Peroperative administration of tranexamic acid in sleeve gastrectomy to reduce hemorrhage: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In metabolic surgery, hemorrhage is the most common major complication. This study investigated whether peroperative administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced the risk of hemorrhage in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG). METHODS: In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, patients undergoing primary SG in a high-volume bariatric hospital were randomized (1:1) to receive 1500-mg TXA or placebo peroperatively. Primary outcome measure was peroperative staple line reinforcement using hemostatic clips. Secondary outcome measures were peroperative fibrin sealant use and blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin, heart rate, pain, major and minor complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), side effects of TXA (i.e., venous thrombotic event (VTE)) and mortality. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients were analyzed and received TXA (n = 49) or placebo (n = 52). There was no statistically significant difference in hemostatic clip devices used in both groups (69% versus 83%, p = 0.161). TXA administration showed significant positive changes in hemoglobin levels (millimoles per Liter; 0.55 versus 0.80, p = 0.013), in heart rate (beats per minute; -4.6 versus 2.5; p = 0.013), in minor complications (Clavien-Dindo ≤ 2, 2.0% versus 17.3%, p = 0.016), and in mean LOS (hours; 30.8 versus 36.7, p = 0.013). One patient in the placebo-group underwent radiological intervention for postoperative hemorrhage. No VTE or mortality was reported. CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in use of hemostatic clip devices and major complications after peroperative administration of TXA. However, TXA seems to have positive effects on clinical parameters, minor complications, and LOS in patients undergoing SG, without increasing the risk of VTE. Larger studies are needed to investigate the effect of TXA on postoperative major complications.

Treatment of clinical T1 rectal cancer in the Netherlands; a population-based overview of clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Local excision is increasingly used as an alternative treatment for radical surgery in patients with early stage clinical T1 (cT1) rectal cancer. This study provides an overview of incidence, staging accuracy and treatment strategies in patients with cT1 rectal cancer in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cT1 rectal cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2018 were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. An overview per time period (2005-2009, 2010-2014 and 2015-2018) of the incidence and various treatment strategies used, e.g. local excision (LE) or major resection, with/without neoadjuvant treatment (NAT), were given and trends over time were analysed using the Chi Square for Trend test. In addition, accuracy of tumour staging was described, compared and analysed over time. RESULTS: In total, 3033 patients with cT1 rectal cancer were diagnosed. The incidence of cT1 increased from 540 patients in 2005-2009 to 1643 patients in 2015-2018. There was a significant increased use of LE. In cT1N0/X patients, 9.2% received NAT, 25.5% were treated by total mesorectal excision (TME) and 11.4% received a completion TME (cTME) following prior LE. Overall accuracy in tumour staging (cT1 = pT1) was 77.3%, yet significantly worse in cN1/2 patients, as compared to cN0 patients (44.8% vs 77.9%, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Over time, there was an increase in the incidence of cT1 tumours. Both the use of neoadjuvant therapy and TME surgery in clinically node negative patients decreased significantly. Clinical accuracy in T1 tumour staging improved over time, but remained significantly worse in clinical node positive patients.

Prediction of pathological response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer: the PRE-PREVENCYS trial.

BACKGROUND: The recommended treatment for patients with non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and radical cystectomy (RC). Following NAC, 20-40% of patients experience a complete pathological response (pCR) in the RC specimen and these patients have excellent long-term overall survival. Subject to debate is, however, whether patients with a pCR to NAC benefit from RC, which is a major surgical procedure with substantial morbidity, and if these patients might be candidates for close surveillance instead. However, currently it is not possible to accurately identify patients with a pCR to NAC in whom RC might be withheld. The objective of this study is to assess whether pathological response in the RC specimen after NAC can be predicted based on clinical, radiological, and histological variables and on a wide set of molecular biomarkers assessed in tissue, blood and urine. METHODS: This is a multicentre, prospective cohort study, including patients with cT2a-T4a N0-N1 M0 urothelial cell MIBC who are scheduled to undergo cisplatin-based NAC followed by RC. Prior to start of therapy, a 2-Deoxy-2-[18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is performed. Response to NAC is evaluated by CT-scan. Blood and urine, including cytology, are prospectively collected for biomarker analyses before and after NAC. Immediately before RC, participants undergo cystoscopy with bimanual examination and a re-staging transurethral resection (TUR) of all visible cancerous lesions or with biopsies from scar tissue. Subsequently, RC is performed in all patients. Tissue from the diagnostic TUR, the re-staging TUR, and the RC specimen is examined for the presence of urothelial cancer carcinoma and DNA and RNA is isolated for molecular analysis. The primary endpoint is the pathological stage (ypTN) in the RC and ePLND specimen and its association with clinical response. DISCUSSION: If the PRE-PREVENCYS trial shows that the absence of residual disease after NAC in patients with MIBC is accurately predicted, a randomized controlled trial is scheduled comparing the overall survival of NAC plus RC versus NAC followed by close surveillance for patients with a clinically complete response (PREVENCYS trial). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL8678; Registered 20 May 2020 https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8678.

Quality of Life During and After Completion of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal and Junctional Cancer.

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 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.

Patients' preferences for treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery for oesophageal cancer, 29 per cent of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. Active surveillance after nCRT (instead of standard oesophagectomy) may improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but patients need to undergo frequent diagnostic tests and it is unknown whether survival is worse than that after standard oesophagectomy. Factors that influence patients' preferences, and trade-offs that patients are willing to make in their choice between surgery and active surveillance were investigated here. METHODS: A prospective discrete-choice experiment was conducted. Patients with oesophageal cancer completed questionnaires 4-6 weeks after nCRT, before surgery. Patients' preferences were quantified using scenarios based on five aspects: 5-year overall survival, short-term HRQoL, long-term HRQoL, the risk that oesophagectomy is still necessary, and the frequency of clinical examinations using endoscopy and PET-CT. Panel latent class analysis was used. RESULTS: Some 100 of 104 patients (96·2 per cent) responded. All aspects, except the frequency of clinical examinations, influenced patients' preferences. Five-year overall survival, the chance that oesophagectomy is still necessary and long-term HRQoL were the most important attributes. On average, based on calculation of the indifference point between standard surgery and active surveillance, patients were willing to trade off 16 per cent 5-year overall survival to reduce the risk that oesophagectomy is necessary from 100 per cent (standard surgery) to 35 per cent (active surveillance). CONCLUSION: Patients are willing to trade off substantial 5-year survival to achieve a reduction in the risk that oesophagectomy is necessary.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on health-related quality of life in long-term survivors of esophageal or junctional cancer: results from the randomized CROSS trial.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard of care for patients with esophageal or junctional cancer, but the long-term impact of nCRT on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is unknown. The purpose of this study is to compare very long-term HRQOL in long-term survivors of esophageal cancer who received nCRT plus surgery or surgery alone. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive nCRT (carboplatin/paclitaxel with 41.4-Gy radiotherapy) plus surgery or surgery alone. HRQOL was measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30, EORTC-QLQ-OES24 and K-BILD questionnaires after a minimum follow-up of 6 years. To allow for examination over time, EORTC-QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES24 questionnaire scores were compared with pretreatment and 12 months postoperative questionnaire scores. Physical functioning (QLQ-C30), eating problems (QLQ-OES24) and respiratory problems (K-BILD) were predefined primary end points. Predefined secondary end points were global quality of life and fatigue (both QLQ-C30). Results: After a median follow-up of 105 months, 123/368 included patients (33%) were still alive (70 nCRT plus surgery, 53 surgery alone). No statistically significant or clinically relevant differential effects in HRQOL end points were found between both groups. Compared with 1-year postoperative levels, eating problems, physical functioning, global quality of life and fatigue remained at the same level in both groups. Compared with pretreatment levels, eating problems had improved (Cohen's d -0.37, P = 0.011) during long-term follow-up, whereas physical functioning and fatigue were not restored to pretreatment levels in both groups (Cohen's d -0.56 and 0.51, respectively, both P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although physical functioning and fatigue remain reduced after long-term follow-up, no adverse impact of nCRT is apparent on long-term HRQOL compared with patients who were treated with surgery alone. In addition to the earlier reported improvement in survival and the absence of impact on short-term HRQOL, these results support the view that nCRT according to CROSS can be considered as a standard of care. Trial registration number: Netherlands Trial Register NTR487.

[Organ-sparing treatment in oesophagus cancer: feasible and safe?] / Orgaansparende behandeling bij slokdarmcarcinoom.

In many countries, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is standard treatment for resectable oesophageal cancer. After nCRT, up to 30% of all patients have no residual disease in the resection specimen. Consequently, an active surveillance approach, in which patients undergo frequent clinical investigations after nCRT instead of standard oesophagectomy, is increasingly applied in selected patients. Here, we describe outcomes for three patients who underwent active surveillance. A 63-year old woman was considered unfit for surgery after nCRT. Four years after completion of nCRT, she still had no signs of disease recurrence. The second patient, a 57-year old woman, refused surgery when no residual disease was detectable after nCRT. One year following treatment, she developed a vertebral metastasis, in the absence of locoregional disease. The third patient concerned a 66-year old man with a clinically complete response after nCRT, who also refused surgery. During active surveillance, he developed a locoregional regrowth and underwent a radical oesophagectomy.

Active surveillance in clinically complete responders after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery is standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer in many countries. After nCRT up to one third of all patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen, posing an ethical imperative to reconsider the necessity of standard surgery in all operable patients after nCRT. An active surveillance strategy following nCRT, in which patients are subjected to frequent clinical investigations after the completion of neoadjuvant therapy, has been evaluated in other types of cancer with promising results. In esophageal cancer, both patients who are cured by neoadjuvant therapy alone as well as patients with subclinical disseminated disease at the time of completion of neoadjuvant therapy may benefit from such an organ sparing approach. Active surveillance is currently applied in selected patients with esophageal cancer who refuse surgery or are medically unfit for major surgery after completion of nCRT, but this strategy is not (yet) adopted as an alternative to standard surgery or definitive chemoradiation. The available literature is scarce, but suggests that long-term oncological outcomes after active surveillance are noninferior compared to standard surgical resection, providing justification for comparison of both treatments in a phase III trial. This review gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding active surveillance after completion of nCRT in esophageal cancer and outlines future research perspectives.

Multimodality treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma: multi-center propensity-score matched study.

Background: The primary aim of this study was to compare survival from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (NCRS) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (NCS) for the treatment of esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. The secondary aims were to compare pathological effects, short-term mortality and morbidity, and to evaluate the effect of lymph node harvest upon survival in both treatment groups. Methods: Data were collected from 10 European centers from 2001 to 2012. Six hundred and eight patients with stage II or III oesophageal or oesophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinoma were included; 301 in the NCRS group and 307 in the NCS group. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: NCRS resulted in significant pathological benefits with more ypT0 (26.7% versus 5%; P < 0.001), more ypN0 (63.3% versus 32.1%; P < 0.001), and reduced R1/2 resection margins (7.7% versus 21.8%; P < 0.001). Analysis of short-term outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in 30-day or 90-day mortality, but increased incidence of anastomotic leak (23.1% versus 6.8%; P < 0.001) in NCRS patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in 3-year overall survival (57.9% versus 53.4%; Hazard Ratio (HR)= 0.89, 95%C.I. 0.67-1.17, P = 0.391) nor disease-free survival (52.9% versus 48.9%; HR = 0.90, 95%C.I. 0.69-1.18, P = 0.443). The pattern of recurrence was also similar (P = 0.660). There was a higher lymph node harvest in the NCS group (27 versus 14; P < 0.001), which was significantly associated with a lower recurrence rate and improved disease free survival within the NCS group. Conclusion: The survival differences between NCRS and NCS maybe modest, if present at all, for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. Future large-scale randomized trials must control and monitor indicators of the quality of surgery, as the extent of lymphadenectomy appears to influence prognosis in patients treated with NCS, from this large multi-center European study.

Optimal surgical approach for esophageal cancer in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant therapy.

The optimal surgical technique for the potentially curative treatment of patients with esophageal cancer is still under debate. The transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) with limited lymphadenectomy mainly focuses on a decrease of postoperative morbidity and mortality by preventing a formal thoracotomy. The transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) with extended two-field lymphadenectomy attempts to improve the radicality of the resection and thus to increase locoregional tumor control, but is associated with increased postoperative morbidity. The recent introduction of different minimally invasive techniques probably decreases postoperative morbidity following TTE, with reduction of especially pulmonary complications, but high-quality evidence is still limited. It is widely agreed that extended lymphadenectomy as performed during TTE provides the benefit of more accurate staging, but its effect on improvement of survival is still debated. The literature on this topic is contradictory and the choice of surgical approach is primarily driven by personal opinions and institutional preferences. Moreover, the available evidence is mainly based on patients who underwent surgery alone without neoadjuvant therapy. Results of recent studies suggest that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy abolishes any possibly positive effect of extended lymphadenectomy as performed during TTE on survival, but this effect should be confirmed in future research. This review gives an overview and reflects the authors' personal view on the role of TTE and THE in the treatment of potentially curative treatment of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant treatment and outlines future research perspectives.