5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multicentre cohort study to define and validate pathological assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy in oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          This multicentre cohort study sought to define a robust pathological indicator of clinically meaningful response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

          Methods

          A questionnaire was distributed to 11 UK upper gastrointestinal cancer centres to determine the use of assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Records of consecutive patients undergoing oesophagogastric resection at seven centres between January 2000 and December 2013 were reviewed. Pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was assessed using the Mandard Tumour Regression Grade (TRG) and lymph node downstaging.

          Results

          TRG (8 of 11 centres) was the most widely used system to assess response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but there was discordance on how it was used in practice. Of 1392 patients, 1293 had TRG assessment; data were available for clinical and pathological nodal status (cN and pN) in 981 patients, and TRG, cN and pN in 885. There was a significant difference in survival between responders (TRG 1–2; median overall survival (OS) not reached) and non‐responders (TRG 3–5; median OS 2·22 (95 per cent c.i. 1·94 to 2·51) years; P < 0·001); the hazard ratio was 2·46 (95 per cent c.i. 1·22 to 4·95; P = 0·012). Among local non‐responders, the presence of lymph node downstaging was associated with significantly improved OS compared with that of patients without lymph node downstaging (median OS not reached versus 1·92 (1·68 to 2·16) years; P < 0·001).

          Conclusion

          A clinically meaningful local response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was restricted to the small minority of patients (14·8 per cent) with TRG 1–2. Among local non‐responders, a subset of patients (21·3 per cent) derived benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy by lymph node downstaging and their survival mirrored that of local responders.

          Abstract

          Response associated with survival

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer.

          A regimen of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infused fluorouracil (ECF) improves survival among patients with incurable locally advanced or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. We assessed whether the addition of a perioperative regimen of ECF to surgery improves outcomes among patients with potentially curable gastric cancer. We randomly assigned patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, esophagogastric junction, or lower esophagus to either perioperative chemotherapy and surgery (250 patients) or surgery alone (253 patients). Chemotherapy consisted of three preoperative and three postoperative cycles of intravenous epirubicin (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and cisplatin (60 mg per square meter) on day 1, and a continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil (200 mg per square meter per day) for 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. ECF-related adverse effects were similar to those previously reported among patients with advanced gastric cancer. Rates of postoperative complications were similar in the perioperative-chemotherapy group and the surgery group (46 percent and 45 percent, respectively), as were the numbers of deaths within 30 days after surgery. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less advanced in the perioperative-chemotherapy group. With a median follow-up of four years, 149 patients in the perioperative-chemotherapy group and 170 in the surgery group had died. As compared with the surgery group, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a higher likelihood of overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.93; P=0.009; five-year survival rate, 36 percent vs. 23 percent) and of progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression, 0.66; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001). In patients with operable gastric or lower esophageal adenocarcinomas, a perioperative regimen of ECF decreased tumor size and stage and significantly improved progression-free and overall survival. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN93793971 [controlled-trials.com].). Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surgical resection with or without preoperative chemotherapy in oesophageal cancer: a randomised controlled trial.

            (2002)
            The outlook for patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing surgical resection with curative intent is poor. We aimed to assess the effects of preoperative chemotherapy on survival, dysphagia, and performance status in this group of patients. 802 previously untreated patients with resectable oesophageal cancer of any cell type were randomly allocated either two 4-day cycles, 3 weeks apart, of cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) by infusion over 4 h plus fluorouracil 1000 mg/m(2) daily by continuous infusion for 4 days followed by surgical resection (CS group, n=400), or resection alone (S group, 402). Clinicians could choose to give preoperative radiotherapy to all their patients irrespective of randomisation. Primary outcome measure was survival time. Analysis was by intention to treat. No patients dropped out of the study. Resection was microscopically complete in 233 (60%) of 390 assessable CS patients and 215 (54%) of 397 S patients (p<0.0001). Postoperative complications were reported in 146 (41%) CS and 161 (42%) S patients. Overall survival was better in the CS group (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.93; p=0.004). Median survival was 512 days (16.8 months) in the CS group compared with 405 days (13.3 months) in the S group (difference 107 days; 95% CI 30-196), and 2-year survival rates were 43% and 34% (difference 9%; 3-14). Two cycles of preoperative cisplatin and fluorouracil improve survival without additional serious adverse events in the treatment of patients with resectable oesophageal cancer.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.

              In a previous meta-analysis, we identified a survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma. We updated this meta-analysis with results from new or updated randomised trials presented in the past 3 years. We also compared the benefits of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. To identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings, we searched Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane clinical trials database) for studies published since January, 2006, and also manually searched for abstracts from major conferences from the same period. Only randomised studies analysed by intention to treat were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data. We also investigated treatment effects by tumour histology and relations between risk (survival after surgery alone) and effect size. We included all 17 trials from the previous meta-analysis and seven further studies. 12 were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1854), nine were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1981), and two compared neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=194) in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma; one factorial trial included two comparisons and was included in analyses of both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=78) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=81). The updated analysis contained 4188 patients whereas the previous publication included 2933 patients. This updated meta-analysis contains about 3500 events compared with about 2230 in the previous meta-analysis (estimated 57% increase). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.88; p<0.0001); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.80 (0.68-0.93; p=0.004) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.75 (0.59-0.95; p=0.02). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.87 (0.79-0.96; p=0.005); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.92 (0.81-1.04; p=0.18) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.83 (0.71-0.95; p=0.01). The HR for the overall indirect comparison of all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.88 (0.76-1.01; p=0.07). This updated meta-analysis provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. A clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. These results should help inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials. Cancer Australia and the NSW Cancer Institute. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                tju@soton.ac.uk
                Journal
                Br J Surg
                Br J Surg
                10.1002/(ISSN)1365-2168
                BJS
                The British Journal of Surgery
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (Chichester, UK )
                0007-1323
                1365-2168
                25 September 2017
                December 2017
                : 104
                : 13 ( doiID: 10.1002/bjs.2017.104.issue-13 )
                : 1816-1828
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton Southampton UK
                [ 2 ] Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast Belfast UK
                [ 3 ] Department of Surgery University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham UK
                [ 4 ] Hutchison/Medical Research Council Cancer Unit University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
                [ 5 ] Department of Surgery Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
                [ 6 ] Department of Surgery Portsmouth NHS Trust Portsmouth UK
                [ 7 ] Department of Surgery Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Nottingham UK
                [ 8 ] Medical Research Council Cancer Unit, Hutchison/Medical Research Council Research Centre University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
                [ 9 ] Department of Histopathology Cambridge University Hospital NHS Trust Cambridge UK
                [ 10 ] Cancer Sciences Unit University of Southampton Southampton UK
                [ 11 ] Imperial College London UK
                [ 12 ] Oesophago‐Gastric Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge UK
                [ 13 ] Oxford ComLab, University of Oxford Oxford UK
                [ 14 ] Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Cambridge UK
                [ 15 ] Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology Queen's University Belfast Belfast UK
                [ 16 ] Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salford
                [ 17 ] Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences University of Manchester Manchester UK
                [ 18 ] Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, Leigh NHS Foundation Trust Wigan
                [ 19 ] Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
                [ 20 ] Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Guildford UK
                [ 21 ] Edinburgh Royal Infirmary Edinburgh UK
                [ 22 ] Edinburgh University Edinburgh UK
                [ 23 ] University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Birmingham UK
                [ 24 ] University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Southampton UK
                [ 25 ] Department of Computer Science University of Oxford Oxford UK
                [ 26 ] Gloucester Royal Hospital Gloucester UK
                [ 27 ] St Thomas's Hospital and King's College London London UK
                [ 28 ] Karolinska Institute Stockholm Sweden
                [ 29 ] St Thomas's Hospital and King's College London London UK
                [ 30 ] Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust Plymouth UK
                [ 31 ] Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Norwich UK
                [ 32 ] Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Nottingham UK
                [ 33 ] University College London London UK
                [ 34 ] Norfolk and Waveney Cellular Pathology Network Norwich UK
                [ 35 ] Wythenshawe Hospital Manchester UK
                [ 36 ] University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust Coventry UK
                [ 37 ] Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust Peterborough UK
                [ 38 ] Royal Stoke University Hospital, University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust Stoke‐on‐Trent UK
                [ 39 ] PortsmouthNHSTrust Portsmouth UK
                [ 40 ] Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Professor T. J. Underwood, Cancer Sciences Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Somers Cancer Research Building (MP824), Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK (e‐mail tju@ 123456soton.ac.uk ; @timthesurgeon)
                [†]

                Members of the OCCAMS consortium are co‐authors of this article and can be found under the heading Collaborators.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9455-2188
                Article
                BJS10627
                10.1002/bjs.10627
                5725679
                28944954
                ae8a9c66-6824-4320-88e2-d5b2d6b770fb
                © 2017 The Authors. BJS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 05 April 2017
                : 04 May 2017
                : 30 May 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, Pages: 13, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Fellowship
                Award ID: G1002565
                Funded by: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Lectureship)
                Award ID: RG84119
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
                Funded by: Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                bjs10627
                December 2017
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.8 mode:remove_FC converted:12.12.2017

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article