Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. Methods: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. Discussion: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care

Managed Clinical Network for esophageal cancer enables reduction of variation between hospitals trends in treatment strategies, lead time, and 2-year survival

Introduction: Despite evidence-based guidelines, variation in esophageal cancer care exists in daily practice. Many oncology networks deployed regional agreements to standardize the patient care pathway and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. The aim of this study was to explore the trends in variation of esophageal cancer care between participating hospitals of the Managed Clinical Network (MCN) in the Netherlands. Materials and methods: Patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed from 2012 to 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Variation on treatment strategies, lead time to start of treatment, and 2-year survival, were calculated and compared between five clusters of hospitals within the network. Results: A total of 1763 patients, diagnosed in 17 hospitals, were included. 71% of all patients received treatment with a curative intent, which ranged from 69% to 77% between the clusters of hospitals in 2015–2016. Although variation in treatment modalities between the clusters was observed in 2012–2014, no significant variation existed in 2015–2016, except for patients receiving no treatment at all. The 2-year overall survival of patients receiving treatment with a curative intent did not vary significantly between the clusters of hospitals (range: 56%–63%). Nevertheless, the median lead time before patients started treatment with a curative intent varied between clusters of hospitals in 2015–2016 (range: 34–47 days; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Limited variation in esophageal cancer treatment between clusters of hospitals in the MCN existed. This study shows that oncology networks can promote standardization of cancer care and reduce variation between hospitals through insight into variation

Managed Clinical Network for esophageal cancer enables reduction of variation between hospitals trends in treatment strategies, lead time, and 2-year survival

Introduction: Despite evidence-based guidelines, variation in esophageal cancer care exists in daily practice. Many oncology networks deployed regional agreements to standardize the patient care pathway and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. The aim of this study was to explore the trends in variation of esophageal cancer care between participating hospitals of the Managed Clinical Network (MCN) in the Netherlands. Materials and methods: Patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed from 2012 to 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Variation on treatment strategies, lead time to start of treatment, and 2-year survival, were calculated and compared between five clusters of hospitals within the network. Results: A total of 1763 patients, diagnosed in 17 hospitals, were included. 71% of all patients received treatment with a curative intent, which ranged from 69% to 77% between the clusters of hospitals in 2015–2016. Although variation in treatment modalities between the clusters was observed in 2012–2014, no significant variation existed in 2015–2016, except for patients receiving no treatment at all. The 2-year overall survival of patients receiving treatment with a curative intent did not vary significantly between the clusters of hospitals (range: 56%–63%). Nevertheless, the median lead time before patients started treatment with a curative intent varied between clusters of hospitals in 2015–2016 (range: 34–47 days; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Limited variation in esophageal cancer treatment between clusters of hospitals in the MCN existed. This study shows that oncology networks can promote standardization of cancer care and reduce variation between hospitals through insight into variation

Improving survival prediction of oesophageal cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy for dysphagia

Introduction: The recent POLDER trial investigated the effects of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on dysphagia caused by incurable oesophageal cancer. An estimated life expectancy of minimally three months was required for inclusion. However, nearly one-third of the included patients died within three months. The aim of this study was to investigate if the use of prediction models could have improved the physician’s estimation of the patient’s survival. Methods: Data from the POLDER trial (N = 110) were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to retrieve patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics. Two published prediction models (the SOURCE model and Steyerberg model) were used to predict three-month survival for all patients included in the POLDER trial. Predicted survival probabilities were dichotomised and the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the predictive performance. Results: The SOURCE and Steyerberg model had an accuracy of 79% and 64%, and an AUC of 0.76 and 0.60 (p =.017), respectively. The SOURCE model had higher specificity across survival cut-off probabilities, the Steyerberg model had a higher sensitivity beyond the survival probability cut-off of 0.7. Using optimal cut-off probabilities, SOURCE would have wrongfully included 16/110 patients into the POLDER and Steyerberg 34/110. Conclusion: The SOURCE model was found to be a more useful decision aid than the Steyerberg model. Results showed that the SOURCE model could be used for three-month survival predictions for patients that are considered for palliative treatment of dysphagia caused by oesophageal cancer in addition to clinicians’ judgement

Reduced inter-observer and intra-observer delineation variation in esophageal cancer radiotherapy by use of fiducial markers

Objective: Delineation variation of esophageal tumors remains a large source of geometric uncertainty. In the present study, we investigated the inter- and intra-observer variation in esophageal gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation and the impact of endoscopically implanted fiducial markers on these variations. Material/Methods: Ten esophageal cancer patients with at least two markers endoscopically implanted at the cranial and caudal tumor borders and visible on the planning computed tomography (pCT) were included in this study. Five dedicated gastrointestinal radiation oncologists independently delineated GTVs on the pCT without markers and with markers. The GTV was first delineated on pCTs where markers were digitally removed and next on the original pCT with markers. Both delineation series were executed twice to determine intra-observer variation. For both the inter- and intra-observer analyses, the generalized conformity index (CIgen), and the standard deviation (SD) of the distances between delineated surfaces (i.e., overall, longitudinal, and radial SDs) were calculated. Linear mixed-effect models were used to compare the without and with markers series (α = 0.05). Results: Both the inter- and intra-observer CIgen were significantly larger in the series with markers than in the series without markers (p < .001). For the series without markers vs. with markers, the inter-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.63 cm vs. 0.22 cm, 1.44 cm vs. 0.42 cm, and 0.26 cm vs. 0.18 cm, respectively (p < .05); moreover, the intra-observer overall SD, longitudinal SD, and radial SD was 0.45 cm vs. 0.26 cm, 1.10 cm vs. 0.41 cm, and 0.22 cm vs. 0.15 cm, respectively (p < .05). Conclusion: The presence of markers at the cranial and caudal tumor borders significantly reduced both inter- and intra-observer GTV delineation variation, especially in the longitudinal direction. Our results endorse the use of markers in GTV delineation for esophageal cancer patients

Patterns of recurrence after surgery alone versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy and surgery in the CROSS trials

To analyze recurrence patterns in patients with cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction treated with either preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery or surgery alone. Recurrence pattern was analyzed in patients from the previously published CROSS I and II trials in relation to radiation target volumes. CRT consisted of five weekly courses of paclitaxel and carboplatin combined with a concurrent radiation dose of 41.4 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the tumor and pathologic lymph nodes with margin. Of the 422 patients included from 2001 to 2008, 418 were available for analysis. Histology was mostly adenocarcinoma (75%). Of the 374 patients who underwent resection, 86% were allocated to surgery and 92% to CRT plus surgery. On January 1, 2011, after a minimum follow-up of 24 months (median, 45 months), the overall recurrence rate in the surgery arm was 58% versus 35% in the CRT plus surgery arm. Preoperative CRT reduced locoregional recurrence (LRR) from 34% to 14% (P < .001) and peritoneal carcinomatosis from 14% to 4% (P < .001). There was a small but significant effect on hematogenous dissemination in favor of the CRT group (35% v 29%; P = .025). LRR occurred in 5% within the target volume, in 2% in the margins, and in 6% outside the radiation target volume. In 1%, the exact site in relation to the target volume was unclear. Only 1% had an isolated infield recurrence after CRT plus surgery. Preoperative CRT in patients with esophageal cancer reduced LRR and peritoneal carcinomatosis. Recurrence within the radiation target volume occurred in only 5%, mostly combined with outfield failure

Coverage of Lateral Lymph Nodes in Rectal Cancer Patients with Routine Radiation Therapy Practice and Associated Locoregional Recurrence Rates

Purpose: Involved internal iliac and obturator lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) are a known risk factor for the occurrence of ipsilateral local recurrences (LLR) in rectal cancer. This study examined coverage of LLNs with routine radiation therapy practice in the Netherlands and associated LLR rates. Methods and Materials: Patients with a primary tumor ≤8 cm of the anorectal junction, cT3-4 stage, and at least 1 internal iliac or obturator LLN with short axis ≥5 mm who received neoadjuvant (chemo)radiation therapy, were selected from a national, cross-sectional study of patients with rectal cancer treated in the Netherlands in 2016. Magnetic resonance images and radiation therapy treatment plans were reviewed regarding segmented LLNs as gross tumor volume (GTV), location of LLNs within clinical target volume (CTV), and received proportion of the planned radiation therapy dose. Results: A total of 223 out of 3057 patients with at least 1 LLN ≥5 mm were selected. Of those, 180 (80.7%) LLNs were inside the CTV, of which 60 (33.3%) were segmented as GTV. Overall, 202 LLNs (90.6%) received ≥95% of the planned dose. Four-year LLR rates were not significantly higher for LLNs situated outside the CTV compared with those inside (4.0% vs 12.5%, P =.092) or when receiving &lt;95% versus ≥95% of the planned radiation therapy dose (7.1% vs 11.3%, P =.843), respectively. Two of 7 patients who received a dose escalation of 60 Gy developed an LLR (4-year LLR rate of 28.6%). Conclusions: This evaluation of routine radiation therapy practice showed that adequate coverage of LLNs was still associated with considerable 4-year LLR rates. Techniques resulting in better local control for patients with involved LLNs need to be explored further.</p