Nichols, Francis

Abstract Background Pneumatosis intestinalis has long been a marker of advanced bowel ischemia and prompts urgent laparotomy. In post-operative settings, the presence of pneumatosis represents a significant management dilemma. We share a case-series of post-esophagectomy patients with pneumatosis intestinalis and no corollary intra-abdominal pathologic findings on re-exploration. Methods January 2000 to December 2017, 1760 patients underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy or gastrectomy with jejunostomy-tube placement. Charts were reviewed retrospectively to identify patients with pneumatosis intestinalis discovered in the post-operative period. Demographic data, operative details and postoperative course were reviewed including incidence and details of re-exploration. Results Eleven patients met inclusion criteria. Nine were male (81.8%) and mean age was 69 years. All patients had radiographic confirmation of pneumatosis intestinalis and in many cases portal venous gas (Figure 1). Clinical course was variable without discernable trends in vitals or laboratory values. Development of significant postoperative ileus along with delivery of enteral tube feeds through a jejunostomy tube preceded development of the pneumatosis in all patients. Nine patients were re-explored and none had evidence of bowel ischemia. Conclusion The finding of pneumatosis intestinalis in the post-operative setting can be alarming and pose a management dilemma. With the advent of improved and readily available imaging, there has been an increase in findings that have no corollary physical symptomatology. In this series of patients, despite dramatic radiographic findings, none had ischemic bowel. Pneumatosis intestinalis alone in patients who have undergone esophagectomy should not be considered an indication for emergency re-exploration. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival difference in clinical T2N0 esophageal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) vs. upfront surgery. Methods Between 1/1/1995 to 12/31/2012, a prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients with cT2N0 esophageal adeno- and squamous cell carcinoma. Exclusion criteria included: lack of endoscopic esophageal ultrasonographic (EUS) staging, incomplete resection, and prior treatment with endoscopic mucosal or submucosal resection. Cox-proportional hazard ratios were used to compare the primary outcomes of overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included: rate of postoperative complications, rate of pathologic upstaging/response, and induction/adjuvant treatment completion rate. Pre-hoc subgroup analysis compared pathologically upstaged patients receiving upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy to those treated with neoadjuvant CRT. Results A total of 161 cT2N0 esophageal cancer patients were identified based on EUS staging. Upfront surgery was offered to 134 patients (83%), with 27 patients (17%) receiving induction CRT. Univariate analysis did not demonstrate any significant baseline differences between the two groups. In the upfront surgery group, 53 (39.6%), 28 (20.9%) and 53 (39.6%) patients were pathologically down-staged, accurately staged and upstaged respectively. Upstaging was higher in the upfront surgery group (53/134, 39.6% vs. 4/27, 14.8%; P = 0.02), while 11/27 (40.7%) patients receiving neoadjuvant CRT demonstrated complete pathologic response. Of those eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy, only 21/55 (38.2%) received treatment. In the neoadjuvant CRT group, 51.9% completed all planned therapy, compared to 23.6% of patients treated with upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.01). Cox proportional hazard ratio did not demonstrate an advantage to induction CRT in terms of OS (HR = 1.64, P = 0.43) or DFS (HR = 1.36, P = 0.69). In general, patients with pathologic upstaging had worse OS (HR = 2.73, P = 0.001) and DFS (HR = 4.18, P = 0.003). Conclusion EUS was only accurate in staging T2N0 patients in 20.9% of cases. While neoadjuvant CRT did not confer a survival advantage, these results likely reflect the low number of patients being referred for induction therapy. Neoadjuvant CRT was however associated with lower rates of pathologic upstaging and higher rates of treatment completion. Further research should evaluate the survival outcomes in pathologically upstaged cT2N0 patients not receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to analyze the induction therapy regimens employed since publication of CROSS Trial in patients treated with locally advanced EGJ cancer in terms of toxicity, complications, survival and recurrence. Methods Retrospective chart review all patients in single institution prospective database who had neoadjuvant CRT→Surgery 2012–2015. Complications during CRT and after surgery graded using National Cancer Institute CTCAE. Cox-proportion hazard ratios were used to compare the primary outcomes of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Results 288 patients, 237 men and 51 women were identified. 246 were adenocarcinoma, 38 squamous cell carcinoma, and 4 had other histologic types. 4 distinct neoadjuvant regimens were observed: 50.4 Gy radiation with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (N = 22), CROSS regimen (41.4 Gy with carboplatin & paclitaxel) (N = 44), 50.4 Gy with carboplatin and paclitaxel (N = 152), and ‘Other’ which include 27 distinct regimens (N = 70). There were no differences in treatment related complications or postoperative complications between regimens. There was no difference in pathologic complete response rate, OS, or DFS between regimens. Conclusion Since the publication of the CROSS Trial, there is a significant heterogenity in the neoadjuvant chemoradiation treatment regimen employed for patients with locally advanced EGJ tumors. Does not appear to be any differences in treatment related complications or postoperative complications between regimens. There was also no difference in pCR, overall survival or disease-free survival. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Purpose This brief report describes a planned, interim, 6-patient toxicity analysis that confirms the safety of pemetrexed, carboplatin, radiation with subsequent surgery, as prescribed in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial N044E, in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Methods Six patients with locally advanced, potentially resectable esophageal cancer received pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 and carboplatin AUC = 6 on days 1 and 22 with 5040 centigray of concomitant radiation in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks followed by esophagectomy as a prelude to a phase II multi-institutional trial. Results Only 1 of the 6 patients experienced a grade 4 adverse event (neutropenia). This patient also experienced a grade 3 depression. Of the remaining 5 patients, three experienced at least one grade 3 adverse event (neutropenia, nausea/vomiting, and esophagitis). There were no deaths. Incidentally, one patient manifested a complete pathologic response, three a partial pathologic response, and one stable disease. Conclusion These preliminary observations on safety suggest that this regimen can be further studied in this clinical setting.