Genomic Landscape of Adenocarcinomas Across the Gastroesophageal Junction: Moving on from the Siewert Classification.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the Siewert classification of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas correlates with genomic profiles. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: Current staging and treatment guidelines recommend that tumors with an epicenter less than 2 cm into the gastric cardia be treated as esophageal cancers, while tumors with epicenter greater than 2 cm into the cardia be staged and treated as gastric cancers. To date, however, few studies have compared the genomic profiles of the 3 Siewert classification groups to validate this distinction. METHODS: Using targeted tumor sequencing data on patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction previously treated with surgery at our institution, we compared genomic features across Siewert classification groups. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included: 121 had Siewert type I, 170 type II, and 59 type III. Comparisons by Siewert location revealed that Siewert type I and II were primarily characterized as the chromosomal instability (CIN) molecular subtype and displayed Barrett's metaplasia and p53 and cell cycle pathway dysregulation. Siewert type III tumors, by contrast, were more heterogeneous, including higher proportions of microsatellite instability (MSI) and genomically stable (GS) tumors and more frequently displayed ARID1A and somatic CDH1 alterations, signet ring cell features, and poor differentiation. Overall, Siewert type I and II tumors demonstrated greater genomic overlap with lower esophageal tumors, while Siewert type III tumors shared genomic features with gastric tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support recent updates in treatment and staging guidelines. Ultimately, however, molecular rather than anatomic classification may prove more valuable in determining staging, treatment, and prognosis.

High-Risk Features Associated with Recurrence in Stage I Lung Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of knowledge regarding the use of prognostic features in stage I lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). Thus, we investigated clinicopathologic features associated with recurrence after complete resection for stage I LUAD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with pathologic stage I LUAD who underwent R0 resection from 2010 to 2020. Exclusion criteria included history of lung cancer, induction or adjuvant therapy, noninvasive or mucinous LUAD, and death within 90 days of surgery. Fine and Gray competing-risk regression assessed associations between clinicopathologic features and disease recurrence. RESULTS: In total, 1912 patients met inclusion criteria. Most patients (1565 [82%]) had stage IA LUAD, and 250 developed recurrence: 141 (56%) distant and 109 (44%) locoregional only. The 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 12% (95% confidence interval, 11%-14%). Higher maximum standardized uptake value of the primary tumor (hazard ratio [HR]=1.04), sublobar resection (HR=2.04), higher IASLC grade (HR=5.32 [grade 2]; HR=7.93 [grade 3]), lymphovascular invasion (HR=1.70), visceral pleural invasion (HR=1.54), and tumor size (HR=1.30) were independently associated with hazard of recurrence. Tumors with 3-4 high-risk features had a higher cumulative incidence of recurrence at 5 years than tumors without these features (30% vs. 4%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence after resection for stage I LUAD remains an issue for select patients. Commonly reported clinicopathologic features can be used to define patients at high risk of recurrence and should be considered when assessing the prognosis of patients with stage I disease.

Advances in Diagnostic, Staging, and Restaging Evaluation of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer.

The initial endoscopic and staging evaluation of esophagogastric cancers must be accurate and comprehensive in order to select the optimal therapeutic plan for the patient. Esophageal and gastric cancers (and treatment paradigms) are delineated by their proximity to the cardia (within 2 cm). The most frequent and important symptom that informs the initial staging evaluation is dysphagia, which is associated with at least cT3 or locally advanced disease. Endoscopic ultrasound is often needed if earlier stage disease is suspected, preferably in combination with endoscopic mucosal or submucosal resection or fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes to enhance staging accuracy.

A Real-World Assessment of Stage I Lung Cancer Through Electronic Nose Technology.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic nose (E-nose) technology has reported excellent sensitivity and specificity in the setting of lung cancer screening. However, the performance of E-nose specifically for early-stage tumors remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic performance of E-nose technology in clinical stage I lung cancer. METHODS: This phase IIc trial (NCT04734145) included patients diagnosed with a single greater than or equal to 50% solid stage I nodule. Exhalates were prospectively collected from January 2020 to August 2023. Blinded bioengineers analyzed the exhalates, using E-nose technology to determine the probability of malignancy. Patients were stratified into three risk groups (low-risk, [<0.2]; moderate-risk, [≥0.2-0.7]; high-risk, [≥0.7]). The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of E-nose versus histopathology (accuracy and F1 score). The secondary outcome was the clinical performance of the E-nose versus clinicoradiological prediction models. RESULTS: Based on the predefined cutoff (<0.20), E-nose agreed with histopathologic results in 86% of cases, achieving an F1 score of 92.5%, based on 86 true positives, two false negatives, and 12 false positives (n = 100). E-nose would refer fewer patients with malignant nodules to observation (low-risk: 2 versus 9 and 11, respectively; p = 0.028 and p = 0.011) than would the Swensen and Brock models and more patients with malignant nodules to treatment without biopsy (high-risk: 27 versus 19 and 6, respectively; p = 0.057 and p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of clinical stage I lung cancer, E-nose agrees well with histopathology. Accordingly, E-nose technology can be used in addition to imaging or as part of a "multiomics" platform.

A New Functional Threshold for Minimally Invasive Lobectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a lower predicted postoperative (ppo) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO) threshold to predict cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) lobectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although MIS is associated with better postoperative outcomes than open surgery, MIS uses risk-assessment algorithms developed for open surgery. Moreover, several different definitions of cardiopulmonary complications are used for assessment. METHODS: All patients who underwent MIS lobectomy for clinical stage I-II lung cancer from 2018 to 2022 at our institution were considered. The performance of a ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% was compared against that of the current guideline threshold of <60%. Three different definitions of cardiopulmonary complications were compared: Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS), and Berry et al. RESULTS: In 946 patients, the ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% was associated with a higher proportion correctly classified (79% [95% CI, 76%-81%] vs. 65% [95% CI, 62%-68%]; P<0.001). The complication with the biggest difference in incidence between ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO of 45%-60% and >60% was prolonged air leak (33 [13%] vs. 34 [6%]; P<0.001). The predicted probability curves for cardiopulmonary complications were higher for the STS definition than for the ESTS or Berry definitions across ppoFEV1 and ppoDLCO values. CONCLUSIONS: The ppoFEV1/ppoDLCO threshold of <45% more accurately classified patients for cardiopulmonary complications after MIS lobectomy, emphasizing the need for updated risk-assessment guidelines for MIS lobectomy to optimize additional cardiopulmonary function evaluation.

Advances in the Surgical Management of Esophageal Cancer.

Radical esophagectomy with two or three-field lymphadenectomy remains the mainstay of curative treatment for localized esophageal cancer, often in combination with systemic chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. In this article, we describe notable advances in the surgical management of esophageal cancer over the past decade that have led to an improvement in both surgical and oncologic outcomes. In addition, we discuss new approaches to surgical management currently under investigation that have the potential to offer further benefits to appropriately selected patients. These incremental breakthroughs primarily include advances in endoscopic and minimally invasive techniques, perioperative management protocols, as well as the application of local therapies, including surgery, to oligometastatic disease.

Treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with a history of bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The relationship among obesity, bariatric surgery, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is complex, given that some bariatric procedures are thought to be associated with increased incidence of reflux and Barrett's esophagus. Previous bariatric surgery may complicate the use of the stomach as a conduit for esophagectomy. In this study, we presented our experience with patients who developed EAC after bariatric surgery and described the challenges encountered and the techniques used. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of our institutional database to identify all patients at our institution who were treated for EAC after previously undergoing bariatric surgery. RESULTS: In total, 19 patients underwent resection with curative intent for EAC after bariatric surgery, including 10 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. The median age at diagnosis of EAC was 63 years; patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy were younger (median age, 56 years). The median time from bariatric surgery to EAC was 7 years. Most patients had a body mass index (BMI) score of >30 kg/m2 at the time of diagnosis of EAC; approximately 40% had class III obesity (BMI score > 40 kg/m2). Six patients (32%) had known Barrett's esophagus before undergoing a reflux-increasing bariatric procedure. Sleeve gastrectomy patients underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit, colonic interposition, or esophagojejunostomy. Only 1 patient had an anastomotic leak (after esophagojejunostomy). CONCLUSION: Endoscopy should be required both before (for treatment selection) and after all bariatric surgical procedures. Resection of EAC after bariatric surgery requires a highly individualized approach but is safe and feasible.

Immunotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers includes neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy with surgical resection; however, disease-free survival in these patients remains poor. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for adjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal and GEJ cancers, but their benefit in the perioperative and neoadjuvant settings remains under investigation. METHODS: We used the PubMed online database to conduct a literature search to identify studies that investigated immunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal and GEJ carcinoma. A review of ClinicalTrials.gov yielded a list of ongoing trials. RESULTS: Adjuvant nivolumab for residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery is the only approved immunotherapy regimen for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Early-phase trials investigating the addition of neoadjuvant or perioperative ICIs to standard-of-care multimodality approaches have observed pathologic complete response rates as high as 60%. Response rates are highest for ICIs plus chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and dual checkpoint inhibition in mismatch repair-deficient adenocarcinomas. Safety profiles are acceptable, with a pooled adverse event rate of 27%. Surgical morbidity and mortality with immunotherapy are similar to historical controls with no immunotherapy, and R0 resection rates are high. When reported, disease-free survival among patients treated with perioperative immunotherapy is promising. CONCLUSIONS: Outside of clinical trials, immunotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma is limited to the adjuvant setting. Phase III trials investigating neoadjuvant and perioperative immunotherapy are now underway and will provide much-needed data on survival that may ultimately lead to practice-changing recommendations.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of early-onset vs average-onset esophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The rate of esophagogastric cancer is rising among individuals under 50 years of age. It remains unknown whether early-onset esophagogastric cancer represents a unique entity. This study investigated the clinical and molecular characteristics of early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer . METHODS: We reviewed the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center gastric, esophageal, and gastroesophageal junction cancer database. Associations between baseline characteristics and tumor and germline molecular alterations were compared between those with early-onset and average-onset esophagogastric cancer using Fisher exact tests and the Benjamini-Hochberg method for multiple-hypothesis correction. RESULTS: We included 1123 patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 219; median age = 43 years [range = 18-49 years]) and average-onset esophagogastric cancer (n = 904; median age = 67 years [range = 50-94 years]) treated between 2005 and 2018. The early-onset group had more women (39% vs 28%, P = .002). Patients with early-onset esophagogastric cancer were more likely to have a gastric primary site (64% vs 44%, P < .0001). The signet ring cell and/or diffuse type was 3 times more common in the early-onset esophagogastric cancer group (31% vs 9%, P < .0001). Early-onsite tumors were more frequently genomically stable (31% vs 18%, P = .0002) and unlikely to be microsatellite instability high (2% vs 7%, P = .003). After restricting to adenocarcinoma and signet ring cell and/or diffuse type carcinomas, we observed no difference in stage (P = .40) or overall survival from stage IV diagnosis (median = 22.7 vs 22.1 months, P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supported a preponderance of gastric primary disease sites, signet ring histology, and genomically stable molecular subtypes in early-onset esophagogastric cancer. Our findings highlight the need for further research to define the underlying pathogenesis and strategies for early detection and prevention.

Lung resection after initial nonoperative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to assess the outcomes of lung resection in patients with non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with nonoperative treatment and to identify prognostic factors associated with survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery (2010-2022) after initial nonoperative treatment at a single institution were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Exclusion criteria included metachronous cancer, planned neoadjuvant therapy, and surgery for diagnostic or palliative indications. Cox models were constructed for overall survival and event-free survival. Survival of patients with stage IV disease was compared with survival of a nonstudy cohort who did not undergo surgery. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients met the inclusion criteria. Initial clinical stage was early stage in 16%, locoregionally advanced in 25%, and metastatic in 59% of patients. The indication for surgery was recurrence in 18%, local persistent disease in 23%, oligoprogression in 22%, and local control of oligometastatic disease in 38% of patients. Grade 3 or greater complications occurred in 5% of patients; 90-day mortality was 3%. Three-year event-free survival and overall survival were 39% and 73%, respectively. Male sex and lymphovascular invasion were associated with shorter event-free survival and overall survival; younger age and prior radiation therapy were associated with shorter overall survival. Patients with stage IV disease who received salvage lung resection had better overall survival than similar patients who received subsequent systemic therapy and no surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected, heterogeneous population, lung resection after initial nonoperative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer was safe. Surgery as local consolidative therapy was associated with encouraging outcomes and should be considered for these patients.

Biologic versus synthetic prosthesis for chest wall reconstruction: a matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes between biologic and synthetic reconstructions after chest wall resection in a matched cohort. METHODS: All patients who underwent reconstruction after full-thickness chest wall resection from 2000 to 2022 were reviewed and stratified by prosthesis type (biologic or synthetic). Biologic prostheses were of biologic origin or were fully absorbable and incorporable. Integer matching was performed to reduce confounding. The study end point was surgical site complications requiring reoperation. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify associated risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 438 patients underwent prosthetic chest wall reconstruction (unmatched: biologic, n = 49; synthetic, n = 389; matched: biologic, n = 46; synthetic, n = 46). After matching, the median (interquartile range) defect size was 83 cm2 (50-142) for the biologic group and 90 cm2 (48-146) for the synthetic group (P = 0.97). Myocutaneous flaps were used in 33% of biologic reconstructions (n = 15) and 33% of synthetic reconstructions (n = 15) in the matched cohort (P = 0.99). The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic reconstructions in the unmatched (3 [6%] vs 29 [7%]; P = 0.99) and matched (2 [4%] vs 4 [9%]; P = 0.68) cohorts. On the multivariable analysis, operative time [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.01; P = 0.006] and operative blood loss (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI, 1.00-1.00]; P = 0.012) were associated with higher rates of surgical site complications requiring reoperation; microvascular free flaps (aOR = 0.03, 95% CI, 0.00-0.42; P = 0.024) were associated with lower rates. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of surgical site complications requiring reoperation was not significantly different between biologic and synthetic prostheses in chest wall reconstructions.

Prognostic value of circumferential radial margin involvement in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Residual tumor at the proximal or distal margin after esophagectomy is associated with worse survival outcomes; however, the significance of the circumferential resection margin (CRM) remains controversial. In this study, we sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of the CRM in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent esophagectomy for pathologic T3 esophageal cancer from 2000 to 2019. Patients were divided into three groups: CRM- (residual tumor >1 mm from the CRM), CRM-close (residual tumor >0 to 1 mm from the CRM), and CRM+ (residual tumor at the surgical CRM). CRM was also categorized and analyzed per the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) and College of American Pathologists (CAP) classifications. RESULTS: Of the 519 patients included, 351 (68%) had CRM-, 132 (25%) had CRM-close, and 36 (7%) had CRM+. CRM+ was associated with shorter disease-free survival [DFS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: hazard ratio (HR), 1.53 [95% CI, 1.03-2.28]; P =0.034] and overall survival (OS; CRM+ vs. CRM-: HR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.32-2.95]; P <0.001). Survival was not significantly different between CRM-close and CRM-. After adjustment for potential confounders, CAP+ was associated with poor oncologic outcomes (CAP+ vs. CAP-: DFS: HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.00-2.17]; P =0.050; OS: HR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.30-2.86]; P =0.001); RCP+ was not (RCP+ vs. RCP-: DFS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.97-1.52]; P =0.10; OS: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.96-1.54]; P =0.11). CONCLUSION: CRM status has critical prognostic significance for patients undergoing esophagectomy: CRM+ was associated with worse outcomes, and outcomes between CRM-close and CRM- were similar.

Unique Genomic Alterations and Microbial Profiles Identified in Patients With Gastric Cancer of African, European, and Asian Ancestry: A Novel Path for Precision Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Here, we characterize differences in the genetic and microbial profiles of GC in patients of African (AFR), European, and Asian ancestry. BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) is a heterogeneous disease with clinicopathologic variations due to a complex interplay of environmental and biological factors, which may affect disparities in oncologic outcomes.. METHODS: We identified 1042 patients with GC with next-generation sequencing data from an institutional Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets assay and the Cancer Genomic Atlas group. Genetic ancestry was inferred from markers captured by the Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets and the Cancer Genomic Atlas whole exome sequencing panels. Tumor microbial profiles were inferred from sequencing data using a validated microbiome bioinformatics pipeline. Genomic alterations and microbial profiles were compared among patients with GC of different ancestries. RESULTS: We assessed 8023 genomic alterations. The most frequently altered genes were TP53 , ARID1A , KRAS , ERBB2 , and CDH1 . Patients of AFR ancestry had a significantly higher rate of CCNE1 alterations and a lower rate of KRAS alterations ( P < 0.05), and patients of East Asian ancestry had a significantly lower rate of PI3K pathway alterations ( P < 0.05) compared with other ancestries. Microbial diversity and enrichment did not differ significantly across ancestry groups ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Distinct patterns of genomic alterations and variations in microbial profiles were identified in patients with GC of AFR, European, and Asian ancestry. Our findings of variation in the prevalence of clinically actionable tumor alterations among ancestry groups suggest that precision medicine can mitigate oncologic disparities.

The contribution of microvascular free flaps and pedicled flaps to successful chest wall surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Pedicled flaps (PFs) have historically served as the preferred option for reconstruction of large chest wall defects. More recently, the indications for microvascular-free flaps (MVFFs) have increased, particularly for defects in which PFs are inadequate or unavailable. We sought to compare oncologic and surgical outcomes between MVFFs and PFs in reconstructions of full-thickness chest wall defects. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent chest wall resection at our institution from 2000 to 2022. Patients were stratified by flap reconstruction. End points were defect size, rate of complete resection, rate of local recurrence, and postoperative outcomes. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with complications at 30 days. RESULTS: In total, 536 patients underwent chest wall resection, of whom 133 had flap reconstruction (MVFF, n = 28; PF, n = 105). The median (interquartile range) covered defect size was 172 cm2 (100-216 cm2) for patients receiving MVFF versus 109 cm2 (75-148 cm2) for patients receiving PF (P = .004). The rate of R0 resection was high in both groups (MVFF, 93% [n = 26]; PF, 86% [n = 90]; P = .5). The rate of local recurrence was 4% in MVFF patients (n = 1) versus 12% in PF patients (n = 13, P = .3). Postoperative complications were not statistically different between groups (odds ratio for PF, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-5.14]; P = .6). Operative time >400 minutes was associated with 30-day complications (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-9.93; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MVFFs had larger defects, a high rate of complete resection, and a low rate of local recurrence. MVFFs are a valid option for chest wall reconstructions.

Clinical value of second opinions in oncology: A retrospective review of changes in diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Data on the clinical value of second opinions in oncology are limited. We examined diagnostic and treatment changes resulting from second opinions and the expected impact on morbidity and prognosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients presenting in 2018 to a high-volume cancer center for second opinions about newly diagnosed colorectal, head and neck, lung, and myeloma cancers or abnormal results. Two sub-specialty physicians from each cancer type reviewed 30 medical records (120 total) using a process and detailed data collection guide meant to mitigate institutional bias. The primary outcome measure was the rate of treatment changes that were "clinically meaningful", i.e., expected to impact morbidity and/or prognosis. Among those with treatment changes, another outcome measure was the rate of clinically meaningful diagnostic changes that led to treatment change. RESULTS: Of 120 cases, forty-two had clinically meaningful changes in treatment with positive expected outcomes (7 colorectal, 17 head and neck, 11 lung, 7 myeloma; 23-57%). Two patients had negative expected outcomes from having sought a second opinion, with worse short-term morbidity and unchanged long-term morbidity and prognosis. All those with positive expected outcomes had improved expected morbidity (short- and/or long-term); 11 (0-23%) also had improved expected prognosis. Nine involved a shift from treatment to observation; 21 involved eliminating or reducing the extent of surgery, compared to 6 adding surgery or increasing its extent. Of the 42 with treatment changes, 13 were due to clinically meaningful diagnostic changes (1 colorectal, 5 head and neck, 3 lung, 4 myeloma; 3%-17%) . CONCLUSIONS: Second-opinion consultations sometimes add clinical value by improving expected prognoses; more often, they offer treatment de-escalations, with corresponding reductions in expected short- and/or long-term morbidity. Future research could identify subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from second opinions.

Durvalumab and PET-Directed Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Phase Ib/II Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of adding the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab to induction FOLFOX and preoperative chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant induction FOLFOX followed by positron emission tomography (PET) directed chemoradiation has demonstrated improved survival for esophageal adenocarcinoma. There is clear benefit now for the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors both in early and advanced stage disease. Given these results we investigated the safety and efficacy of adding durvalumab to induction FOLFOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma received PET-directed chemoradiation with durvalumab before esophagectomy. Patients who had R0 resections received adjuvant durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks for 6 treatments. The primary endpoint of the study was pathologic complete response. RESULTS: We enrolled 36 patients, 33 of whom completed all preoperative treatment and underwent surgery. Preoperative treatment was well tolerated, with no delays to surgery nor new safety signals. Pathologic complete response was identified in 8 [22% (1-sided 90% lower bound: 13.3%)] patients with major pathologic response in 22 [61% (1-sided 90% lower bound: 50%)] patients. Twelve and 24-month overall survival was 92% and 85%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of durvalumab to induction FOLFOX and PET-directed chemoradiotherapy before surgery is safe, with a high rate of pathologic response, as well as encouraging survival data.

Waiting to Operate: The Risk of Salvage Esophagectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative morbidity, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients treated with salvage esophagectomy (SE). BACKGROUND DATA: A shift toward a "surgery as needed" approach for esophageal cancer has emerged, potentially resulting in delayed esophagectomy. METHODS: We identified patients with clinical stage I-III esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma who underwent chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy from 2001 to 2019. SE was defined as esophagectomy performed >90 days after chemoradiation ("for time") and esophagectomy performed for recurrence after curative-intent chemoradiation ("for recurrence"). The odds of postoperative serious complications were assessed by multivariable logistic regression. The relationship between SE and OS and DFS were quantified using Cox regression models. RESULTS: Of 1137 patients identified, 173 (15%) underwent SE. Of those, 61 (35%) underwent SE for recurrence, and 112 (65%) underwent SE for time. The odds of experiencing any serious complication [odds ratio, 2.10 (95% CI, 1.37-3.20); P =0.001] or serious pulmonary complication [odds ratio, 2.11 (95% CI, 1.31-3.42); P =0.002] were 2-fold higher for SE patients; SE patients had a 1.5-fold higher hazard of death [hazard ratio, 1.56 (95% CI, 1.25-1.94); P <0.0001] and postoperative recurrence [hazard ratio, 1.43 (95% CI, 1.16-1.77); P =0.001]. Five-year OS for nonsalvage esophagectomy was 45% [(95% CI, 41.6%-48.6%) versus 26.5% (95% CI, 20.2%-34.8%) for SE (log-rank P <0.001)]. Five-year OS for SE for time was 27.1% [(95% CI, 19.5%-37.5%) versus 25.2% (95% CI, 15.3%-41.5%) for SE for recurrence ( P =0.611)]. CONCLUSIONS: SE is associated with a higher risk of serious postoperative complications and shorter DFS and OS.

Distinct Differences in Gastroesophageal Junction and Gastric Adenocarcinoma in 2194 Patients: In Memory of Rebecca A. Carr, February 24, 1988-January 19, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and gastric cancer (GC) and identify clinicopathological and oncological differences. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: GEJ cancer and GC are frequently studied together. Although the treatment approach for each often differs, clinico-pathological and oncological differences between the 2 have not been fully evaluated. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with GEJ cancer or GC who underwent R0 resection at our center between January 2000 and December 2016. Clinicopathological characteristics, disease-specific survival (DSS), and site of first recurrence were compared. RESULTS: In total, 2194 patients were analyzed: 1060 (48.3%) with GEJ cancer and 1134 (51.7%) with GC. Patients with GEJ cancer were younger (64 vs 66 years; P < 0.001), more often received neoadjuvant treatment (70.9% vs 30.2%; P < 0.001), and had lower pathological T and N status. Five-year DSS was 62.2% in patients with GEJ cancer and 74.6% in patients with GC ( P < 0.001). After adjustment for clinicopathological factors, DSS remained worse in patients with GEJ cancer (hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.26; P < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of recurrence was approximately 10% higher in patients with GEJ cancer ( P < 0.001). The site of first recurrence was more likely to be hematogenous in patients with GEJ cancer (60.1% vs 31.4%; P < 0.001) and peritoneal in patients with GC (52.9% vs 12.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GEJ adenocarcinoma is more aggressive, with a higher incidence of recurrence and worse DSS, compared with gastric adenocarcinoma. Distinct differences between GEJ cancer and GC, especially in patterns of recurrence, may affect evaluation of optimal treatment strategies.

Induction FOLFOX and PET-Directed Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of induction FOLFOX followed by PET-directed nCRT, induction CP followed by PET-directed nCRT, and nCRT with CP alone in patients with EAC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: nCRT with CP is a standard treatment for locally advanced EAC. The results of cancer and leukemia group B 80803 support the use of induction chemotherapy followed by PET-directed chemo-radiation therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients with EAC who underwent the treatments above followed by esophagectomy. We assessed incidences of pathologic complete response (pCR), near-pCR (ypN0 with ≥90% response), and surgical complications between treatment groups using Fisher exact test and logistic regression; disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and evaluated using the log-rank test and extended Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 451 patients were included: 309 (69%) received induction chemotherapy before nCRT (FOLFOX, n = 70; CP, n = 239); 142 (31%) received nCRT with CP. Rates of pCR (33% vs. 16%, P = 0.004), near-pCR (57% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), and 2-year DFS (68% vs. 50%, P = 0.01) were higher in the induction FOLFOX group than in the induction CP group. Similarly, the rate of near-pCR (57% vs. 42%, P = 0.04) and 2-year DFS (68% vs. 44%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the FOLFOX group than in the no-induction group. CONCLUSIONS: Induction FOLFOX followed by PET-directed nCRT may result in better histopathologic response rates and DFS than either induction CP plus PET-directed nCRT or nCRT with CP alone.