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... Show moreIntroduction: 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 to-wards 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.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
BackgroundThis study assesses the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the first year after resection of esophageal or gastric cancer and its association with health-related quality of life ... Show moreBackgroundThis study assesses the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the first year after resection of esophageal or gastric cancer and its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, work productivity, and daily activities.Patients and MethodsPatients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2021, who underwent a resection, and completed & GE; 2 questionnaires from the time intervals prior to resection and 0-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months after resection were included. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models were used to assess changes in gastrointestinal symptoms over time and the impact of the number of gastrointestinal symptoms on HRQoL, functioning, work productivity, and daily activities for patients who underwent an esophagectomy or gastrectomy separately.ResultsThe study population consisted of 961 (78.8%) and 259 (21.2%) patients who underwent an esophagectomy and gastrectomy, respectively. For both groups, the majority of gastrointestinal symptoms changed significantly over time. Most clinically relevant differences were observed 0-3 after resection compared with prior to resection and included increased diarrhea, appetite loss, and eating restrictions, and specifically after esophagectomy dry mouth, trouble with coughing, and trouble talking. At 9-12 after resection one or more severe gastrointestinal symptoms were reported by 38.9% after esophagectomy and 33.7% after gastrectomy. A higher number of gastrointestinal symptoms was associated with poorer functioning, lower HRQoL, higher impairment in daily activities, and lower work productivity.ConclusionsThis study shows that gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently observed and burdensome after esophagectomy or gastrectomy, highlighting the importance to address these sequelae for high quality survivorship. Show less
Hermus, M.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Chang, R.; Dekker, J.W.T.; Coene, P.P.L.O.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; ... ; Kranenburg, L.W. 2023
BackgroundThis study explores patients' need for information and support in deciding on esophageal cancer treatment, when experimental active surveillance and standard surgery are both feasible.... Show moreBackgroundThis study explores patients' need for information and support in deciding on esophageal cancer treatment, when experimental active surveillance and standard surgery are both feasible. MethodsThis psychological companion study was conducted alongside the Dutch SANO-trial (Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer). In-depth interviews and questionnaires were used to collect data from patients who declined participation in the trial because they had a strong preference for either active surveillance (n = 20) or standard surgery (n = 20). Data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative techniques. ResultsPatients prefer to receive information directly from their doctors and predominantly rely on this information to make a treatment decision. Other information resources are largely used to confirm their treatment decision. Patients highly value support from their loved ones and appreciate emphatic doctors to actively involve them in the decision-making process. Overall, patients' needs for information and support during decision-making were met. ConclusionsThe importance of shared decision-making and the role doctors have in this process is underlined. The role of doctors is essential at the initial phase of decision-making: Once patients seem to have formed their treatment preference for either active surveillance or surgery, the influence of external resources (including doctors) may be limited. Show less
Objective:This study evaluated the nationwide trends in care and accompanied postoperative outcomes for patients with distal esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer. Summary of Background... Show moreObjective:This study evaluated the nationwide trends in care and accompanied postoperative outcomes for patients with distal esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer. Summary of Background Data:The introduction of transthoracic esophagectomy, minimally invasive surgery, and neo-adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy changed care for patients with esophageal cancer. Methods:Patients after elective transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy for distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma in the Netherlands between 2007-2016 were included. The primary aim was to evaluate trends in both care and postoperative outcomes for the included patients. Additionally, postoperative outcomes after transthoracic and tran-shiatal esophagectomy were compared, stratified by time periods. Results:Among 4712 patients included, 74% had distal esophageal tumors and 87% had adenocarcinomas. Between 2007 and 2016, the proportion of transthoracic esophagectomy increased from 41% to 81%, and neo-adjuvant treatment and minimally invasive esophagectomy increased from 31% to 96%, and from 7% to 80%, respectively. Over this 10-year period, postoperative outcomes improved: postoperative morbidity decreased from 66.6% to 61.8% (P = 0.001), R0 resection rate increased from 90.0% to 96.5% (P <0.001), median lymph node harvest increased from 15 to 19 (P <0.001), and median survival increased from 35 to 41 months (P = 0.027). Conclusion:In this nationwide cohort, a transition towards more neo-adju-vant treatment, transthoracic esophagectomy and minimally invasive surgery was observed over a 10-year period, accompanied by decreased postoperative morbidity, improved surgical radicality and lymph node harvest, and improved survival. Show less
Objective. We aimed to gain consensus on HCPs' perspectives on self-management support information needs of patients with esophageal cancer during the preoperative phase. Methods. Based on the... Show moreObjective. We aimed to gain consensus on HCPs' perspectives on self-management support information needs of patients with esophageal cancer during the preoperative phase. Methods. Based on the literature, observations of clinical consultations, and hospital patient information leaflets, a survey was created. HCPs were surveyed twice about their opinion on importance of information, from "not essential" to "absolutely essential," using Delphi methods. Topics were included in the second round if predetermined criteria were met. To be included in the final list, topics had to meet criteria for consensus and stability. Results. 64 information items and 6 sources of support were identified. Survey response rates were 59% (68 out of 116, first round) and 75% thereafter. The final list included 33 topics, including logistical information, expectations for future health condition, complications, follow-up care, nutrition during treatment, and nutrition during recovery as topics with 100% agreement. Consensus on the source of support was reached for face-to-face contact, written information, information video, and a case manager. Conclusion. This study provides a list of important topics, from the perspectives of HCPs, to guide the systematic provision of education to support EC patients' self-management during the preoperative phase. Additionally, the most preferred sources of support were face-to-face contact and a case manager. Show less
Veen, A. van der; Meulen, M.P. van der; Seesing, M.F.J.; Brenkman, H.J.F.; Haverkamp, L.; Luyer, M.D.P.; ... ; Laparoscopic Vs Open Gastrectomy G 2022
IMPORTANCE Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a... Show moreIMPORTANCE Laparoscopic gastrectomy is rapidly being adopted worldwide as an alternative to open gastrectomy to treat gastric cancer. However, laparoscopic gastrectomy might be more expensive as a result of longer operating times and more expensive surgical materials. To date, the cost-effectiveness of both procedures has not been prospectively evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic compared with open gastrectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this multicenter randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing total or distal gastrectomy in 10 Dutch tertiary referral centers, cost-effectiveness data were collected alongside a multicenter randomized clinical trial on laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-4aN0-3bM0). A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used. Costs were calculated on the individual patient level by using hospital registry data and medical consumption and productivity loss questionnaires. The unit costs of laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were calculated bottom-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated with the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, in which a value of 0 indicates death and 1 indicates perfect health. Missing questionnaire data were imputed with multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness. The study was conducted from March 17, 2015, to August 20, 2018. Data analyses were performed between September 1, 2020, and November 17, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Evaluations in this cost-effectiveness analysis included total costs and QALYs. RESULTS Between 2015 and 2018, 227 patients were included. Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (11.7) years, and 140 were male (61.7%). Unit costs for initial surgery were calculated to be euro8124 (US $8087) for laparoscopic total gastrectomy, euro7353 (US $7320) for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy, euro6584 (US $6554) for open total gastrectomy, and euro5893 (US $5866) for open distal gastrectomy. Mean total costs after 1-year follow-up were euro26 084 (US $25 965) in the laparoscopic group and euro25 332 (US $25 216) in the open group (difference, euro752 [US $749; 3.0%]). Mean (SD) QALY contributions during 1 year were 0.665 (0.298) in the laparoscopic group and 0.686 (0.288) in the open group (difference, -0.021). Bootstrapping showed that these differences between treatment groups were relatively small compared with the uncertainty of the analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although the laparoscopic gastrectomy itself was more expensive, after 1-year follow-up, results suggest that differences in both total costs and effectiveness were limited between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy. These results support centers' choosing, based on their own preference, whether to (de)implement laparoscopic gastrectomy as an alternative to open gastrectomy. Show less
Objective: This study investigated the patterns, predictors, and survival of recurrent disease following esophageal cancer surgery. Background: Survival of recurrent esophageal cancer is usually... Show moreObjective: This study investigated the patterns, predictors, and survival of recurrent disease following esophageal cancer surgery. Background: Survival of recurrent esophageal cancer is usually poor, with limited prospects of remission. Methods: This nationwide cohort study included patients with distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma after curatively intended esophagectomy in 2007 to 2016 (follow-up until January 2020). Patients with distant metastases detected during surgery were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify predictors of recurrent disease. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine the association of recurrence site and treatment intent with postrecurrence survival. Results: Among 4626 patients, 45.1% developed recurrent disease a median of 11 months postoperative, of whom most had solely distant metastases (59.8%). Disease recurrences were most frequently hepatic (26.2%) or pulmonary (25.1%). Factors significantly associated with disease recurrence included young age (<= 65 y), male sex, adenocarcinoma, open surgery, transthoracic esophagectomy, nonradical resection, higher T-stage, and tumor positive lymph nodes. Overall, median postrecurrence survival was 4 months [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 3.6-4.4]. After curatively intended recurrence treatment, median survival was 20 months (95% CI: 16.4-23.7). Survival was more favorable after locoregional compared with distant recurrence (hazard ratio: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.65-0.84). Conclusions: This study provides important prognostic information assisting in the surveillance and counseling of patients after curatively intended esophageal cancer surgery. Nearly half the patients developed recurrent disease, with limited prospects of survival. The risk of recurrence was higher in patients with a higher tumor stage, nonradical resection and positive lymph node harvest. Show less
Hermus, M.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Chang, R.T.H.; Collee, G.; Noordman, B.J.; Coene, P.P.L.O.; ... ; Kranenburg, L.W. 2022
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... Show moreActive 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. Show less
Huang, L.; Jansen, L.; Verhoeven, R.H.A.; Ruurda, J.P.; Eycken, L. van; Schutter, H. de; ... ; Brenner, H. 2022
Background We previously observed decreasing resection rates of non-metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma (GaC) in the US and some European countries. If and to what extent these trends affect the... Show moreBackground We previously observed decreasing resection rates of non-metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma (GaC) in the US and some European countries. If and to what extent these trends affect the trends in overall survival (OS) of patients with non-metastatic GaC at the population level remain unclear. This large international population-based cohort study aimed to assess the impact of the previously observed decreasing resection rates on multivariable-adjusted trends in the long-term OS of patients with non-metastatic GaC. Methods Individual-level data of patients with non-metastatic GaC were obtained from the national cancer registries of the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, and Slovenia, and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. We analyzed data for each country separately. Associations between year of diagnosis and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with adjustment for multiple prognostic variables, with and without including resection and chemotherapy as potential explanatory variables. Results A total of 66,398 non-metastatic GaC patients diagnosed in 2003-2016 were analyzed, with an accumulated follow-up of 172,357 person-years. Without adjustment for resection, OS was improved only slightly in the US [hazard ratio (HR)(per year) = 0.99; HR >= (vs.) (<2010) = 0.96], and no improvement was observed in the investigated European countries, with OS even worsening in Sweden (HRper year = 1.03; HR >= (vs.) (<2010) = 1.17). After adjusting for resection, the increasing OS trend became stronger in the US (HRper year = 0.98; HR >= (vs.) (<2010) = 0.88), and the temporal trend became insignificant in Sweden. In Slovenia (HRper year = 0.99; HR >= (vs.) (<2010) = 0.92) and Norway (HRper year = 0.97; HR >= (vs.) (<2010) = 0.86), improved OS over time emerged after resection adjustment. Improved OS in patients undergoing resection was observed in the US, the Netherlands, and Norway. Adjustment for chemotherapy did not alter the observed associations. Stratified analyses by tumor location showed mostly similar results with the findings in all patients with non-metastatic GaCs regarding the associations between year of diagnosis and survival. Conclusions OS of patients with non-metastatic GaC mostly did not improve in selected European countries and was even worsened in Sweden, while it was slightly increased in the US in the early 21(st) century. Progress in OS of patients with non-metastatic GaC seems to have been impeded to a large extent by decreasing rates of resection. Show less
Eyck, B.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Noordman, B.J.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Lagarde, S.M.; Hartgrink, H.H.; ... ; SANO Study Grp 2021
Background: The Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer (SANO) trial compares active surveillance with standard oesophagectomy for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant... Show moreBackground: The Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer (SANO) trial compares active surveillance with standard oesophagectomy for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The last patient with a clinically complete response is expected to be included in May 2021. The purpose of this update is to present all amendments to the SANO trial protocol as approved by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) before accrual is completed.Design: The SANO trial protocol has been published (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4034-1). In this ongoing, phase-III, non-inferiority, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial, patients with cCR (i.e. after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy no evidence of residual disease in two consecutive clinical response evaluations [CREs]) undergo either active surveillance or standard oesophagectomy. In the active surveillance arm, CREs are repeated every 3 months in the first year, every 4 months in the second year, every 6months in the third year, and yearly in the fourth and fifth year. In this arm, oesophagectomy is offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant metastases. The primary endpoint is overall survival.Update: Amendments to the study design involve the first cluster in the stepped-wedge design being partially randomised as well and continued accrual of patients at baseline until the predetermined number of patients with cCR is reached. Eligibility criteria have been amended, stating that patients who underwent endoscopic treatment prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy cannot be included and that patients who have highly suspected residual tumour without histological proof can be included. Amendments to the study procedures include that patients proceed to the second CRE if at the first CRE the outcome of the pathological assessment is uncertain and that patients with a non-passable stenosis at endoscopy are not considered cCR. The sample size was recalculated following new insights on response rates (34% instead of 50%) and survival (expected 2-year overall survival of 75% calculated from the moment of reaching cCR instead of 3-year overall survival of 67% calculated from diagnosis). This reduced the number of required patients with cCR from 264 to 224, but increased the required inclusions from 480 to approximately 740 patients at baseline.Conclusion: Substantial amendments were made prior to closure of enrolment of the SANO trial. These amendments do not affect the outcomes of the trial compared to the original protocol. The first results are expected late 2023. If active surveillance plus surgery as needed after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer leads to non-inferior overall survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, active surveillance can be implemented as a standard of care. Show less
Werf, L.R. van der; Eshuis, W.J.; Draaisma, W.A.; Etten, B. van; Gisbertz, S.S.; Harst, E. van der; ... ; Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Canc 2019
Background Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of gastric cancer. For tumors invading the pancreas, en-bloc partial pancreatectomy may be needed for a radical resection. The aim... Show moreBackground Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of gastric cancer. For tumors invading the pancreas, en-bloc partial pancreatectomy may be needed for a radical resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of gastrectomies with partial pancreatectomy for gastric cancer.Methods Patients who underwent gastrectomy with or without partial pancreatectomy for gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer between 2011 and 2015 were selected from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA). Outcomes were resection margin (pR0) and Clavien-Dindo grade >= III postoperative complications and survival. The association between partial pancreatectomy and postoperative complications was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival of patients with partial pancreatectomy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results Of 1966 patients that underwent gastrectomy, 55 patients (2.8%) underwent en-bloc partial pancreatectomy. A pR0 resection was achieved in 45 of 55 patients (82% versus 85% in the group without additional resection, P = 0.82). Clavien-Dindo grade = III complications occurred in 21 of 55 patients (38% versus 17%, P < 0.001). Median overall survival [95% confidence interval] was 15 [6.8-23.2] months. For patients with and without perioperative systemic therapy, median survival was 20 [12.3-27.7] and 10 [5.7-14.3] months, and for patients with pR0 and pR1 resection, it was 20 [11.8-28.3] and 5 [2.4-7.6] months, respectively.Conclusions Gastrectomy with partial pancreatectomy is not only associated with a pR0 resection rate of 82% but also with increased postoperative morbidity. It should only be performed if a pR0 resection is feasible. Show less
Background: The course of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during and after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal or junctional carcinoma is unknown. Methods: This... Show moreBackground: The course of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during and after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal or junctional carcinoma is unknown. Methods: This study was a multicenter prospective cohort investigation. Patients with esophageal or cancer to be treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy were eligible for inclusion in the study. The HRQOL of the patients was measured with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, QLQ-OG25, and QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaires before and during nCRT, then 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 weeks after nCRT and before surgery. Predefined end points were based on the hypothesized impact of nCRT. The primary end points were physical functioning, odynophagia, and sensory symptoms. The secondary end points were global quality of life, fatigue, weight loss, and motor symptoms. Mixed modeling analysis was used to evaluate changes over time. Results: Of 106 eligible patients, 96 (91%) were included in the study. The rate of questionnaires returned ranged from 94% to 99% until week 12, then dropped to 78% in week 16 after nCRT. A negative impact of nCRT on all HRQOL end points was observed during the last cycle of nCRT (all p < 0.001) and 2 weeks after nCRT (all p < 0.001). Physical functioning, odynophagia, and sensory symptoms were restored to pretreatment levels respectively 8, 4, and 6 weeks after nCRT. The secondary end points were restored to baseline levels 4-6 weeks after nCRT. Odynophagia, fatigue, and weight loss improved after nCRT compared with baseline levels at respectively 6 (p < 0.001), 16 (p = 0.001), and 12 weeks (p < 0.001). Conclusion: After completion of nCRT for esophageal cancer, HRQOL decreases significantly, but all HRQOL end points are restored to baseline levels within 8 weeks. Odynophagia, fatigue, and weight loss improved 6-16 weeks after nCRT compared with baseline levels. Show less
Background: Initial staging of gastric cancer consists of computed tomography (CT) and gastroscopy. In locally advanced (cT3-4) gastric cancer, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with... Show moreBackground: Initial staging of gastric cancer consists of computed tomography (CT) and gastroscopy. In locally advanced (cT3-4) gastric cancer, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with CT (FDG-PET/CT or PET) and staging laparoscopy (SL) may have a role in staging, but evidence is scarce. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact and cost-effectiveness of PET and SL in addition to initial staging in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer.Methods: This prospective observational cohort study will include all patients with a surgically resectable, advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (cT3-4b, N0-3, M0), that are scheduled for treatment with curative intent after initial staging with gastroscopy and CT. The modalities to be investigated in this study is the addition of PET and SL. The primary outcome of this study is the proportion of patients in whom the PET or SL lead to a change in treatment strategy. Secondary outcome parameters are: diagnostic performance, morbidity and mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of these additional diagnostic modalities. The study recently started in August 2017 with a duration of 36 months. At least 239 patients need to be included in this study to demonstrate that the diagnostic modalities are break-even. Based on the annual number of gastrectomies in the participating centers, it is estimated that approximately 543 patients are included in this study.Discussion: In this study, it is hypothesized that performing PET and SL for locally advanced gastric adenocarcinomas results in a change of treatment strategy in 27% of patients and an annual cost-reduction in the Netherlands of (sic)916.438 in this patient group by reducing futile treatment. The results of this study may be applicable to all countries with comparable treatment algorithms and health care systems. Show less
PurposeTo compare pre-agreed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains in patients with esophageal or junctional cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery or... Show morePurposeTo compare pre-agreed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains in patients with esophageal or junctional cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery or surgery alone. Secondary aims were to examine the effect of nCRT on HRQOL before surgery and the effect of surgery on HRQOL.Patients and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to nCRT (carboplatin plus paclitaxel with concurrent 41.4-Gy radiotherapy) followed by surgery or surgery alone. HRQOL was measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and –Oesophageal Cancer Module (QLQ-OES24) questionnaires pretreatment and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postoperatively. The nCRT group also received preoperative questionnaires. Physical functioning (PF; QLQ-C30) and eating problems (EA; QLQ-OES24) were chosen as predefined primary end points. Predefined secondary end points were global QOL (GQOL; QLQ-C30), fatigue (FA; QLQ-C30), and emotional problems (EM; QLQ-OES24).ResultsA total of 363 patients were analyzed. No statistically significant differences in postoperative HRQOL were found between treatment groups. In the nCRT group, PF, EA, GQOL, FA, and EM scores deteriorated 1 week after nCRT (Cohen’s d: −0.93, P < .001; 0.47, P < .001; −0.84, P < .001; 1.45, P < .001; and 0.32, P = .001, respectively). In both treatment groups, all end points declined 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline (Cohen’s d: −1.00, 0.33, −0.47, −0.34, and 0.33, respectively; all P < .001), followed by a continuous gradual improvement. EA, GQOL, and EM were restored to baseline levels during follow-up, whereas PF and FA remained impaired 1 year postoperatively (Cohen’s d: 0.52 and −0.53, respectively; both P < .001).ConclusionAlthough HRQOL declined during nCRT, no effect of nCRT was apparent on postoperative HRQOL compared with surgery alone. In addition to the improvement in survival, these findings support the view that nCRT according to the Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study–regimen can be regarded as a standard of care. Show less
