PURPOSEThe optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual... Show morePURPOSEThe optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups.PATIENTS AND METHODSAll, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158).RESULTSIPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively).CONCLUSIONNeoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified. Show less
Kroese, T.E.; Laarhoven, H.W.M. van; Schoppman, S.F.; Deseynde, P.R.A.J.; Cutsem, E. van; Haustermans, K.; ... ; Rossum, P.S.N. van 2023
Background: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about... Show moreBackground: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesopha-gogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophago-gastric cancer. Methods: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Del-phi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi ques-tionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (>75%). Results: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with meta-static oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with <3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without pro-gression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or me-tachronous OMD with a disease-free interval <2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment fol-lowed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). Conclusion: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus state -ment for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adeno-carcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials. 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Kroese, T.E.; Hillegersberg, R. van; Schoppmann, S.; Deseyne, P.R.A.J.; Nafteux, P.; Obermannova, R.; ... ; OMEC Working Grp 2022
Background: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. Objective: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric... Show moreBackground: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. Objective: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. Material and methods: European expert centers (n Z 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into up -front local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (< 50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (>= 75%). Results: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. Conclusion: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oesophagogastric cancer expert centres in Europe. However, high practice variability in treatment strategies exists. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
Baiocchi, G.L.; Giacopuzzi, S.; Marrelli, D.; Reim, D.; Piessen, G.; Costa, P.M. da; ... ; Manzoni, G. de 2019
BackgroundPerioperative complications can affect outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer, with high mortality and morbidity rates ranging between 10 and 40%. The absence of a standardized system for... Show moreBackgroundPerioperative complications can affect outcomes after gastrectomy for cancer, with high mortality and morbidity rates ranging between 10 and 40%. The absence of a standardized system for recording complications generates wide variation in evaluating their impacts on outcomes and hinders proposals of quality-improvement projects. The aim of this study was to provide a list of defined gastrectomy complications approved through international consensus.MethodsThe Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group consists of 34 European gastric cancer experts who are members of the International Gastric Cancer Association. A group meeting established the work plan for study implementation through Delphi surveys. A consensus was reached regarding a set of standardized methods to define gastrectomy complications.ResultsA standardized list of 27 defined complications (grouped into 3 intraoperative, 14 postoperative general, and 10 postoperative surgical complications) was created to provide a simple but accurate template for recording individual gastrectomy complications. A consensus was reached for both the list of complications that should be considered major adverse events after gastrectomy for cancer and their specific definitions. The study group also agreed that an assessment of each surgical case should be completed at patient discharge and 90days postoperatively using a Complication Recording Sheet.ConclusionThe list of defined complications (soon to be validated in an international multicenter study) and the ongoing development of an electronic datasheet app to record them provide the basic infrastructure to reach the ultimate goals of standardized international data collection, establishment of benchmark results, and fostering of quality-improvement projects. Show less
