Search

Background and aim This nationwide population-based study analyzed the outcome of local treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer in The Netherlands. Methods Patients with synchronous or metachronous oligometastasis (i.e. distant metastasis in 1 organ/extra-regional lymph node station) from esophagogastric cancer were eligible for inclusion from Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients who underwent local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic body radiation therapy [SBRT]) for oligometastasis were included. The overall survival (OS) after diagnosing oligometastasis was determined. Independent prognostic factors for OS were analyzed using a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. Results Between 2015–2016, some 2,336 eligible patients with oligometastasis were identified of whom 103 (4%) underwent local treatment for oligometastasis. This portion was higher in academic hospitals (10%) compared to non-academic hospitals with esophagogastric resections (5%) or without esophagogastric resections (3%, P  < 0.001). The 103 included patients were predominantly diagnosed with esophageal cancer (85%) with adenocarcinoma histology (80%) and with metachronous oligometastasis (59%). The oligometastasis were located in a distant organ (79%), an extra-regional lymph node station (12%), or the peritoneum (9%). Treatment for oligometastasis included metastasectomy (45%), SBRT (40%), or both (15%), and 21% of patients received additional systemic therapy. Median OS was 18.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.9–22.7). The OS rate at 2-year was 36% and at 3-year 23%. Improved OS was independently associated with additional systemic therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23–0.96) and better performance scores (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.29–0.92). Conclusion A minority of patients underwent local treatment for oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer, which was dependent on the type of hospital of diagnosis. Local treatment for oligometastasis resulted in a median OS of 1.5 years. Systemic therapy combined with local treatment for oligometastasis improved OS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For the elderly patients with gastric cancer, it may be more challenging to tolerate complete neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). The impact of discontinued NAT on the surgical safety and pathological outcomes of elderly patients with poor tolerance remains poorly understood., Methods: Gastric cancer patients received gastrectomy with curative intent from the Dutch upper GI cancer audit (DUCA) database were included in this study. The independent association of age with not initiating and discontinuation of NAT was assessed with restricted cubic splines (RCS). According to the RCS results, age ≥ 70 years was defined as elderly. Short-term postoperative outcomes and pathological results were compared between elderly patients who completed and discontinued NAT., Results: Between 2011- 2021, total of 3049 patients were included. The risk of not initiating NAT increased from 70 years. In 1954 (64%) patients receiving NAT, the risk of discontinuation increased from 55 years, reaching the peak around 74 years. In the elderly, discontinued NAT was not independently associated with worse 30-day mortality, overall complications, anastomotic leakage, re-intervention, and pathologic complete response, but was associated with a higher risk of R1/2 resection (p-value = 0.001), higher ypT stage (p-value = 0.004), ypN + (p-value = 0.008), and non-response ( p-value = 0.012)., Conclusion: A decreased utilization of NAT has been observed in Dutch gastric cancer patients from 70 years due to old age considerations, possibly because of their high risk of discontinuation. Increasing the utilization of NAT may not adversely impact the surgical safety of gastric cancer population ≥ 70 years and may contribute to better pathological results., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer is controversial and varies internationally. This study aimed to describe treatment and survival of patients with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer in the Netherlands., Methods: Patients staged with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer who were registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) were included. All patients were categorized by the treatment modality received. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the overall survival of them., Results: Between 2015 and 2020, 286 patients with cT4bM0 esophageal cancer were included. Treatment consisted of preoperative chemoradiotherapy/chemotherapy followed by surgery (8%), chemoradiotherapy alone (35%), chemotherapy alone (6%), radiotherapy alone (19%), and best supportive care (32%). The median follow-up was 28.1 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of each group were 82%, 58%, 49% for preoperative therapy plus surgery; 53%, 27%, 16% for chemoradiotherapy only; 13%, 0%, 0% for chemotherapy only; 13%, 0%, 0% for radiotherapy only; and 5%, 0%, 0% for best supportive care., Conclusion: In a selected group of patients, preoperative therapy followed by esophagectomy may lead to improved survival, which is comparable to patients with &lt;cT4bM0 tumors. Therefore, reevaluation following chemo(radio)therapy is recommended in these patients to evaluate the possibility of additional surgical resection., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: In esophageal cancer patients, distant metastases develop between the start of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and planned surgery, so-called interval metastases. The primary aim of this study was to assess management, overall survival (OS), and prognostic factors for OS in these patients. A secondary aim was to compare OS with synchronous metastatic patients., Methods: Esophageal cancer patients with interval distant metastases were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2010 to 2017). Management was categorized into metastasis-directed therapy (MDT), primary tumor resection, or best supportive care (BSC). The OS was calculated from the diagnosis of the primary tumor. Prognostic factors affecting OS were studied using Cox proportional hazard models. Propensity score-matching (1:3) generated matched cases with synchronous distant metastases., Results: In all, 208 patients with interval metastases were identified: in 87 patients (42%) MDT was initiated; in 10%, primary tumor resection only; in 7%, primary tumor resection plus MDT; and in 41%, BSC. Median OS was 10 months (interquartile range, 8.6 to 11.1). Compared with BSC, superior OS was independently associated with MDT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.49), primary tumor resection (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.94), and primary tumor resection plus MDT (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.38). Worse OS was independently associated with signet ring cell carcinoma (HR 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.28) and poor differentiation grade (HR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.83). The OS was comparable between matched patients with interval and synchronous distant metastases (10.2 versus 9.4 months, P = .760)., Conclusions: In esophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with interval distant metastases, the OS was poor and comparable to that of synchronous metastatic patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for resectable esophageal cancer is accompanied by the risk of treatment-related toxicity. The aim of this population-based cohort study was to provide insight in patients who do not proceed to surgical resection after starting nCRT., Methods: Patients who started nCRT for primary esophageal cancer diagnosed in 2015 and 2016 were selected from the nationwide population-based cancer registry. Outcome measurements included omission from surgical resection, reasons for omission of surgical resection, mortality during nCRT (≤90 days after ending nCRT) and 1-year overall survival. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for omission of surgical resection., Results: A total of 1521 patients were included, of whom 215 (14.1%) did not undergo surgical resection after starting nCRT. Age (OR:1.04, 95%CI:1.01-1.06), BMI (OR:0.95, 95%CI:0.90-0.99), WHO performance status (WHO 1: OR:1.62, 95%CI:1.16-2.62 and WHO 2: OR:3.53, 95%CI:1.68-7.41) and clinical N status (cN2: OR:1.57, 95% CI:1.04-2.37 and cN3: OR:2.52, 95%CI:1.14-5.55) were significantly associated with omission from surgery. The most frequently reported reasons for omission from surgery were disease progression (44.3%) and physical functioning (22.8%). During nCRT or within the subsequent waiting period to surgery, 38 patients (2.5%) deceased. One year overall survival of the patients who underwent nCRT followed by surgical resection was 94.9%, and 73.5% in the patients who did not undergo surgical resection following nCRT., Conclusions: One in 7 patients who started nCRT for esophageal cancer do not proceed to surgical resection and have a decreased one year overall survival compared to patients who do proceed to surgical resection. Mortality during nCRT is considerable., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this study is to provide insight in accuracy of diagnosing, current treatment and survival in patients with resectable esophageal and gastric neuroendocrine- and mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC, MANEC)., Methods: All patients with esophageal or gastric (MA)NEC, who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2016, were identified from the Dutch national registry for histo- and cytopathology (PALGA). Patients with a neuroendocrine tumor lower than grade 3 were excluded. Data on patients, treatment and outcomes were retrieved from the patient records. Diagnosis by endoscopic biopsy was compared with diagnosis by resection specimen. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was performed., Results: A total of 49 patients were identified in 25 hospitals, including 21 patients with esophageal (MA)NEC and 26 patients with gastric (MA)NEC on resection specimen. Biopsy diagnosis of (MA)NEC was correct in 23/27 patients. However, 20/47 patients with definitive diagnosis of (MA)NEC, were misdiagnosed on biopsy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 13 (62%) esophageal (MA)NECs and 12 (46%) gastric (MA)NECs. Survival curves were similar with and without neoadjuvant therapy. One (4.8%) esophageal (MA)NEC and 4 (15%) gastric (MA)NECs died within 90 days postoperatively. For esophageal (MA)NEC the median overall survival (OS) after surgery was 37 months and 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 71%, 50% and 35%, respectively. For gastric (MA)NEC, the median OS was 23 months and 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 62%, 50% and 39%, respectively., Conclusion: Localized esophageal and gastric (MA)NEC are often misdiagnosed on endoscopic biopsies. After resection, long-term survival was achieved in respectively 35% and 39% of patients., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Adjuvant! is a web-based program that calculates individualised 10-year survival probabilities and predicted benefit of adjuvant systemic therapy. The Adjuvant! model has not been validated in any large European series. The aim of our study was to validate Adjuvant! in Dutch patients, investigating both its calibration and discriminatory accuracy., Methods: Patients who were at least partly treated at the Netherlands Cancer Institute for breast cancer between 1987 and 1998 were included if they met the following criteria: tumour size T1 (< or =2 cm), T2 (2-5 cm), or T3 (>5 cm), invasive breast carcinoma, with information about involvement of axillary lymph nodes available, no distant metastases, primary surgery, axillary staging, and radiotherapy according to national guidelines. Clinicopathological characteristics and adjuvant treatment data were retrieved from hospital records and medical registries and were entered into the Adjuvant! (version 8.0) batch processor with blinding to outcome. Endpoints were overall survival and the proportion of patients that did not die from breast cancer (breast-cancer-specific survival [BCSS])., Findings: 5380 patients were included with median follow-up of 11.7 years (range 0.03-21.8). The 10-year observed overall survival (69.0%) and BCSS (78.6%) and Adjuvant! predicted overall survival (69.1%) and BCSS (77.8%) were not statistically different (p=0.87 and p=0.18, respectively). Moreover, differences between predicted and observed outcomes were within 2% for most relevant clinicopathological subgroups. In patients younger than 40 years, Adjuvant! overestimated overall survival by 4.2% (p=0.04) and BCSS by 4.7% (p=0.01). The concordance index, which indicates discriminatory accuracy at the individual level, was 0.71 for BCSS in the entire cohort., Interpretation: Adjuvant! accurately predicted 10-year outcomes in this large-scale Dutch validation study and is of use for adjuvant treatment decision making, although the results may be less reliable in some subgroups.