Search

Background: Gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer represents a significant global health challenge, with high recurrence rates and poor survival outcomes. This study investigates circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a biomarker for assessing recurrence risk in patients with resectable gastric and GEJ adenocarcinomas (AC)., Methods: Patients with resectable gastric and GEJ AC, undergoing perioperative chemotherapy and surgery, were prospectively enrolled. Serial plasma samples were collected at baseline, after one cycle of chemotherapy, after preoperative chemotherapy, and after surgery. ctDNA was assessed by a ddPCR test (TriMeth), which targets the gastrointestinal cancer-specific methylation patterns of the genes C9orf50, KCNQ5, and CLIP4., Results: ctDNA analysis was performed on 229 plasma samples from 86 patients. At baseline, ctDNA was detected in 56% of patients, which decreased to 37% following one cycle of chemotherapy, 25% after preoperative chemotherapy and 15% after surgical resection. The presence of ctDNA after one cycle of chemotherapy was associated with reduced recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-4.85, p = 0.005) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.07-4.62, p = 0.032). Similarly, ctDNA after surgery was associated with significantly shorter RFS (HR = 6.22, 95% CI 2.39-16.2, p < 0.001) and OS (HR = 6.37, 95% CI 2.10-19.3, p = 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis confirmed ctDNA after surgery as an independent prognostic factor (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: ctDNA analysis has the potential to identify patients at elevated risk of recurrence, thus providing personalized treatment strategies for patients with resectable gastric and GEJ cancer. Further validation in larger cohorts and ctDNA-guided interventions are needed for future clinical use., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical approval and informed consent: All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approvals were granted from The Ethics Committee of the Capital Region Denmark for the collection and use of biological samples and the capture of clinical data from patient journals. Informed consent was obtained from all participating patients. The Danish Data Protection Agency approved the study., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Older patients with gastroesophageal (GE) cancer are at increased risk of low treatment tolerability and poor outcome. Dose reduced chemotherapy has been shown to improve tolerability without compromising efficacy in advanced GE cancer. However, the impact of reduced dose preoperative chemotherapy in the curative setting of older patients is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to investigate if dose reduction during preoperative chemotherapy impacts survival in older patients aged≥70 years with resectable GE cancer., Materials and Methods: This cohort study included consecutive patients referred to perioperative chemotherapy treated from November 2016 until October 2021. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The log-rank test was used to compare survival rates. A multivariate analysis was made to control for potentially interacting covariates., Results: A total of 548 patients (age ≥ 70, 179; age < 70, 369) were included. Fewer older compared to younger patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0 at baseline (50 % vs 63 %, p = 0.007). Preoperative chemotherapy was more often initiated at reduced dose in older patients compared to younger (37 % vs 14 %, p < 0.001). Older patients who did not receive a reduce dose in the second or subsequent cycles of preoperative chemotherapy were less likely to complete preoperative chemotherapy when compared to the younger patients (75 % vs 85 %, p = 0.03). Dose reduction in the second or subsequent preoperative chemotherapy cycles was associated with significantly better OS for the older patient population (HR = 0.54, 95 % CI: 1.2-2.9, p = 0.006) but not for the younger (HR = 0.97, 95 % CI: 0.75-1.4, p = 0.83). Dose reduction in the second or subsequent preoperative chemotherapy cycles was associated with lower mortality risk in the multivariate analysis for the older patients (HR = 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.33-0.97, p = 0.04)., Discussion: Dose reduction in the second or subsequent preoperative chemotherapy cycles seems safe and feasible in older patients without compromising survival and may result in a benefit in OS. This finding should be validated in an independent cohort or a randomized trial., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Josephine Skjoldbirk Andersen: None. Kristian Egebjerg: None. Michael Patrick Achiam: None. Camilla Qvortrup: Grants from Servier, personal fees from Pierre Fabre. Lene Bæksgaard: None. Cecilia M. Lund: None. Morten Mau-Sørensen: Morten Mau-Sørensen has served on advisory boards for Astellas, MSD/Merck, AstraZeneca, and BMS., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Perioperative 5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) is recommended in resectable esophagogastric adenocarcinoma based on randomised trials. However, the effectiveness of FLOT in routine clinical practice remains unknown as randomised trials are subject to selection bias limiting their generalisability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of FLOT in real-world patients., Methods: Retrospectively collected data were analysed in consecutive patients treated before or after the implementation of FLOT. The primary endpoint was complete pathological response (pCR) and secondary endpoints were margin-free resection (R0), overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS) tolerability of chemotherapy and surgical complications., Results: Mean follow-up time for patients treated with FLOT (n = 205) was 37.7 versus 47.0 months for epirubicin, cis- or oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (ECX/EOX, n = 186). Surgical resection was performed in 88.0% versus 92.0%; pCR were observed in 3.8% versus 2.4%; and R0 resections were achieved in 78.0% versus 86.0% (p = 0.03) in the ECX/EOX and FLOT cohorts, respectively. Survival analysis indicated no significant difference in RFS (p = 0.17) or OS (p = 0.37) between the cohorts with a trend towards increased OS in performance status 0 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-1.04). More patients treated with ECX/EOX completed chemotherapy (39% vs. 28%, p = 0.02). Febrile neutropenia was more common in the FLOT cohort (3.8% vs. 11%, p = 0.0086). 90-days mortality (1.2% vs. 0%) and frequency of anastomotic leakage (8% vs. 6%) were equal and low., Interpretation: Patients receiving FLOT did not demonstrate improved pCR, RFS or OS. However, R0 rate was improved and patients in good PS trended towards improved OS.

Background: The optimum curative approach to adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction is unknown. We aimed to compare trimodality therapy (preoperative radiotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxel [CROSS regimen]) with optimum contemporaneous perioperative chemotherapy regimens (epirubicin plus cisplatin or oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil or capecitabine [a modified MAGIC regimen] before 2018 and fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel [FLOT] subsequently)., Methods: Neo-AEGIS (CTRIAL-IE 10-14) was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 24 centres in Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with clinical tumour stage T2-3, nodal stage N0-3, and M0 adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy (three preoperative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of intravenous 50 mg/m 2 epirubicin on day 1 plus intravenous 60 mg/m 2 cisplatin or intravenous 130 mg/m 2 oxaliplatin on day 1 plus continuous infusion of 200 mg/m 2 fluorouracil daily or oral 625 mg/m 2 capecitabine twice daily up to 2018, with four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of 2600 mg/m 2 fluorouracil, 85 mg/m 2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m 2 leucovorin, and 50 mg/m 2 docetaxel intravenously on day 1 as an option from 2018) or trimodality therapy (41·4 Gy in 23 fractions on days 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 22-26, and 29-31 with intravenous area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min carboplatin plus intravenous 50 mg/m 2 paclitaxel on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug, regardless of which study drug they received, by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival, site of treatment failure, operative complications, toxicity, pathological response (complete [ypT0N0] and major [tumour regression grade 1 and 2]), margin-free resection (R0), and health-related quality of life. Toxicity and safety data were analysed in the safety population, defined as patients who took at least one dose of study drug, according to treatment actually received. The initial power calculation was based on superiority of trimodality therapy (n=366 patients); it was adjusted after FLOT became an option to a non-inferiority design with a margin of 5% for perioperative chemotherapy (n=540). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01726452., Findings: Between Jan 24, 2013, and Dec 23, 2020, 377 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 362 were included in the intention-to treat population (327 [90%] male and 360 [99%] White): 184 in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 178 in the trimodality therapy group. The trial closed prematurely in December, 2020, after the second interim futility analysis (143 deaths), on the basis of similar survival metrics and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. At a median follow-up of 38·8 months (IQR 16·3-55·1), median overall survival was 48·0 months (95% CI 33·6-64·8) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 49·2 months (34·8-74·4) in the trimodality therapy group (3-year overall survival 55% [95% CI 47-62] vs 57% [49-64]; hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·77-1·38]; log-rank p=0·82). Median disease-free survival was 32·4 months (95% CI 22·8-64·8) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 24·0 months (18·0-40·8) in the trimodality therapy group [hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·68-1·17]; log-rank p=0·41). The pattern of recurrence, locoregional or systemic, was not significantly different (odds ratio 1·35 [95% CI 0·63-2·91], p=0·44). Pathological complete response (odds ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·14-0·81], p=0·012), major pathological response (0·21 [0·12-0·38], p<0·0001), and R0 rates (0·21 [0·08-0·53], p=0·0003) favoured trimodality therapy. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (49 [27%] of 183 patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group vs 11 [6%] of 178 patients in the trimodality therapy group), followed by diarrhoea (20 [11%] vs none), and pulmonary embolism (ten [5%] vs nine [5%]). One (1%) patient in the perioperative chemotherapy group and three (2%) patients in the trimodality therapy group died from serious adverse events, two (one in each group) of which were possibly related to treatment. No differences were seen in operative mortality (five [3%] deaths in the perioperative chemotherapy group vs four [2%] in the trimodality therapy group), major morbidity, or in global health status at 1 and 3 years., Interpretation: Although underpowered and incomplete, Neo-AEGIS provides the largest comprehensive randomised dataset for patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction treated with perioperative chemotherapy (predominantly the modified MAGIC regimen), and CROSS trimodality therapy, and reports similar 3-year survival and no major differences in operative and health-related quality of life outcomes. We suggest that these data support continued clinical equipoise., Funding: Health Research Board, Cancer Research UK, Irish Cancer Society, Oesophageal Cancer Fund, and French National Cancer Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SRP reports support for the present manuscript from Cancer Research UK; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Jabar Al Ahmed Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait; support for attending meetings or travel from the Ministry of Health Kuwait. MAL reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Servier and Agios; other financial or non-financial interests (educational grant to institution from Roche and being principal investigator on clinical trials for MSD, Basilea, Exilexis, Astellas, Daichii Sancho, and Zymeworks). SC reports support for attending meetings or travel from MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. GOG reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and AbbVie. IP reports support for the present manuscript from Health Research Board, Irish Cancer Society, and Oesophageal Cancer Fund to Cancer Trials Ireland. RR reports consulting fees from Servier; payment or honoraria for educational events from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Servier; support for attending meetings from Servier Laboratories; and advisory board fees from Servier Laboratories. SF reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Servier. GP reports support for the present manuscript from the French National Cancer Institute; grants or contracts from the French National Cancer Institute; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas, and Nestle; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from the European Society for Medical Oncology; and support for attending meetings or travel from Metronic. DO'T reports honoraria for lectures and speaker bureaus from Ipsen, Novartis, Wyeth Ledrele, and AstraZeneca; support for attending meetings or travel from Ipsen, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; and unpaid leadership roles in other board, society, committee or advocacy groups (European Neuroendocrine Tumour Society Board). RM reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, Sanofi, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis, Astellas, Ipsen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and support for attending meetings from Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, and Ipsen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In this study, we aim to investigate gene expression changes in tumor samples obtained from patients with esophageal cancer treated with calcium electroporation. Previously, local treatment with calcium electroporation has been shown to induce gene expression alterations, potentially contributing to a more tumor-hostile microenvironment., Methods: In this sub-study of a phase I clinical trial, we included five patients with esophageal cancer treated with calcium electroporation. We compared cancer-associated gene expression patterns in tumor samples before and after treatment. Furthermore, we used linear support vector regression to predict the cellular composition of tumor samples., Results: Using differential expression analysis, we identified the downregulation of CXCL14 and upregulation of CCL21, ANGPTL4, and CRABP2 genes. We also found a decreased predicted proportion of dendritic cells while the proportion of neutrophils was increased., Conclusion: This study provides evidence that calcium electroporation for esophageal cancer induces local transcriptional changes and possibly alters the cellular composition of the tumor microenvironment. The results are explorative, larger studies are needed to confirm and further correlate our findings with clinical outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: A majority of the patients with esophageal cancer (EC) suffer from dysphagia. Several endoscopic treatment options are available such as stent placement, argon plasma coagulation, and esophageal dilatation. This study aimed to map the use of endoscopic dysphagia relieving interventions and secondly investigate possible impact on survival., Methods: Data was collected at the Dept. of Surgery & Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Denmark. Patients with non-curable EC referred from 2016 to 2019 were included. Type of dysphagia treatment, complications and the need for repeated treatments, and survival were registered., Results: In the study, 601 patients were included. Forty-five percent were treated with an endoscopic procedure due to dysphagia (82% had a stent placed). The median time from diagnosis to intervention was 24 days. The overall complication rate was 35% (38% in the stent group and 20% in the non-stent group, p = 0.03) and 13% of the patients were readmitted due to a complication. After 26% of the procedures, a repeated treatment was required. Patients having an endoscopic intervention had a worsened survival prognosis compared with the patients in the non-intervention group (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.80-2.61, p < 0.001). In the sub analysis where only patients who had an intervention was included, a survival difference in favor of the non-stent group was found (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.86, p = 0.005)., Conclusion: In this cohort, the incidence of endoscopic procedures was high, complication rates were considerable, and many the patients required a second treatment. A survival difference was seen, where the patients who had a stent placed seemed to have the worst survival outcomes. However, the causal relationship is yet to be determined why the results must be interpreted carefully. New interventions and tailored approaches that may positively affect functional and long-term oncological outcomes are highly warranted and this should preferably be investigated in randomized clinical trials., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Calcium electroporation (CaEP) is a novel cancer therapy wherein high intracellular calcium levels, facilitated by reversible electroporation, trigger tumor necrosis. This study aimed to establish safety with CaEP within esophageal cancer. Patients with non-curable esophageal cancer were included at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet in 2021 and 2022. In an outpatient setting, calcium gluconate was injected intratumorally followed by reversible electroporation applied with an endoscopic electrode. The primary endpoint was the prevalence of adverse events, followed by palliation of dysphagia. All patients were evaluated with CT and upper endoscopies up to two months after treatment. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04958044). Eight patients were treated. One serious adverse event (anemia, requiring a single blood transfusion) and three adverse events (mild retrosternal pain (two) and oral thrush (one)) were registered. Initially, six patients suffered from dysphagia: two reported dysphagia relief and four reported no change. From the imaging evaluation, one patient had a partial response, three patients had no response, and four patients had progression. Six months after treatment, the patient who responded well was still in good condition and without the need for further oncological treatment. CaEP was conducted in eight patients with only a few side effects. This study opens the way for larger studies evaluating tumor regression and symptom palliation.