Case-control analysis on metformin and cancer of the esophagus

PURPOSE Metformin use has been associated with decreased cancer risks, though data on esophageal cancer are scarce. We explored the relation between use of metformin or other anti-diabetic drugs and the risk of esophageal cancer. METHODS We conducted a case-control analysis in the UK-based general practice research database (GPRD, now clinical practice research datalink, CPRD). Cases were individuals with an incident diagnosis of esophageal cancer between 1994 and 2010 at age 40-89 years. Ten controls per case were matched on age, sex, calendar time, general practice, and number of years of active history in the GPRD prior to the index date. Various potential confounders including diabetes mellitus, gastro-esophageal reflux, and use of proton-pump inhibitors were evaluated in univariate models, and the final results were adjusted for BMI and smoking. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS Long-term use (≥30 prescriptions) of metformin was not associated with a materially altered risk of esophageal cancer (adj. OR 1.23, 95 % CI 0.92-1.65), nor was long-term use of sulfonylureas (adj. OR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.70-1.23), insulin (adj. OR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.60-1.25), or of thiazolidinediones (adj. OR 0.71, 95 % CI 0.37-1.36). CONCLUSION In our population-based study, use of metformin was not associated with an altered risk of esophageal cancer.

Tumor classification of six common cancer types based on proteomic profiling by MALDI imaging

In clinical diagnostics, it is of outmost importance to correctly identify the source of a metastatic tumor, especially if no apparent primary tumor is present. Tissue-based proteomics might allow correct tumor classification. As a result, we performed MALDI imaging to generate proteomic signatures for different tumors. These signatures were used to classify common cancer types. At first, a cohort comprised of tissue samples from six adenocarcinoma entities located at different organ sites (esophagus, breast, colon, liver, stomach, thyroid gland, n = 171) was classified using two algorithms for a training and test set. For the test set, Support Vector Machine and Random Forest yielded overall accuracies of 82.74 and 81.18%, respectively. Then, colon cancer liver metastasis samples (n = 19) were introduced into the classification. The liver metastasis samples could be discriminated with high accuracy from primary tumors of colon cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma. Additionally, colon cancer liver metastasis samples could be successfully classified by using colon cancer primary tumor samples for the training of the classifier. These findings demonstrate that MALDI imaging-derived proteomic classifiers can discriminate between different tumor types at different organ sites and in the same site.

Autofluorescence endoscopy in surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter randomized trial on diagnostic efficacy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The reference surveillance method in patients with Barrett's esophagus is careful endoscopic observation, with targeted as well as random four-quadrant biopsies. Autofluorescence endoscopy (AFE) may make it easier to locate neoplasia. The aim of this study was to elucidate the diagnostic accuracy of surveillance with AFE-guided plus four-quadrant biopsies in comparison with the conventional approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 187 of 200 consecutive Barrett's esophagus patients who were initially enrolled (73 % male, mean age 67 years, mean Barrett's segment length 4.6 cm), who underwent endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus in four study centers, were randomly assigned to undergo either AFE-targeted biopsy followed by four-quadrant biopsies or conventional endoscopic surveillance, also including four-quadrant biopsies (study phase 1). After exclusion of patients with early cancer or high-grade dysplasia, who underwent endoscopic or surgical treatment, as well as those who declined to participate in phase 2 of the study, 130 patients remained. These patients were examined again with the alternative method after a mean of 10 weeks, using the same methods described. The main study parameter was the detection of early cancer/adenocarcinoma or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), comparing both approaches in study phase 1; the secondary study aim in phase 2 was to assess the additional value of the AFE-guided approach after conventional surveillance, and vice versa. Test accuracy measures were derived from study phase 1. RESULTS: In study phase 1, the AFE and conventional approaches yielded adenocarcinoma/HGD rates of 12 % and 5.3 %, respectively, on a per-patient basis. With AFE, four previously unrecognized adenocarcinoma/HGD lesions were identified (4.3 % of the patients); with the conventional approach, one new lesion (1.1 %) was identified. Of the 19 adenocarcinoma/HGD lesions detected during AFE endoscopy in study phase 1, eight were visualized, while 11 were only detected using untargeted four-quadrant biopsies (sensitivity 42 %). Of the 766 biopsies classified at histology as being nonneoplastic, 58 appeared suspicious (specificity 92 %, positive predictive value 12 %, negative predictive value 98.5 %). In study phase 2, AFE detected two further lesions in addition to the initial alternative approach in 3.2 % of cases, in comparison with one lesion with conventional endoscopy (1.7 %). CONCLUSIONS: In this referral Barrett's esophagus population with a higher prevalence of neoplastic lesions, the AFE-guided approach improved the diagnostic yield for neoplasia in comparison with the conventional approach using four-quadrant biopsies. However, AFE alone was not suitable for replacing the standard four-quadrant biopsy protocol.

Is a change in patient-reported dysphagia after induction chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer a predictive factor for pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation?

GOALS OF WORK: In patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, only those responding to the treatment ultimately benefit from preoperative chemoradiation. We investigated whether changes in subjective dysphagia or eating restrictions after two cycles of induction chemotherapy can predict histopathological tumor response observed after chemoradiation. In addition, we examined general long-term quality of life (QoL) and, in particular, eating restrictions after esophagectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable, locally advanced squamous cell- or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus were treated with two cycles of chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery. They were asked to complete the EORTC oesophageal-specific QoL module (EORTC QLQ-OES24), and linear analogue self-assessment QoL indicators, before and during neoadjuvant therapy and quarterly until 1 year postoperatively. A median change of at least eight points was considered as clinically meaningful. MAIN RESULTS: Clinically meaningful improvements in the median scores for dysphagia and eating restrictions were found during induction chemotherapy. These improvements were not associated with a histopathological response observed after chemoradiation, but enhanced treatment compliance. Postoperatively, dysphagia scores remained low at 1 year, while eating restrictions persisted more frequently in patients with extended transthoracic resection compared to those with limited transhiatal resection. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement of dysphagia and eating restrictions after induction chemotherapy did not predict tumor response observed after chemoradiation. One year after esophagectomy, dysphagia was a minor problem, and global QoL was rather good. Eating restrictions persisted depending on the surgical technique used.

Trends and outcomes in the use of surgery and radiation for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer: a propensity score adjusted analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registry from 1998 to 2008

We examined outcomes and trends in surgery and radiation use for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, for whom optimal treatment isn't clear. Trends in surgery and radiation for patients with T1-T3N1M0 squamous cell or adenocarcinoma of the mid or distal esophagus in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 1998 to 2008 were analyzed using generalized linear models including year as predictor; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results doesn't record chemotherapy data. Local treatment was unimodal if patients had only surgery or radiation and bimodal if they had both. Five-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using propensity-score adjusted Cox proportional-hazard models. Overall 5-year survival for the 3295 patients identified (mean age 65.1 years, standard deviation 11.0) was 18.9% (95% confidence interval: 17.3-20.7). Local treatment was bimodal for 1274 (38.7%) and unimodal for 2021 (61.3%) patients; 1325 (40.2%) had radiation alone and 696 (21.1%) underwent only surgery. The use of bimodal therapy (32.8-42.5%, P = 0.01) and radiation alone (29.3-44.5%, P < 0.001) increased significantly from 1998 to 2008. Bimodal therapy predicted improved CSS (hazard ratios [HR]: 0.68, P < 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.58, P < 0.001) compared with unimodal therapy. For the first 7 months (before survival curve crossing), CSS after radiation therapy alone was similar to surgery alone (HR: 0.86, P = 0.12) while OS was worse for surgery only (HR: 0.70, P = 0.001). However, worse CSS (HR: 1.43, P < 0.001) and OS (HR: 1.46, P < 0.001) after that initial timeframe were found for radiation therapy only. The use of radiation to treat locally advanced mid and distal esophageal cancers increased from 1998 to 2008. Survival was best when both surgery and radiation were used.

Heat Shock Protein 90 (HSP90) and Her2 in Adenocarcinomas of the Esophagus.

Her2 overexpression and amplification can be found in a significant subset of esophageal adenocarcinomas. The activity of Her2 has been shown to be modulated by molecular chaperones such as HSP90. We analyzed expression/amplification data for HSP90 and Her2 on 127 primary resected esophageal adenocarcinomas in order to evaluate a possible relationship between these two molecules. HSP90 expression determined by immunohistochemistry was observed in various levels. Thirty nine (39) tumors (30.7%) were classified as Her2-positive according to their immunoreactivity and amplification status. There was a significant correlation between HSP90 expression and Her2-status (p = 0.008). This could also be demonstrated by quantitative protein expression analysis with reverse phase protein arrays (r = 0.9; p < 0.001). Her2-status was associated withpT-category (p = 0.041), lymph node metastases (p = 0.049) and tumor differentiation (p = 0.036) with a higher percentage of cases with negative Her2 status in lower tumor stagesA negative Her2-status was also associated with better survival in univariate and multivariate analysis (p = 0.001 and p = 0.014). For HSP90, no associations between clinical and pathological parameters were found. The observed association between HSP90 expression and Her2 suggests a co-regulation of these molecules in at least a subset of esophageal adenocarcinomas. Anti-HSP90 drugs, which recently have been introduced in cancer treatment, may also be an option for these tumors by targeting HSP90 alone or in combination with Her2.

A retrospective comparative exploratory study on two methylentetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) polymorphisms in esophagogastric cancer: the A1298C MTHFR polymorphism is an independent prognostic factor only in neoadjuvantly treated gastric cancer patients.

BACKGROUND Methylentetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) plays a major role in folate metabolism and consequently could be an important factor for the efficacy of a treatment with 5-fluorouracil. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of two well characterized constitutional MTHFR gene polymorphisms for primarily resected and neoadjuvantly treated esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. METHODS 569 patients from two centers were analyzed (gastric cancer: 218, carcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG II, III): 208 and esophagus (AEG I): 143). 369 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery, 200 patients were resected without preoperative treatment. The MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms were determined in DNA from peripheral blood lymphozytes. Associations with prognosis, response and clinicopathological factors were analyzed retrospectively within a prospective database (chi-square, log-rank, cox regression). RESULTS Only the MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms had prognostic relevance in neoadjuvantly treated patients but it was not a predictor for response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The AC genotype of the MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms was significantly associated with worse outcome (p = 0.02, HR 1.47 (1.06-2.04). If neoadjuvantly treated patients were analyzed based on their tumor localization, the AC genotype of the MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms was a significant negative prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer according to UICC 6th edition (gastric cancer including AEG type II, III: HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-2.0, p = 0.001) and 7th edition (gastric cancer without AEG II, III: HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.7, p = 0.003), not for AEG I. For both definitions of gastric cancer the AC genotype was confirmed as an independent negative prognostic factor in cox regression analysis. In primarily resected patients neither the MTHFR A1298C nor the MTHFR C677T polymorphisms had prognostic impact. CONCLUSIONS The MTHFR A1298C polymorphisms was an independent prognostic factor in patients with neoadjuvantly treated gastric adenocarcinomas (according to both UICC 6th or 7th definitions for gastric cancer) but not in AEG I nor in primarily resected patients, which confirms the impact of this enzyme on chemotherapy associated outcome.

Coping with esophageal cancer approaches worldwide.

The following, from the 12th OESO World Conference: Cancers of the Esophagus, includes commentaries on approaches to the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of esophageal cancer in Europe, South Africa, Kenya, Australia, and China; the molecular classification of esophageal cancers (including cancers at the gastroesophageal junction); the Japanese classification; the scope of the Human Variome Project; and the topographic-anatomic subclassification of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction.