Gasparri, Mario

Background/objectives: Improvements in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) treatment have reduced mortality. While chemoradiation before surgery was previously a standard of care, updated guidelines recommend peri-operative chemotherapy without chemoradiation. Continued investigation into optimal non-operative treatment paradigms for patients who defer surgery or are not candidates for surgery and certain chemotherapy regimens is needed. The impact of induction chemotherapy prior to chemoradiation on survival and surgical outcomes remains unclear. This study assessed survival and surgical outcomes in a real-world cohort of EAC patients receiving induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation. Methods: This single-institution, IRB-approved, retrospective cohort study included patients with newly diagnosed stage II-IVb (oligometastatic for IVb) EAC who received definitive chemoradiation (radiation ≥ 40 Gy and two cycles of chemotherapy) +/− esophagectomy from 2007 to 2022. Patients receiving induction chemotherapy were compared to those who did not. Endpoints included survival and surgical outcomes. Results: A total of 141 EAC patients received definitive chemoradiation; 83 received induction chemotherapy before chemoradiation. Patients receiving induction chemotherapy were younger (p < 0.01) with slightly lower performance status (p = 0.27) and presented at a more advanced stage (p < 0.001). Median OS was 3.5 years in the induction chemotherapy group compared to 2.2 years (p = 0.10). There was no difference in pathologic complete response (p = 0.81), esophagectomy frequency (p = 0.87), or surgical downstaging between treatment groups (p = 0.84). Conclusions: In this real-world, single-institutional patient cohort investigating induction chemotherapy prior to chemoradiation in EAC, patients receiving induction chemotherapy did well but did not have a statistically significant improvement in survival outcomes or surgical outcomes. This study showed that significant numbers of real-world patients may not receive esophagectomy. Thus, prospective, randomized clinical trials are warranted to better delineate the efficacy and selection of patients for induction chemotherapy when non-operative approaches are favored.

231 Background: Both peri-operative chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been shown to improve outcomes in patients (pts) with LA-GEJ CA compared to surgery alone. Rates of post-operative chemotherapy delivery remain suboptimal. Total neo-adjuvant therapy (TNT) in LA-GEJ CA - induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) - may improve systematic delivery of neoadjuvant therapy and result in favorable clinical outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 135 pts with LA-GEJ CA at our institution between 2/2007 and 11/2019; pertinent clinical data were abstracted with Institutional Review Board approval. Patients treated with IC and curative-intent CRT with ≥40 Gy dose of radiation for adenocarcinoma were included in this analysis (N = 59). Doublet or triplet IC regimens utilizing 5-Flurouracil(5-FU), Cisplatin/Oxaliplatin and Docetaxel were commonly administered while combinations of Carboplatin +Paclitaxel or 5-FU + Oxaliplatin were used in CRT. Clinical complete response (CCR) was defined as metabolic imaging and endoscopic biopsies negative for residual malignancy after completion of TNT. Patients were followed from diagnosis to recurrence and overall survival. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups using a log-rank test. Results: Out of 59 evaluable pts, 69% were clinical stage T3, 71% were node positive. 37 pts (63%) underwent surgery, R0 resection rate was 89% (33/37), pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was 19% (7/37). Among the pts who did not undergo surgery, 41% (9/22) opted to forego surgery since they attained a CCR. For the entire cohort, median Disease-Free Survival (mDFS), median Overall Survival (mOS), and 3-yr OS were 2.4 yrs, 4.7 yrs, and 67% respectively. Pts who did not undergo surgery had a mDFS, mOS, and 3-yr OS of 1.5 yrs, 4.2 yrs, and 59% respectively. Median DFS, mOS, and 3-yr OS of patients who underwent surgery were 3.5 yrs, 5.8 yrs and 72% respectively. Patients who achieved a CCR and opted to forego surgery (N = 9) had a 3 -yr DFS of 42% vs 83% for pts (N = 7) who demonstrated a pCR after curative intent tri-modality therapy. (P = 0.0099) Interestingly, the same group that achieved CCR and opted out of surgery had 3yr OS of 89% vs 83% of those who demonstrated a pCR (p = 0.0042). Conclusions: TNT for pts with LA-GEJ CA is associated with high rates of R0 resection as well as excellent DFS and OS compared to historical controls, warranting prospective evaluation. The remarkable DFS and OS in patients who opted to forego surgery due to achieving CCR is reflective of the local and systemic control rendered by this approach. Careful characterization and close longitudinal follow-up of patients who achieve CCR may help identify a subgroup of LA-GEJ CA pts who may benefit from surgery sparing approaches.

Abstract Rationale Less invasive, nonsurgical approaches are needed to treat severe emphysema. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) versus optimal medical management. Methods In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, subjects aged 40 years or older with severe, heterogeneous emphysema were randomized 2:1 to SVS with medical management (treatment) or medical management alone (control). Measurements and Main Results The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in mean FEV1 from baseline to 6 months. Secondary effectiveness outcomes included: difference in FEV1 responder rates, target lobe volume reduction, hyperinflation, health status, dyspnea, and exercise capacity. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of composite thoracic serious adverse events. All analyses were conducted by determining the 95% Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) for the difference between treatment and control arms. Between October 2013 and May 2017, 172 participants (53.5% male; mean age, 67.4 yr) were randomized to treatment (n = 113) or control (n = 59). Mean FEV1 showed statistically significant improvements between the treatment and control groups—between-group difference at 6 and 12 months, respectively, of 0.101 L (95% BCI, 0.060–0.141) and 0.099 L (95% BCI, 0.048–0.151). At 6 months, the treatment group had statistically significant improvements in all secondary endpoints except 6-minute-walk distance. Composite thoracic serious adverse event incidence through 6 months was greater in the treatment group (31.0% vs. 11.9%), primarily due to a 12.4% incidence of serious pneumothorax. Conclusions In patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema, the SVS shows significant improvement in multiple efficacy outcomes, with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).