Chemotherapy aNd chemoradiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the OESophagus and esophagogastric junction with oligometastases: Protocol of the TNT-OES-1 trial

Background: FLOT and CROSS are effective neoadjuvant regimens for esophageal cancer patients. Chemotherapy (FLOT) is aimed to have merely a systemic effect whereas neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CROSS) achieves good locoregional response with clinically complete response (cCR) rates up to 33% [1]. The aim of the present study is to assess safety and feasibility of dual therapy (FLOT-CROSS) in patients with oligometastases. Methods: This phase-II single-center, single-arm, intervention study includes patients with oligometastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Patients will be treated with four biweekly cycles of FLOT, consisting of intravenous fluorouracil (2600 mg/m2), leucovorin (200 mg/m2), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) and docetaxel (50 mg/m2). Response evaluation by CT-scan will be performed 4–6 weeks after completion of FLOT. In case of regression or stable disease according to RECIST criteria (v.1.1), patients will receive additional CROSS, consisting of five weekly cycles of intravenous carboplatin (AUC 2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m2), with concurrent 41.4 Gy radiotherapy, in 23 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy [2]. Response evaluation by endoscopy with biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography and CT-scan will be performed 4–6 weeks after completion of CROSS. Primary endpoint is tolerability of FLOT-CROSS, defined as the proportion of patients who complete the full regimen. Secondary endpoints include disease control rate, objective response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival. In total, 20 patients will be included. Discussion: If patients are able to complete and tolerate FLOT-CROSS, this regimen should be tested in a phase-III trial and as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with locally advanced non-metastatic esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma

A prospective cohort study on active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: protocol of Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer-2

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy is a standard treatment for potentially curable esophageal cancer. Active surveillance in patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) 12 weeks after nCRT is regarded as possible alternative to standard surgery. The aim of this study is to monitor the safety, adherence and effectiveness of active surveillance in patients outside a randomized trial. METHODS: This nationwide prospective cohort study aims to accrue operable patients with non-metastatic histologically proven adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Patients receive nCRT and response evaluation consists of upper endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan. When residue or regrowth of tumor in the absence of distant metastases is detected, surgical resection is advised. Patients with cCR after nCRT are suitable to undergo active surveillance. Patients can consult an independent physician or psychologist to support decision-making. Primary endpoint is the number and severity of adverse events in patients with cCR undergoing active surveillance, defined as complications from response evaluations, delayed surgery and the development of distant metastases. Secondary endpoints include timing and quality of diagnostic modalities, overall survival, progression-free survival, fear of cancer recurrence and decisional regret. DISCUSSION: Active surveillance after nCRT may be an alternative to standard surgery in patients with esophageal cancer. Similar to organ-sparing approaches applied in other cancer types, the safety and efficacy of active surveillance needs monitoring before data from randomized trials are available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SANO-2 study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04886635 (May 14, 2021) - Retrospectively registered

Surgeon's steering behaviour towards patients to participate in a cluster randomised trial on active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A qualitative study

Introduction: Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised trial. The aim of this study is to assess if and how surgeons use steering behaviour in their information provision to patients in their choice to participate in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial investigating an organ sparing treatment in (curable) oesophageal cancer (SANO trial). Materials and methods: A qualitative study was performed. Thematic content analysis was applied to audiotaped and transcribed consultations of twenty patients with eight different oncological surgeons in three Dutch hospitals. Patients could choose to participate in a clinical trial in which an experimental treatment of ‘active surveillance’ (AS) was offered. Patients who did not want to participate underwent standard treatment: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy. Results: Surgeons used various techniques to steer patients towards one of the two options, mostly towards AS. The presentation of pros and cons of treatment options was imbalanced: positive framing of AS was used to steer patients towards the choice for AS, and negative framing of AS to make the choice for surgery more attractive. Further, steering language, i.e. suggestive language, was used, and surgeons seemed to use the timing of the introduction of the different treatment options, to put more focus on one of the treatment options. Conclusion: Awareness of steering behaviour can help to guide physicians in more objectively informing patients on participation in future clinical trials

Patient preferences for active surveillance vs standard surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer treatment: The NOSANO-study

Active surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we gained insight in patients' motive to opt for either an experimental treatment called active surveillance or for standard immediate surgery. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses methods were used. Forty patients were interviewed about their treatment preference, 3 months after completion of nCRT (T1). Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed according to the principles of grounded theory. In addition, at T1 and T2 (12 months after completion of nCRT) questionnaires on health-related quality of life, coping, anxiety and decisional regret (only T2) were administered. Interview data analyses resulted in a conceptual model with ‘dealing with threat of cancer’ as the central theme. Patients preferring active surveillance tend to cope with this threat by confiding in their bodies and good outcomes. Their mind-set is one of ‘enjoy life now’. Patients preferring surgery tend to cope by minimizing uncertainty and eliminating the source of cancer. Their mind-set is one of ‘don't give up, act now’. Furthermore, questionnaire results showed that patients with a preference for standard surgery had a lower quality of life. Patient preferences are individualized and thus difficult to predict. Our model can help healthcare professionals to determine patient preferences for treatment. Coping style and mind-set seem to be determining factors here

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

Objective:To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL).Background:AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma.Methods:This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated.Results:This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76).Conclusions:The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding