Hofstetter, Wayne L.

Gastric cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improve survival, and enhance the quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies have demonstrated encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Gastric Cancer highlights recommendations for biomarker testing and discusses updates for the treatment of advanced disease, including peritoneal carcinoma as only disease and unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

Cancers originating in the esophagus or esophagogastric junction constitute a major global health problem. Esophageal cancers are histologically classified as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma, which differ in their etiology, pathology, tumor location, therapeutics, and prognosis. In contrast to esophageal adenocarcinoma, which usually affects the lower esophagus, esophageal SCC is more likely to localize at or higher than the tracheal bifurcation. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1, has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on the management of recurrent or metastatic disease.

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesPrecision medicine has altered the management of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the concordance of mutational findings between primary CRC tumors and associated pulmonary metastases (PM) is not well‐described. This study aims to determine the concordance of genomic profiles between primary CRC and PM.MethodsPatients treated for colorectal PM at a single institution from 2000 to 2017 were identified. Mutational concordance was defined as either both wild‐type or both mutant alleles in lung and colorectal lesion; genes with opposing mutational profiles were reported as discordant.ResultsThirty‐eight patients met inclusion criteria, among whom KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, MET, RET, and PIK3CA were examined for concordance. High concordance was demonstrated among all evaluated genes, ranging from 86% (KRAS) to 100% concordance (NRAS, RET, and MET). De novo KRAS mutations were detected in the PM of 4 from 35 (11%) patients, 3 of whom had previously received anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Evaluation of Cohen's κ statistic demonstrated moderate to perfect correlation among evaluated genes.ConclusionsBecause high intertumoral genomic homogeneity exists, it may be reasonable to use primary CRC mutational profiles to guide prognostication and targeted therapy for PM. However, the possibility of de novo KRAS‐mutant PM should be considered, particularly among patients previously treated with anti‐EGFR therapy.

Abstract Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histology in Eastern Europe and Asia, and adenocarcinoma is most common in North America and Western Europe. Surgery is a major component of treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer, and randomized trials have shown that the addition of preoperative chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy to surgery significantly improves survival. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with esophageal and EGJ cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on recommendations for the management of locally advanced and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and EGJ.

4519 Background: Tandem HDC with carbo/etoposide (CE) is curative for a portion of relapsed GCT pts. However, outcomes of refractory or high-risk relapsed pts remain poor. We tested a new HDC regimen of GemDMC, based on DNA damage repair inhibition. We combined BEV with HDC given their potential synergy and the high vascularity of GCT metastases. Methods: Eligibility: Intermediate (int)/high-risk (Beyer Model), creatinine ≤1.8 mg/dL and adequate organ function. HDC included BEV (5 mg/kg) preceding GemDMC (HDC #1) and ifosfamide/CE (ICE) (HDC #2). Following accrual of 42 pts, we amended the trial omitting BEV. The trial was powered to distinguish a target 50% 2-yr RFS from an expected 25% in this population. Results: We enrolled 69 male pts in cohorts 1 (BEV, N=42) and 2 (no BEV, N=27) (Table). Pts were heavily pretreated and most had refractory tumors. Main AE: mucositis and renal (4 HDC-related deaths in cohort 1, 1 in cohort 2). Tumor markers normalized in 90% pts with active tumors at HDC. After HDC, 19 pts were in CR and 28 in PRm- (of these, 22 had residual lesions resected with no viable tumor found in 20/22, 2 xRT, 4 monitored). Median f/u = 39 (2-105) mo. The 2-yr RFS rates in cohorts 1 and 2 = 52% and 78%, respectively. Their respective 2-yr OS rates = 55% and 81%. Conclusions: Sequential HDC with GemDMC–ICE shows encouraging outcomes in heavily pretreated and refractory GCT, exceeding the anticipated results. Addition of BEV increases toxicity but not tumor control. Clinical trial information: NCT00936936. [Table: see text]

Objective: To determine the impact of histology on pathologic response, survival outcomes, and recurrence patterns in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Summary of Background Data: There is a paucity of data regarding comparative outcomes after neoadjuvant CRT between esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma. Methods: Between 2002 and 2015, 895 EC patients who underwent neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy at 3 academic institutions were retrospectively reviewed, including 207 patients with SCC (23.1%) and 688 patients with adenocarcinoma (76.9%). Pathologic response, survival, recurrence pattern, and potential prognostic factors were compared. Results: Pathologic complete response (pCR) rate was significantly higher for SCC compared with adenocarcinoma (44.9% vs 25.9%, P < 0.001). After a median follow-up of 52.9 months, 71 patients (34.3%) with SCC versus 297 patients (43.2%) with adenocarcinoma had recurrent disease (P = 0.023). For patients who achieved a pCR, no significant differences were found in recurrence pattern, sites, or survival end-points between the 2 histology groups. For non-pCR patients, the SCC group demonstrated significantly higher regional and supraclavicular recurrence rates but a lower hematogenous metastasis rate than adenocarcinoma patients, whereas the adenocarcinoma patients had a more favorable locoregional failure-free survival (P = 0.005) and worse distant metastasis-free survival (P = 0.024). No differences were found in overall survival (P = 0.772) or recurrence-free survival (P = 0.696) between groups. Conclusions: SCC was associated with a significantly higher pCR rate than adenocarcinoma. Recurrence pattern and survival outcomes were significantly different between the 2 histology subtypes in non-pCR patients.

Objective: To discern recurrence risk stratification and investigate its influence on postoperative surveillance in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Background: Reports documenting recurrence risk stratification in EAC after neoadjuvant CRT are scarce. Methods: Between 1998 and 2014, 601 patients with EAC who underwent neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy were included for analysis. The pattern, site, timing, and frequency of the first recurrence and potential prognostic factors for developing recurrences were analyzed. This cohort was used as the training set to propose a recurrence risk stratification system, and the stratification was further validated in another cohort of 172 patients. Results: A total of 150 patients (25.0%) achieved pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant CRT and the rest were defined as the non-pCR group (n = 451) in the training cohort. After a median follow-up of 63.6 months, the pCR group demonstrated a significantly lower locoregional (4.7% vs 19.1%) and distant recurrence rate (22.0% vs.44.6%) than the non-pCR group (P < 0.001). Based on independent prognostic factors, patients were stratified into 4 recurrence risk categories: pCR with clinical stage I/II, pCR with clinical stage III, non-pCR with pN0, and non-pCR with pN+, with corresponding 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of 88.7%, 65.8%, 55.3%, and 33.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). The risk stratification was reproducible in the validation cohort. Conclusions: We proposed a recurrence risk stratification system for EAC patients based on pathologic response and pretreatment clinical stage. Risk-based postoperative surveillance strategies could be developed for different risk categories.

7 Background: The organ preserving strategy of selective esophageal resection after definitive chemoradiation was evaluated in a multi-center, prospective Phase II trial. Methods: Treatment involved induction chemotherapy with 5-FU (650 mg/mg2/d), cisplatin (15 mg/mg2/d) and paclitaxel (200 mg/mg2/d) for 2 cycles followed by concurrent chemoradiation with 50.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fx) and daily 5-FU (300 mg/mg2/d) with cisplatin (15 mg/mg2/d) over the first 5 days. Following definitive chemoradiation, pts were evaluated for residual locoregional disease with chest and abdominal CT scans, EUS and optional PET scans. If there was no suspected residual disease patients were observed and monitored serially for recurrent disease at 3 mos x 2, 6 mos x 3 and then yrly. Esophageal resection was considered only for pts with suspected residual or recurrent locoregional esophageal cancer that did not have systemic disease. Results: 43 pts from Sept 2003 to March 2006 with non-metastatic resectable esophageal cancer were entered from 19 sites to RTOG 0246. 41 pts were eligible for analysis. 29 pts (73%) were adenocarcinoma histology with pretreatment clinical stage T3 or greater in 31 pts (76%) and N1 in 29 pts (71%). Following induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation 3 pts (7.3%) died of treatment related deaths and 1 pt died of disease progression. 21 pts (51%) underwent surgical resection following chemoradiation because of suspected residual disease 17 pts (41%), pt choice (1) or recurrent locoregional disease 3 pts (7%). 1 pt died postoperatively from esophageal anastomotic leak. 11 pts (27%) are alive and free of disease 70 to 90 months after chemoradiation, of which 5 (12%) did not have esophagectomy. With a median follow-up of 6.7 yrs (for 16 alive pts), the estimated overall 2.5 and 5-year survival rates (95% CI) are 46.3% (30.7%-60.6%) and 36.6% (22.3%-51.0%). Conclusions: The long-term results from this multi-center, prospective Phase II trial demonstrates the efficacy of a selective surgical resection approach following definitive chemoradiation in a predominantly adenocarcinoma population of locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT00081289.