Helena Hong Wang1,2, Ellen C de Heer2, Jan Binne Hulshoff3, Gursah Kats-Ugurlu4, Johannes G M Burgerhof5, Boudewijn van Etten1, John Th M Plukker1, Geke A P Hospers6. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. g.a.p.hospers@umcg.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extending the original criteria of the Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer followed by Surgery Study (CROSS) in daily practice may increase the treatment outcome of esophageal cancer (EC) patients. This retrospective national cohort study assessed the impact on the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate and surgical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from EC patients treated between 2009 and 2017 were collected from the national Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit database. Patients had locally advanced EC (cT1/N+ or cT2-4a/N0-3/M0) and were treated according to the CROSS regimen. CROSS (n = 1942) and the extended CROSS (e-CROSS; n = 1359) represent patients fulfilling the original or extended CROSS criteria, respectively. The primary outcome was total pCR (ypT0N0), while secondary outcomes were local esophageal pCR (ypT0), surgical radicality, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Overall, CROSS and e-CROSS did not differ in total or local pCR rate, although a trend was observed (23.2% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.052; and 26.7% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.061). When stratifying by histology, the pCR rate was higher in the CROSS group compared with e-CROSS in squamous cell carcinomas (48.2% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.000) but not in adenocarcinomas (16.8% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.908). Surgical radicality did not differ between groups. Postoperative mortality (3.2% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.037) and morbidity (58.3% vs. 61.8%, p = 0.048) were higher in e-CROSS. CONCLUSION: Extending the CROSS inclusion criteria for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in routine clinical practice of EC patients had no impact on the pCR rate and on radicality, but was associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity. Importantly, effects differed between histological subtypes. Hence, in future studies, we should carefully reconsider who will benefit most in the real-world setting.
BACKGROUND: Extending the original criteria of the Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer followed by Surgery Study (CROSS) in daily practice may increase the treatment outcome of esophageal cancer (EC) patients. This retrospective national cohort study assessed the impact on the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate and surgical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from ECpatients treated between 2009 and 2017 were collected from the national Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit database. Patients had locally advanced EC (cT1/N+ or cT2-4a/N0-3/M0) and were treated according to the CROSS regimen. CROSS (n = 1942) and the extended CROSS (e-CROSS; n = 1359) represent patients fulfilling the original or extended CROSS criteria, respectively. The primary outcome was total pCR (ypT0N0), while secondary outcomes were local esophageal pCR (ypT0), surgical radicality, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Overall, CROSS and e-CROSS did not differ in total or local pCR rate, although a trend was observed (23.2% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.052; and 26.7% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.061). When stratifying by histology, the pCR rate was higher in the CROSS group compared with e-CROSS in squamous cell carcinomas (48.2% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.000) but not in adenocarcinomas (16.8% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.908). Surgical radicality did not differ between groups. Postoperative mortality (3.2% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.037) and morbidity (58.3% vs. 61.8%, p = 0.048) were higher in e-CROSS. CONCLUSION: Extending the CROSS inclusion criteria for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in routine clinical practice of ECpatients had no impact on the pCR rate and on radicality, but was associated with increased postoperative mortality and morbidity. Importantly, effects differed between histological subtypes. Hence, in future studies, we should carefully reconsider who will benefit most in the real-world setting.
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lucian R Chirieac; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Ritsuko R Komaki; Arlene M Correa; Jeffrey S Morris; Jack A Roth; Asif Rashid; Stanley R Hamilton; Tsung-Teh Wu Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Z T Hammoud; K A Kesler; M K Ferguson; R J Battafarrano; A Bhogaraju; N Hanna; R Govindan; A A Mauer; M Yu; L H Einhorn Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Harry D Bear; Stewart Anderson; Ann Brown; Roy Smith; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Bernard Fisher; Richard Margolese; Heather Theoret; Atilla Soran; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joel Shapiro; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R C Busch; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Herman van Dekken; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Katharina Biermann; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Peter S N van Rossum; David V Fried; Lifei Zhang; Wayne L Hofstetter; Marco van Vulpen; Gert J Meijer; Laurence E Court; Steven H Lin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mariela Blum Murphy; Lianchum Xiao; Viren R Patel; Dipen M Maru; Arlene M Correa; Fatemeh G Amlashi; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; Steven H Lin; Heath D Skinner; Ara Vaporciyan; Garrett L Walsh; Stephen G Swisher; Boris Sepesi; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Brian Weston; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: E C de Heer; J B Hulshoff; D Klerk; J G M Burgerhof; D J A de Groot; J Th M Plukker; G A P Hospers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Eelke Toxopeus; Maartje van der Schaaf; Jan van Lanschot; Jesper Lagergren; Pernilla Lagergren; Ate van der Gaast; Bas Wijnhoven Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Francesco Cellini; Stefania Manfrida; Calogero Casà; Angela Romano; Alessandra Arcelli; Alice Zamagni; Viola De Luca; Giuseppe Ferdinando Colloca; Andrea D'Aviero; Lorenzo Fuccio; Valentina Lancellotta; Luca Tagliaferri; Luca Boldrini; Gian Carlo Mattiucci; Maria Antonietta Gambacorta; Alessio Giuseppe Morganti; Vincenzo Valentini Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 6.639