Influence of neoadjuvant therapy on outcomes in patients with resectable carcinoma of esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction from a tertiary cancer care center in India.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery to upfront surgery (surgery alone) in patients with resectable carcinoma of the esophagus (esophageal cancer [EC]), and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) in a limited resource setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed to identify patients (from January 2010 through December 2016) who underwent surgery for EC and GEJ cancers. RESULTS: A total of 454 patients were included and categorized into the following groups: nCT (n = 65), nCRT (n = 152) and upfront surgery (n = 237). Squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma accounted for two-thirds and one-third of the cases, respectively. nCRT group patients were also noted to have smaller tumors, lower margin positivity and a higher R0 resection rates. With a median follow up of 76 months (35-118 months) improved 5-year overall survival was noted in nCRT group in comparison to nCT and upfront surgery groups (56.5% vs. 34% and 35%, respectively, p = .021). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study demonstrate the beneficial effect of nCRT for patients with EC and GEJ in a limited resource setting. Further studies are required to analyze and promote the benefits of nCRT in limited-resource settings.

A health care labyrinth: perspectives of caregivers on the journey to accessing timely cancer diagnosis and treatment for children in India.

BACKGROUND: Cure rates for children with cancer in India lag behind that of high-income countries. Various disease, treatment and socio-economic related factors contribute to this gap including barriers in timely access of diagnostic and therapeutic care. This study investigated barriers to accessing care from symptom onset to beginning of treatment, from perspectives of caregivers of children with cancer in India. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with caregivers of children (< 18 years) diagnosed with cancer in seven tertiary care hospitals across New Delhi and Hyderabad. Purposive sampling to saturation was used to ensure adequate representation of the child's gender, age, cancer type, geographical location and socioeconomic status. Interviews were audio recorded after obtaining informed consent. Thematic content analysis was conducted and organised using NVivo 11. RESULTS: Thirty-nine caregivers were interviewed, where three key themes emerged from the narratives: time intervals to definitive diagnosis and treatment, the importance of social supportive care and the overall accumulative impacts of the journey. There were two phases encapsulating the experiences of the family: referral pathways taken to reach the hospital and after reaching the hospital. Most caregivers, especially those from distant geographical areas had variable and inconsistent referral pathways partly due to poor availability of specialist doctors and diagnostic facilities outside major cities, influence from family or friends, and long travel times. Upon reaching the hospital, families mostly from public hospitals faced challenges navigating the hospital facilities, finding accommodation, and comprehending the diagnosis and treatment pathway. Throughout both phases, financial constraint was a recurring issue amongst low-income families. The caregiver's knowledge and awareness of the disease and health system, religious and social factors were also common barriers. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study highlights and explores some of the barriers to childhood cancer care in India. Our findings show that referral pathways are intrinsically linked to the treatment experience and there should be better recognition of the financial and emotional challenges faced by the family that occur prior to definitive diagnosis and treatment. This information would help inform various stakeholders and contribute to improved interventions addressing these barriers.

Short-term Outcomes in Patients with Carcinoma of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiation before Surgery. A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) have been demonstrated to improve survival compared to surgery alone in esophageal carcinoma, but the evidence is scarce on which of these therapies is more beneficial, particularly with regard to resectability rates, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and histological responses. OBJECTIVE: This study compares the resectability, pathological response rates, and short-term surgical outcomes in patients with carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction receiving NACT or NACRT prior to surgery. METHODS: Patients with resectable carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and adenosquamous histologies were enrolled in this well-matched prospective non-randomized study. Thirty-five patients were given NACT, and 35 NACRT. In the NACT group, 25 patients received three cycles of three-weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel, and 10 received three cycles of cisplatin/5-fluorouracil, while all the patients in the NACRT group received 41.4 Gy of radiotherapy concomitant with five cycles of weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients in the NACT group and 33 patients in NACRT group had resection (P value = 0.0027). The percentage of microscopically margin-negative resection (R0 resection) was similar in both the groups (86% versus 88%). The incidences of surgical and non-surgical complications were similar in both the groups (P=0.34). There was no 30-day mortality. There was a trend toward more pathological complete regression in the NACRT group (P=0.067). The percentage of patients achieving complete tumor regression at the primary site (pT0) was significantly higher in the NACRT group. The down-staging effect on nodal status was similar in both the groups (P=0.55). There was a statistically significant reduction in tumor size in the NACRT group. The median numbers of nodes harvested and positive nodes were similar in both the groups. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving NACRT had better resectability rates and pathological response rates, but similar postoperative morbidity compared to the NACT group.