needle aspiration is positive, this result may be valid as proof for N2 or N3 disease. For restaging, invasive techniques providing cyto-histological information are advisable despite the encouraging results supported with the use of PET/CT imaging. Both endoscopic techniques and surgical procedures are available. If they yield a positive result, non-surgical treatment is indicated in most patient

ESTS guidelines for preoperative lymph node staging for non-small cell lung cancer

Accurate preoperative staging and restaging of mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is of paramount importance. It will guide choices of treatment and determine prognosis and outcome. Over the last years, different techniques have become available. They vary in accuracy and procedure-related morbidity. The Council of the ESTS initiated a workshop on preoperative mediastinal lymph node staging. This resulted in guidelines for primary staging and restaging. For primary staging, mediastinoscopy remains the gold standard for the superior mediastinal lymph nodes. Invasive procedures can be omitted in patients with peripheral tumors and negative mediastinal positron emission tomography (PET) images. However, in case of central tumors, PET hilar N1 disease, low fluorodeoxyglucose uptake of the primary tumor and LNs≥16mm on CT scan, invasive staging remains indicated. PET positive mediastinal findings should always be cyto-histologically confirmed. Transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), ultrasound-guided bronchoscopy with fine needle aspiration (EBUS-FNA) and endoscopic esophageal ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are new techniques that provide cyto-histological diagnosis and are minimally invasive. Their specificity is high but the negative predictive value is low. Because of this, if they yield negative results, an invasive surgical technique is indicated. However, if fine needle aspiration is positive, this result may be valid as proof for N2 or N3 disease. For restaging, invasive techniques providing cyto-histological information are advisable despite the encouraging results supported with the use of PET/CT imaging. Both endoscopic techniques and surgical procedures are available. If they yield a positive result, non-surgical treatment is indicated in most patient

Recommendations for pathologic staging (pTNM) of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals

SUMMARY We report analytic and consensus processes that produced recommendations for pathologic stage groups (pTNM) of esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer for the AJCC/UICC cancer staging manuals, 8th edition. The Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration provided data for 22,654 patients with epithelial esophageal cancers; 13,300 without preoperative therapy had pathologic assessment after esophagectomy or endoscopic treatment. Risk‐adjusted survival for each patient was developed using random survival forest analysis to identify data‐driven pathologic stage groups wherein survival decreased monotonically with increasing group, was distinctive between groups, and homogeneous within groups. The AJCC Upper GI Task Force, by smoothing, simplifying, expanding, and assessing clinical applicability, produced consensus pathologic stage groups. For pT1‐3N0M0 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and pT1‐2N0M0 adenocarcinoma, pT was inadequate for grouping; subcategorizing pT1 and adding histologic grade enhanced staging; cancer location improved SCC staging. Consensus eliminated location for pT2N0M0 and pT3N0M0G1 SCC groups, and despite similar survival, restricted stage 0 to pTis, excluding pT1aN0M0G1. Metastases markedly reduced survival; pT, pN, and pM sufficiently grouped advanced cancers. Stage IIA and IIB had different compositions for SCC and adenocarcinoma, but similar survival. Consensus stage IV subgrouping acknowledged pT4N+ and pN3 cancers had poor survival, similar to pM1. Anatomic pathologic stage grouping, based on pTNM only, produced identical consensus stage groups for SCC and adenocarcinoma at the cost of homogeneity in early groups. Pathologic staging can neither direct pre‐treatment decisions nor aid in prognostication for treatment other than esophagectomy or endoscopic therapy. However, it provides a clean, single therapy reference point for esophageal cancer

Consensus statements for management of Barrett's Dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a Delphi Process

Background & aimsEsophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is increasingly common among patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to provide consensus recommendations based on the medical literature that clinicians could use to manage patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or early-stage EA.MethodsWe performed an international, multidisciplinary, systematic, evidence-based review of different management strategies for patients with BE and dysplasia or early-stage EA. We used a Delphi process to develop consensus statements. The results of literature searches were screened using a unique, interactive, Web-based data-sifting platform; we used 11,904 papers to inform the choice of statements selected. An a priori threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement.ResultsEighty-one of the 91 statements achieved consensus despite generally low quality of evidence, including 8 clinical statements: (1) specimens from endoscopic resection are better than biopsies for staging lesions, (2) it is important to carefully map the size of the dysplastic areas, (3) patients that receive ablative or surgical therapy require endoscopic follow-up, (4) high-resolution endoscopy is necessary for accurate diagnosis, (5) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surveillance, (6) endoscopic therapy for HGD is preferred to surgery, (7) the combination of endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation is the most effective therapy, and (8) after endoscopic removal of lesions from patients with HGD, all areas of BE should be ablated.ConclusionsWe developed a data-sifting platform and used the Delphi process to create evidence-based consensus statements for the management of patients with BE and early-stage EA. This approach identified important clinical features of the diseases and areas for future studies.Cathy Bennett... Rajvinder Singh... et al

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable