Criteria for preclinical models of cholangiocarcinoma: scientific and medical relevance

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare malignancy that develops at any point along the biliary tree. CCA has a poor prognosis, its clinical management remains challenging, and effective treatments are lacking. Therefore, preclinical research is of pivotal importance and necessary to acquire a deeper understanding of CCA and improve therapeutic outcomes. Preclinical research involves developing and managing complementary experimental models, from in vitro assays using primary cells or cell lines cultured in 2D or 3D to in vivo models with engrafted material, chemically induced CCA or genetically engineered models. All are valuable tools with well-defined advantages and limitations. The choice of a preclinical model is guided by the question(s) to be addressed; ideally, results should be recapitulated in independent approaches. In this Consensus Statement, a task force of 45 experts in CCA molecular and cellular biology and clinicians, including pathologists, from ten countries provides recommendations on the minimal criteria for preclinical models to provide a uniform approach. These recommendations are based on two rounds of questionnaires completed by 35 (first round) and 45 (second round) experts to reach a consensus with 13 statements. An agreement was defined when at least 90% of the participants voting anonymously agreed with a statement. The ultimate goal was to transfer basic laboratory research to the clinics through increased disease understanding and to develop clinical biomarkers and innovative therapies for patients with CCA

Mortality from esophagectomy for esophageal cancer across low, middle, and high-income countries: An international cohort study

Background: No evidence currently exists characterising global outcomes following major cancer surgery, including esophageal cancer. Therefore, this study aimed to characterise impact of high income countries (HIC) versus low and middle income countries (LMIC) on the outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Method: This international multi-center prospective study across 137 hospitals in 41 countries included patients who underwent an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, with 90-day follow-up. The main explanatory variable was country income, defined according to the World Bank Data classification. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality, and secondary outcomes were composite leaks (anastomotic leak or conduit necrosis) and major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III-V). Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to produce adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI95%).Results: Between April 2018 to December 2018, 2247 patients were included. Patients from HIC were more significantly older, with higher ASA grade, and more advanced tumors. Patients from LMIC had almost three-fold increase in 90-day mortality, compared to HIC (9.4% vs 3.7%, p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day mortality (OR: 2.31, CI95%: 1.17-4.55, p = 0.015). However, LMIC were not independently associated with higher rates of anastomotic leaks (OR: 1.06, CI95%: 0.57-1.99, p = 0.9) or major complications (OR: 0.85, CI95%: 0.54-1.32, p = 0.5), compared to HIC.Conclusion: Resections in LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day postoperative mortality, likely reflecting a failure to rescue of these patients following esophagectomy, despite similar composite anastomotic leaks and major complication rates to HIC. These findings warrant further research, to identify potential issues and solutions to improve global outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved

Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA)

Background: The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). Methods: The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up. Results: The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P<0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P<0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P=0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P=0.013). Conclusion: Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts