Proposal for the delineation of neoadjuvant target volumes in oesophageal cancer

PURPOSE: To define instructions for delineation of target volumes in the neoadjuvant setting in oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiation oncologists of five European centres participated in the following consensus process: [1] revision of published (MEDLINE) and national/institutional delineation guidelines; [2] first delineation round of five cases (patient 1-5) according to national/institutional guidelines; [3] consensus meeting to discuss the results of step 1 and 2, followed by a target volume delineation proposal; [4] circulation of proposed instructions for target volume delineation and atlas for feedback; [5] second delineation round of five new cases (patient 6-10) to peer review and validate (two additional centres) the agreed delineation guidelines and atlas; [6] final consensus on the delineation guidelines depicted in an atlas. Target volumes of the delineation rounds were compared between centres by Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and maximum/mean undirected Hausdorff distances (Hmax/Hmean). RESULTS: In the first delineation round, the consistency between centres was moderate (CTVtotal: DSC = 0.59-0.88; Hmean = 0.2-0.4 cm). Delineations in the second round were much more consistent. Lowest variability was obtained between centres participating in the consensus meeting (CTVtotal: DSC: p < 0.050 between rounds for patients 6/7/8/10; Hmean: p < 0.050 for patients 7/8/10), compared to validation centres (CTVtotal: DSC: p < 0.050 between validation and consensus meeting centres for patients 6/7/8; Hmean: p < 0.050 for patients 7/10). A proposal for delineation of target volumes and an atlas were generated. CONCLUSION: We proposed instructions for target volume delineation and an atlas for the neoadjuvant radiation treatment in oesophageal cancer. These will enable a more uniform delineation of patients in clinical practice and clinical trials

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe

BACKGROUND Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials

Palliative esophagectomy in unexpected metastatic disease: sense or nonsense?

Background Despite integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography screening before and after neoadjuvant treatment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, unexpected metastatic disease is still found in some patients during surgery. Should then esophagectomy be aborted or is there a place for palliative resection? Methods Between 2002 and 2015, 681 patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer were sheduled for neoadjuvant therapy and subsequent esophagectomy. In 552 patients, a potentially curative esophagectomy was performed. In 12 patients, unexpected disease was discovered during surgery but esophagectomy was performed with synchronous resection of metastases; 10 of them had oligometastatic disease (≤4 single-organ metastases). Esophagectomy was not performed in 117 patients (because of disease progression in 50); 14 were also single-organ oligometastatic. Data of 10 single-organ oligometastatic patients who underwent esophageal resection (group 1) were compared those of 10 non-resected but treated counterparts (group 2) and with 228 patients who underwent potentially curative esophagectomy with persistent pathological lymph nodes (group 3). Results Five oligometastatic esophagectomy patients had lung metastases: 1 peritoneal, 2 adrenal, 1 pleural, and 1 pancreatic. Two oligometastatic non-resected patients had lung, 5 liver, and 3 brain metastases. Median overall survival was 21.4, 12.1, and 20.2 months in the respective groups (group 1 vs. group 2  p = 0.042; group 2 vs. group 3  p = 0.002; group 1 vs. group 3  p = 0.88). Conclusions Survival is longer in patients undergoing palliative esophagectomy with unexpected single-organ oligometastatic disease and comparable to survival in patients with persistent pathological lymph nodes. Palliative resection in these patients seems to be justified.status: publishe

Impact of Extracapsular Lymph Node Involvement After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy Followed by Surgery in Carcinoma of the Esophagus: A Multicenter Study

The current study aims to examine the impact of extracapsular lymph node involvement (EC-LNI) on survival for both esophageal adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) followed by surgery. Studies have demonstrated the negative prognostic value of EC-LNI in primary surgery, but its impact after nCRT remains unclear. From the databases of 6 European high-volume centers 1505 patients with R0 resections were withheld. Oncologic variables, including ypT, ypN, number of positive lymph nodes, and lymph node capsular status: EC-LNI and intracapsular lymph node involvement (IC-LNI), were examined. Statistical analysis was performed by Cox proportional hazards modeling. In SCC 182 patients (31.6%) had positive lymph nodes, of whom 60 (33.0%) showed EC-LNI. In AC 391 patients (42.1%) had positive lymph nodes, of whom 147 (37.6%) showed EC-LNI. Overall 5-year survival (O5YS) in SCC was 42.0%. Presence of EC-LNI meant a significantly worse O5YS than IC-LNI or pN0 (10.6%, 39.5%, and 47.4%, respectively; P < 0.05). O5YS in AC was 41.2%. No significant difference was observed between EC-LNI and IC-LNI (P = 0.322). In the multivariate analysis, among the examined possible prognosticators, presence of EC-LNI showed the highest hazard ratio (2.29, confidence interval: 1.52-3.47) as an independent prognosticator for overall survival in SCC, but it was not in AC. Based on this international multicenter study, the presence of EC-LNI after nCRT is at least as important as N-stage for survival and EC-LNI is the strongest prognosticator for overall survival in SCC but not in A

International Multicenter Study on the Impact of Extracapsular Lymph Node Involvement in Primary Surgery Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus on Overall Survival and Staging Systems

Objective:The current pathological lymph node (pN) staging is based on the number of positive lymph nodes but does not take into consideration characteristics of the involved lymph nodes itself. The current study aims to examine the prognostic value of extracapsular lymph node involvement (EC-LNI) and intracapsular lymph node involvement (IC-LNI) for esophageal adenocarcinoma treated by primary surgery.Methods:From the databases of five European high volume centers, 1639 adenocarcinoma patients with primary R0-resection were withheld after excluding 90-day mortality. Oncologic variables, including number of resected lymph nodes, number of resected positive lymph nodes, and EC-LNI/IC-LNI were examined. The Union Internationale contre le Cancer (UICC) 7th edition prognostic staging was used as baseline staging system. Statistical analysis was performed by Cox proportional hazards modeling and verified using the Random Survival Forest technique.Results:EC-LNI showed significantly worse overall 5-year survival compared with IC-LNI overall (13.4% vs 37.2%, P <0.0001), including in each pN-catergory [16.4% vs 45.6% in pN1 (P <0.0001), 16.1% vs 23.8% (P=0.047) in pN2 (P=0.065), and 8.7% vs 26.3% in pN3 categories, respectively]. pN1 IC-LNI patients show a 5-year overall survival comparable (P=0.92) with stage IIB (ie, pT3N0). Reclassifying the UICC prognostic stages according to these findings into an adapted staging model showed a significant (P <0.0001) increase in homogeneity, discriminatory ability, and monotonicity compared with the original UICC TNM 7th edition prognostic staging.Conclusions:These data suggest that lymph node capsular status is an important prognostic factor and should be considered for the future edition of the TNM staging system for esophageal cance

Outcomes after totally minimally invasive versus hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: results from the International Esodata Study Group

BACKGROUND: Large studies comparing totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIE) with laparoscopically assisted (hybrid) oesophagectomy are lacking. Although randomized trials have compared TMIE invasive with open oesophagectomy, daily clinical practice does not always resemble the results reported in such trials. The aim of the present study was to compare complications after totally minimally invasive, hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy in patients with oesophageal cancer.METHODS: The study was performed using data from the International Esodata Study Group registered between February 2015 and December 2019. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and secondary outcomes included the incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage, (major) complications, duration of hospital stay, escalation of care, and 90-day mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable multilevel models.RESULTS: Some 8640 patients were included between 2015 and 2019. Patients undergoing TMIE had a lower incidence of pneumonia than those having hybrid (10.9 versus 16.3 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.80) or open (10.9 versus 17.4 per cent; OR 0.60, 0.42 to 0.84) oesophagectomy, and had a shorter hospital stay (median 10 (i.q.r. 8-16) days versus 14 (11-19) days (P = 0.041) and 11 (9-16) days (P = 0.027) respectively). The rate of anastomotic leakage was higher after TMIE than hybrid (15.1 versus 10.7 per cent; OR 1.47, 1.01 to 2.13) or open (15.1 versus 7.3 per cent; OR 1.73, 1.26 to 2.38) procedures.CONCLUSION: Compared with hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy, TMIE resulted in a lower pneumonia rate, a shorter duration of hospital stay, but higher anastomotic leakage rates. Therefore, no clear advantage was seen for either TMIE, hybrid or open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy when performed in daily clinical practice

Multicentre randomized clinical trial of inspiratory muscle training versus usual care before surgery for oesophageal cancer

Up to 40 per cent of patients undergoing oesophagectomy develop pneumonia. The aim of this study was to assess whether preoperative inspiratory muscle training (IMT) reduces the rate of pneumonia after oesophagectomy.status: publishe

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4)

Introduction: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). Methods: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. Results: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI &gt; 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. Discussion: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.</p

Benchmarking Complications Associated with Esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE: Utilizing a standardized dataset with specific definitions to prospectively collect international data to provide a benchmark for complications and outcomes associated with esophagectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Outcome reporting in oncologic surgery has suffered from the lack of a standardized system for reporting operative results particularly complications. This is particularly the case for esophagectomy affecting the accuracy and relevance of international outcome assessments, clinical trial results, and quality improvement projects. METHODS: The Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) involving 24 high-volume esophageal surgical centers in 14 countries developed a standardized platform for recording complications and quality measures associated with esophagectomy. Using a secure online database (ESODATA.org), ECCG centers prospectively recorded data on all resections according to the ECCG platform from these centers over a 2-year period. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2016, 2704 resections were entered into the database. All demographic and follow-up data fields were 100% complete. The majority of operations were for cancer (95.6%) and typically located in the distal esophagus (56.2%). Some 1192 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (46.1%) and 763 neoadjuvant chemotherapy (29.5%). Surgical approach involved open procedures in 52.1% and minimally invasive operations in 47.9%. Chest anastomoses were done most commonly (60.7%) and R0 resections were accomplished in 93.4% of patients. The overall incidence of complications was 59% with the most common individual complications being pneumonia (14.6%) and atrial dysrhythmia (14.5%). Anastomotic leak, conduit necrosis, chyle leaks, recurrent nerve injury occurred in 11.4%, 1.3%, 4.7%, and 4.2% of cases, respectively. Clavien-Dindo complications ≥ IIIb occurred in 17.2% of patients. Readmissions occurred in 11.2% of cases and 30- and 90-day mortality was 2.4% and 4.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Standardized methods provide contemporary international benchmarks for reporting outcomes after esophagectomy

Identifying a core symptom set triggering radiological and endoscopic investigations for suspected recurrent esophago-gastric cancer: a modified Delphi consensus process

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of evidence-based guidelines regarding surveillance for recurrence after esophageal and gastric (OG) cancer surgical resection, and which symptoms should prompt endoscopic or radiological investigations for recurrence. The aim of this study was to develop a core symptom set using a modified Delphi consensus process that should guide clinicians to carry out investigations to look for suspected recurrent OG cancer in previously asymptomatic patients. METHODS: A web-based survey of 42 questions was sent to surgeons performing OG cancer resections at high volume centers. The first section evaluated the structure of follow-up and the second, determinants of follow-up. Two rounds of a modified Delphi consensus process and a further consensus workshop were used to determine symptoms warranting further investigations. Symptoms with a 75% consensus agreement as suggestive of recurrent cancer were included in the core symptom set. RESULTS: 27 surgeons completed the questionnaires. A total of 70.3% of centers reported standardized surveillance protocols, whereas 3.7% of surgeons did not undertake any surveillance in asymptomatic patients after OG cancer resection. In asymptomatic patients, 40.1% and 25.9% of centers performed routine imaging and endoscopy, respectively. The core set that reached consensus, consisted of eight symptoms that warranted further investigations included; dysphagia to solid food, dysphagia to liquids, vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, regurgitation of foods, unexpected weight loss and progressive hoarseness of voice. CONCLUSION: There is global variation in monitoring patients after OG cancer resection. Eight symptoms were identified by the consensus process as important in prompting radiological or endoscopic investigation for suspected recurrent malignancy. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to link surveillance strategies to survival outcomes and evaluate prognostic value