Prognoses in Pathologically Confirmed T1 Lower Rectal Cancer Patients with or without Preoperative Therapy: An Analysis Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database

Introduction Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard therapy for downstaging in locally advanced lower rectal cancer. However, it remains unclear whether rectal cancers down-staged by preoperative therapy show similar prognoses to those of the same stage without preoperative therapy. We previously demonstrated that preoperative CRT did not affect prognosis of rectal cancer with pathological T1N0 (pT1N0) stage in a single institute. Here, using a larger dataset, we compared prognoses of (y)pT1 rectal cancer stratified by the use of preoperative therapy and analyzed prognostic factors. Methods Cases of pT1N0 rectal cancer, registered between 2004 and 2016, were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were categorized as the ‘ypT1 group’ if they had undergone preoperative therapy before surgery or as the ‘pT1 group’ if they had undergone surgery alone. overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) between these groups of patients was compared. Factors associated with CSS and OS were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results Among 3,757 eligible patients, ypT1 and pT1 groups comprised 720 and 3,037 patients, respectively. While ypT1 patients showed poorer CSS than ypT1 patients, there was no significant difference in OS. Preoperative therapy was not an independent prognostic factor for CSS or OS. Multivariate analysis identified age and histological type as significant factors associated with CSS. Sex, age, race, and number of lymph nodes dissected were identified as significant factors associated with OS. Conclusions Prognosis among patients with (y)p T1N0 rectal cancer was similar irrespective of whether they underwent preoperative therapy, which is consistent with our previous observations.

Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients Got PCR After Chemoradiotherapy May Have Better Survival Outcomes: A Retrospective Analysis of 246 Patients.

Objective: To investigate whether the locally advanced rectal cancer patients who got a pathological complete response after neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy have a better survival. Methods: From January 1 2014 to January 1 2018, the clinical information of locally advanced rectal cancer patients who underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy were collected for a retrospective analysis. Then a telephone follow-up visit was done to get the patients’ survival information of progression-free survival and overall survival. At last the information was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank test and cox-regression analysis. Results: The clinical information of 246 locally advanced rectal cancer patients were collected and analyzed, which shows that the PCR rate after chemoradiotherapy was 20.3% in these patients. There were correlations between pathological grade(grade III-IV Vs. I-II, P=0.001), CRM invasion(positive Vs. negative, P=0.001), clinical T stage(T4 Vs. T1-3, P=0.000), PCR status(PCR Vs. Non-PCR, P=0.027), downstage after preoperative therapy(yes Vs. not, P=0.009) and PFS. Similarly, age(≤60 Vs. >60, P=0.000), pathological grade(grade III-IV Vs. I-II, P=0.016), EMVI status(positive Vs. negative, P=0.005), CRM invasion(positive Vs. negative, P=0.000), clinical T stage(T4 Vs. T1-3, P=0.000), clinical N stage(N0-1 Vs. N2, P=0.013), PCR status(PCR Vs. Non-PCR, P=0.010), downstage after preoperative therapy(yes Vs. not, P=0.002) were associated with the OS. After the Cox-regression analyses, the responses after preoperative therapy or T4 tumors were identified as the prognostic factors that affected PFS and OS. Conclusions: The PCR rate after chemoradiotherapy was 20.3% in locally advanced rectal patients. Stage T1-3, better response after chemoradiotherapy tumors (PCR or downstage) might have a better survival outcome.

Communicating the Information Needed for Treatment Decision Making Among Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Preoperative Therapy

PURPOSE: Preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer represents a new treatment option with the potential to improve outcomes for patients, yet with complex risks. By not discussing the potential risks and benefits of new treatment options, clinicians may hinder patients from making informed decisions. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, we conducted a mixed-methods study. First, we elicited clinicians' (n = 13 medical, radiation, and surgery clinicians), patients' (n = 18), and caregivers' (n = 14) perceptions of information needed for decision making regarding preoperative therapy and generated a list of key elements. Next, we audio-recorded patients' (n = 20) initial multidisciplinary oncology visits and used qualitative content analyses to describe how clinicians discussed this information and surveyed patients to ask if they heard each key element. RESULTS: We identified 13 key elements of information patients need when making decisions regarding preoperative therapy, including treatment complications, alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes. Patients reported hearing infrequently about complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 3 of 20]) and alternatives (n = 8 of 20) but frequently recalled logistics and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 19 of 20]). Clinicians infrequently discussed complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 7 of 20]), but frequently discussed alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 20 of 20]). No overarching differences in clinician discussion content emerged to explain why patients did or did not hear about each key element. CONCLUSION: We identified key elements of information patients with pancreatic cancer need when considering preoperative therapy. Patients infrequently heard about treatment complications and alternatives, while frequently hearing about logistics and potential outcomes, underscoring areas for improvement in educating patients about new treatment options in oncology.

72 PHASE II ADJUVANT CANCER-SPECIFIC VACCINE THERAPY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER PATIENTS CURATIVELY RESECTED AFTER PREOPERATIVE THERAPY WITH PATHOLOGICALLY POSITIVE NODES

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients with pathologically positive nodes have a high risk for postoperative recurrence, despite curative resection after preoperative therapy. Subclinical micrometastases are an appropriate target for cancer vaccine. To elucidate the efficacy of adjuvant vaccine monotherapy using three HLA-A*24-restricted tumor-specific peptide antigens for ESCC, up-regulated lung cancer 10, cell division cycle associated 1 and KH domain-containing protein overexpressed in cancer 1, we conducted an exploratory prospective phase II clinical trial (UMIN000003557). Methods Patients with ESCC who underwent curative resection after preoperative therapy and were found pathologically positive lymph node metastasis were enrolled from December 2009 to September 2014 and allocated into the control and vaccine groups (CG and VG) based on the HLA-A*2402 positive or negative. One mg each of three epitope peptides mixed with 1 mL of Montanide ISA 51 VG was administered the first 10weekly injections followed by 10 additional biweekly injections to VG. No other adjuvant therapy was given until recurrence occurred. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) and the secondary endpoint was esophageal cancer-specific survival (ECSS). Results Thirty were in the CG and 33 in the VG. No significant difference was observed in RFS between the CG and VG (5-year RFS: 32.5% vs. 45.3%, p = 0.205 (one-sided)), but the recurrence rate significantly decreased with the number of peptides which induced antigen-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes. The VG showed a significantly higher 5-year ECSS than the CG (60.0% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.045 (one-sided)) probably due to the better clinical responses in patients of the VG to the post-recurrence therapy and this difference was more prominent in patients with CD8+ and programmed death-ligand 1 double negative tumor (68.0% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.010 (two-sided)). Conclusion Our results suggested that the cancer peptide vaccine suppressed the postoperative recurrence, enhanced the post-recurrence therapy and improved the survival of ESCC patients, particularly in the cases without CD8 infiltration and PD-L1 expression. A phase III randomized controlled study has been conducted in response to these results, and the results are waiting to be published.

Prognostic Function of Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients Without Preoperative Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundStudies investigating the correlation between the expression of programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and prognosis in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) not receiving preoperative therapy have increased significantly, but conclusions remain inconclusive. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the association between clinical outcomes and expression of PD-L1 in ESCC patients without preoperative therapy.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search using four databases up to May 2020. Quality assessment was carried out according to the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Hazard ratios (HRs) were used to analyze the association between PD-L1 expression with prognosis. Furthermore, we evaluated the correlation between PD-L1 and clinicopathological characteristics using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsTwenty studies (19 publications) comprising 3,677 patients were included in this meta-analysis. We found that the expression of PD-L1 was not related to overall survival (OS, HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.94–1.42, p = 0.16) or disease-free survival (DFS, HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.66–1.10, p = 0.21) in ESCC. Furthermore, although PD-L1 expression was not significantly associated with sex, degree of differentiation, TNM stage, T stage, lymph node status, smoking, or alcohol use, the merged OR demonstrated that the expression of PD-L1 was higher in older patients compared to younger patients (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.07–1.83, p = 0.01). No obvious publication bias was observed.ConclusionsOur present study illustrated that PD-L1 expression was not related to poor prognosis of ESCC patients not receiving preoperative therapy, albeit the association only showed a tendency for statistical significance. Notably, PD−L1 expression showed a significant association with age. This meta-analysis had several limitations; therefore, our results need to be verified through further large-scale and prospective studies.

Impact of preoperative therapy for locally advanced thoracic esophageal cancer on the risk of perioperative complications: Results from multicenter phase III trial JCOG 1109.

162 Background: We have conducted randomized three-arm phase III trial comparing cisplatin plus 5-FU (CF) versus docetaxel plus CF (DCF) versus radiation with CF (CF-RT) as preoperative therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer, which is on-follow-up for primary analysis planned in 2023 (JCOG 1109). This study aimed to evaluate the influence of preoperative therapies on perioperative complications and risk factors for perioperative complications after three-arm preoperative therapies. Methods: Patients with potentially resectable advanced thoracic esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to three preoperative therapies and followed by open or thoracoscopic esophagectomy with regional lymphadenectomy. Clinical data, surgical results, and perioperative complications in the patients received DCF and CF-RT were compared with those in the patients received CF. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the risk factors of perioperative complications. Results: Between December 2012 and July 2018, 601 patients were randomized (CF/DCF/CF-RT; 199/202/200). Of 589 eligible patients, 546 patients underwent surgery (185/183/178). Patients` characteristics were not different between arms. Median number of harvested lymph node in patients received CF-RT was significantly lower than that in patients received CF (49 vs. 58; P < 0.0001). Incidence of ≥ Grade 2 perioperative complications in patients received DCF was lower than that in patients received CF (44.8% vs. 56.2%; P = 0.036). Incidence of ≥ Grade 2 chylothorax in patients received CF-RT was higher than that in patients received CF (5.1% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.032). Incidence of reoperation and intra-hospital death in patients received DCF and CF-RT did not differ from that in patients received CF. Multivariate analysis showed that operation time (≥ median) and open esophagectomy were independently associated with an increase in ≥ Grade 2 perioperative complications. CF-RT was associated with an increase in occurrence of ≥ Grade 2 chylothorax (Relative Risk 4.84; P = 0.043). Conclusions: Preoperative DCF and CF-RT does not increase the risk of perioperative complications and mortality when compared with standard preoperative CF therapy, but CF-RT increases the risk of chylothorax after esophagectomy for advanced thoracic esophageal cancer.