OBJECTIVE: We compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus chemoradiation (CRT) for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal neoadjuvant therapy regimen for resectable GA is not defined. METHODS: Utilizing data from 2 high-volume cancer centers, we analyzed patients who underwent surgery for localized GA from 1/1/2000-12/31/2017. Standard CT regimens were used according to treatment period. We compared propensity matched cohorts based on age, sex, race, histology, and clinical stage. RESULTS: Four-hundred five patients (age 62 ± 12 year, 58% male, 56% White) were analyzed. 231 (57%) received CRT and 174 (43%) received CT. Groups differed based on histopathologic characteristics including preoperative stage (p = 0.013). To control for these differences, propensity matched cohorts of 113 CT and 113 CRT patients were compared. CRT had similar frequencies of microscopically negative resections to CT (93% vs 91%, p = 0.81), but higher rates of complete pathologic response (15% vs 4%, p = 0.003) and lower pathologic stage (p = 0.002). Completion of intended perioperative therapy occurred in 63% of CT and 91% of CRT patients (p < 0.001). Median DFS was 45mo (95%CI: 20-70) in the CT group and 113mo (95%CI: 75-151) in the CRT group (p = 0.018). Median OS was 53mo (95%CI: 30-77) versus 120mo (95%CI: 101-138); p = 0.015. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional comparison of neoadjuvant CT and CRT for resectable GA, CRT is associated with higher rates of completed perioperative therapy, higher rates of complete pathologic response, lower pathologic stage, and improved survival.Level of Evidence: Level III.
OBJECTIVE: We compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus chemoradiation (CRT) for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal neoadjuvant therapy regimen for resectable GA is not defined. METHODS: Utilizing data from 2 high-volume cancer centers, we analyzed patients who underwent surgery for localized GA from 1/1/2000-12/31/2017. Standard CT regimens were used according to treatment period. We compared propensity matched cohorts based on age, sex, race, histology, and clinical stage. RESULTS: Four-hundred five patients (age 62 ± 12 year, 58% male, 56% White) were analyzed. 231 (57%) received CRT and 174 (43%) received CT. Groups differed based on histopathologic characteristics including preoperative stage (p = 0.013). To control for these differences, propensity matched cohorts of 113 CT and 113 CRT patients were compared. CRT had similar frequencies of microscopically negative resections to CT (93% vs 91%, p = 0.81), but higher rates of complete pathologic response (15% vs 4%, p = 0.003) and lower pathologic stage (p = 0.002). Completion of intended perioperative therapy occurred in 63% of CT and 91% of CRT patients (p < 0.001). Median DFS was 45mo (95%CI: 20-70) in the CT group and 113mo (95%CI: 75-151) in the CRT group (p = 0.018). Median OS was 53mo (95%CI: 30-77) versus 120mo (95%CI: 101-138); p = 0.015. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional comparison of neoadjuvant CT and CRT for resectable GA, CRT is associated with higher rates of completed perioperative therapy, higher rates of complete pathologic response, lower pathologic stage, and improved survival.Level of Evidence: Level III.
Authors: Trevor Leong; B Mark Smithers; Karin Haustermans; Michael Michael; Val Gebski; Danielle Miller; John Zalcberg; Alex Boussioutas; Michael Findlay; Rachel L O'Connell; Jaclyn Verghis; David Willis; Tomas Kron; Melissa Crain; William K Murray; Florian Lordick; Carol Swallow; Gail Darling; John Simes; Rebecca Wong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jaffer A Ajani; Kathryn Winter; Gordon S Okawara; John H Donohue; Peter W T Pisters; Christopher H Crane; John F Greskovich; P Rani Anne; Jeffrey D Bradley; Christopher Willett; Tyvin A Rich Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J S Macdonald; S R Smalley; J Benedetti; S A Hundahl; N C Estes; G N Stemmermann; D G Haller; J A Ajani; L L Gunderson; J M Jessup; J A Martenson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-09-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Naruhiko Ikoma; Janice N Cormier; Barry Feig; Xianglin L Du; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Wayne Hofstetter; Prajnan Das; Jaffer A Ajani; Christina L Roland; Keith Fournier; Richard Royal; Paul Mansfield; Brian D Badgwell Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Trevor Leong; B Mark Smithers; Michael Michael; Val Gebski; Alex Boussioutas; Danielle Miller; John Simes; John Zalcberg; Karin Haustermans; Florian Lordick; Christoph Schuhmacher; Carol Swallow; Gail Darling; Rebecca Wong Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 4.430