Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. A clinical practice guideline was developed based on a systematic review investigating neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was developed and clinical recommendations were drafted. External review of the practice guideline report by practitioners in Ontario, Canada was obtained through a mailed survey, and incorporated. Final approval of the practice guideline was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: The systematic review was developed and recommendations were drafted, and the report was mailed to Ontario practitioners for external review. Ninety percent of respondents agreed with both the evidence summary and the draft recommendations, while only 69% approved of the draft recommendations as a practice guideline. Based on the external review, a revised document was created. The revised practice guideline was submitted to the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee for review. All 11 members of the PGCC returned ballots. Eight PGCC members approved the practice guideline report as written and three members approved the guideline conditional on specific concerns being addressed. After these recommended changes were made, the final practice guideline report was approved. CONCLUSION: In consideration of the systematic review, external review, and subsequent Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee revision suggestions, and final approval, the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group recommends the following: For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice

Is Extended Volume of External Beam Irradiation Beneficial in Post-esophagectomy High Risk Patients Receiving Combined Chemoradiation Therapy?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of extended volume irradiation with anastomotic coverage in high risk resected esophageal cancer patients. METHOD: A retrospective study was undertaken at LRCC from 1989-1999 for high risk resected esophageal cancer patients. Adjuvant treatments consisted of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (epirubicin/fluorouracil/cisplatin or cisplatin/fluorouracil), and local regional irradiation with or without coverage of the anastomotic site. Radiation dose ranged from 45-60Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/fraction given with initial anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior arrangement with either extended (with anastomotic coverage) or small (without anastomotic coverage) field followed by oblique fields for boost. RESULT: One hundred eighty-eight charts were reviewed. Seventy-two patients were eligible for post-resection chemoradiation therapy. Three patients had disease progression prior to therapy, and 69 patients were analyzed. There were 81% T3N1 and 13% T2N1. Thirty-four patients had margin involvements (radial 53%; proximal/distal 32%), 65% were adenocarcinoma and 33% were squamous carcinoma. Median followup was 23.6 months (3.4 - 78.4 months). Two year survival was 50%; 5yr 24%. Relapse rate was 62.3% and median time to relapse was 20 months. Recurrence locally to anastomosis or adjacent to anastomosis was 9/43(20.9%) with small field and 2/26(7.7%) with extended field. Of 31 patients with relapse outside anastomosis, 14/20(70%) relapsed locoregional/distal when treated with small field and 3/11(27%) relapsed locoregional/distal when treated with extended field (p=0.02). There was no excess treatment interruption or chronic gastrointestinal toxicity with extended field irradiation. CONCLUSION: There is significant decrease in locoregional/distal relapse with use of extended field in high risk resected esophageal cancer patients

Impact of Radiotherapy, Chemotherapy and Surgery in Multimodal Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Objectives: It was the aim of this study to assess our institutional experience with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) versus induction chemotherapy followed by CRT with or without surgery (C-CRT/S) in esophageal cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 129 institutional patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who had been treated by either CRT in analogy to the RTOG 8501 trial (n = 78) or C-CRT/S (n = 51). Results: The median, 2-and 5-year overall survival (OS) of the entire collective was 17.6 months, 42 and 24%, respectively, without a significant difference between the CRT and C-CRT/S groups. In C-CRT/S patients, surgery statistically improved the locoregional control (LRC) rates (2-year LRC 73.6 vs. 21.2%; p = 0.003); however, this was translated only into a trend towards improved OS (p = 0.084). The impact of escalated radiation doses (>= 60.0 vs. <60.0 Gy) on LRC was detectable only in T1-3 N0-1 M0 patients of the CRT group (2-year LRC 77.8 vs. 42.3%; p = 0.036). Conclusion: Definitive CRT and a trimodality approach including surgery (C-CRT/S) had a comparable outcome in this unselected patient collective. Surgery and higher radiation doses improve LRC rates in subgroups of patients, respectively, but without effect on OS. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

Adjuvant therapy after resection of brain metastases: Frameless image-guided LINAC-based radiosurgery and stereotactic hypofractionated radiotherapy

Background: Tumor bed stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) after resection of brain metastases is a new strategy to delay or avoid whole-brain irradiation (WBRT) and its associated toxicities. This retrospective study analyzes results of frameless image-guided linear accelerator (LINAC)-based SRS and stereotactic hypofractionated radiotherapy (SHRT) as adjuvant treatment without WBRT. Materials and methods: Between March 2009 and February 2012, 44resection cavities in 42patients were treated with SRS (23cavities) or SHRT (21cavities). All treatments were delivered using a stereotactic LINAC. All cavities were expanded by ≥ 2mm in all directions to create the clinical target volume (CTV). Results: The median planning target volume (PTV) for SRS was 11.1cm3. The median dose prescribed to the PTV margin for SRS was 17Gy. Median PTV for SHRT was 22.3cm3. The fractionation schemes applied were: 4fractions of 6Gy (5patients), 6fractions of 4Gy (6patients) and 10fractions of 4Gy (10patients). Median follow-up was 9.6months. Local control (LC) rates after 6and 12months were 91and 77 %, respectively. No statistically significant differences in LC rates between SRS and SHRT treatments were observed. Distant brain control (DBC) rates at 6and 12months were 61and 33 %, respectively. Overall survival (OS) at 6and 12months was 87and 63.5 %, respectively, with a median OS of 15.9months. One patient treated by SRS showed symptoms of radionecrosis, which was confirmed histologically. Conclusion: Frameless image-guided LINAC-based adjuvant SRS and SHRT are effective and well tolerated local treatment strategies after resection of brain metastases in patients with oligometastatic diseas

Percutaneous versus surgical strategy for tracheostomy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications

Background: Tracheostomy is one of the most frequently performed procedures in intensive care medicine. The two main approaches to form a tracheostoma are the open surgical tracheotomy (ST) and the interventional strategy of percutaneous dilatational tracheotomy (PDT). It is particularly important to the critically ill patients that both procedures are performed with high success rates and low complication frequencies. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to summarize and analyze existing and relevant evidence for peri- and postoperative parameters of safety. Methods/design: A systematic literature search will be conducted in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, LILACS, and Embase to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing peri- and postoperative complications between the two strategies and to define the strategy with the lower risk of potentially life-threatening events. A priori defined data will be extracted from included studies, and methodological quality will be assessed according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. Discussion: The findings of this systematic review with proportional meta-analysis will help to identify the strategy with the lowest frequency of potentially life-threatening events. This may influence daily practice, and the data may be implemented in treatment guidelines or serve as the basis for planning further randomized controlled trials. Considering the critical health of these patients, they will particularly benefit from evidence-based treatment. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD4201502196

Ep-CAM expression in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a potential therapeutic target and prognostic marker

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the expression and test the clinical significance of the epithelial cellular adhesion molecule (Ep-CAM) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) to check the suitability of esophageal SCC patients for Ep-CAM directed targeted therapies. METHODS: The Ep-CAM expression was immunohistochemically investigated in 70 primary esophageal SCCs using the monoclonal antibody Ber-EP4. For the interpretation of the staining results, we used a standardized scoring system ranging from 0 to 3+. The survival analysis was calculated from 53 patients without distant metastasis, with R0 resection and at least 2 months of clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Ep-CAM neo-expression was observed in 79% of the tumors with three expression levels, 1+ (26%), 2+ (11%) and 3+ (41%). Heterogeneous expression was observed at all expression levels. Interestingly, tumors with 3+ Ep-CAM expression conferred a significantly decreased median relapse-free survival period (log rank, p = 0.0001) and median overall survival (log rank, p = 0.0003). Multivariate survival analysis disclosed Ep-CAM 3+ expression as independent prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest Ep-CAM as an attractive molecule for targeted therapy in esophageal SCC. Considering the discontenting results of the current adjuvant concepts for esophageal SCC patients, Ep-CAM might provide a promising target for an adjuvant immunotherapeutic intervention

Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study

BACKGROUND: Most electronic search efforts directed at identifying primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews rely on the optimal Boolean search features of search interfaces such as DIALOG(® )and Ovid™. Our objective is to test the ability of an Ultraseek(® )search engine to rank MEDLINE(® )records of the included studies of Cochrane reviews within the top half of all the records retrieved by the Boolean MEDLINE search used by the reviewers. METHODS: Collections were created using the MEDLINE bibliographic records of included and excluded studies listed in the review and all records retrieved by the MEDLINE search. Records were converted to individual HTML files. Collections of records were indexed and searched through a statistical search engine, Ultraseek, using review-specific search terms. Our data sources, systematic reviews published in the Cochrane library, were included if they reported using at least one phase of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), provided citations for both included and excluded studies and conducted a meta-analysis using a binary outcome measure. Reviews were selected if they yielded between 1000–6000 records when the MEDLINE search strategy was replicated. RESULTS: Nine Cochrane reviews were included. Included studies within the Cochrane reviews were found within the first 500 retrieved studies more often than would be expected by chance. Across all reviews, recall of included studies into the top 500 was 0.70. There was no statistically significant difference in ranking when comparing included studies with just the subset of excluded studies listed as excluded in the published review. CONCLUSION: The relevance ranking provided by the search engine was better than expected by chance and shows promise for the preliminary evaluation of large results from Boolean searches. A statistical search engine does not appear to be able to make fine discriminations concerning the relevance of bibliographic records that have been pre-screened by systematic reviewers

Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced. MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate. - Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). - Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials). - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery. - Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery versus surgery alone for patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (CROSS)

textabstractBackground. A surgical resection is currently the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer if the tumor is considered to be resectable without evidence of distant metastases (cT1-3 N0-1 M0). A high percentage of irradical resections is reported in studies using neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone and in trials in which patients are treated with surgery alone. Improvement of locoregional control by using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy might therefore improve the prognosis in these patients. We previously reported that after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with weekly administrations of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel combined with concurrent radiotherapy nearly always a complete R0-resection could be performed. The concept that this neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimen improves overall survival has, however, to be proven in a randomized phase III trial. Methods/design. The CROSS trial is a multicenter, randomized phase III, clinical trial. The study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer, with inclusion of 175 patients per arm. The objectives of the CROSS trial are to compare median survival rates and quality of life (before, during and after treatment), pathological responses, progression free survival, the number of R0 resections, treatment toxicity and costs between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone for surgically resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma. Over a 5 week period concurrent chemoradiotherapy will be applied on an outpatient basis. Paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) and Carboplatin (Area-Under-Curve = 2) are administered by i.v. infusion on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29. External beam radiation with a total dose of 41.4 Gy is given in 23 fractions of 1.8 Gy, 5 fractions a week. After completion of the protocol, patients will be followed up every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the second year, and then at the end of each year until 5 years after treatment. Quality of life questionnaires will be filled out during the first year of follow-up. Discussion. This study will contribute to the evidence on any benefits of neoadjuvant treatment in esophageal cancer patients using a promising chemoradiotherapy regimen. Trial registration. ISRCTN80832026