Influence of Different Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Regimens on Response, Prognosis, and Complication Rate in Patients with Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND Perioperative chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer, but the optimal treatment regimen remains unclear. More intensive chemotherapy may improve outcome, but also increase toxicity and complications. METHODS A total of 843 patients were included in this retrospective study and stratified in 4 groups: doublet therapy with cisplatin or oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (groups A/B) or triplet therapy with additional epirubicin or taxane (groups C/D). The influence of the different neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens on response, prognosis, and complications was assessed. RESULTS Clinical and pathological response were associated with longer overall survival (OS; p < 0.001). No significant differences regarding response or OS were found, but there was a trend toward better outcome in group D (taxane-containing triplet). In the subgroup of 669 patients with adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG), patients who had received taxane-containing regimens had a significantly longer OS (p = 0.037), but taxane use was not an independent factor in multivariate analysis. Triple therapy with taxanes did not result in a higher complication rate or postoperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS Although no superior neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen was identified for patients with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, taxane-containing regimens should be further investigated in randomized trials, especially in patients with AEG tumors.

Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Computational Risk Analysis.

BACKGROUND Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a noninvasive breast lesion with uncertain risk for invasive progression. Usual care (UC) for DCIS consists of treatment upon diagnosis, thus potentially overtreating patients with low propensity for progression. One strategy to reduce overtreatment is active surveillance (AS), whereby DCIS is treated only upon detection of invasive disease. Our goal was to perform a quantitative evaluation of outcomes following an AS strategy for DCIS. METHODS Age-stratified, 10-year disease-specific cumulative mortality (DSCM) for AS was calculated using a computational risk projection model based upon published estimates for natural history parameters, and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data for outcomes. AS projections were compared with the DSCM for patients who received UC. To quantify the propagation of parameter uncertainty, a 95% projection range (PR) was computed, and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS Under the assumption that AS cannot outperform UC, the projected median differences in 10-year DSCM between AS and UC when diagnosed at ages 40, 55, and 70 years were 2.6% (PR = 1.4%-5.1%), 1.5% (PR = 0.5%-3.5%), and 0.6% (PR = 0.0%-2.4), respectively. Corresponding median numbers of patients needed to treat to avert one breast cancer death were 38.3 (PR = 19.7-69.9), 67.3 (PR = 28.7-211.4), and 157.2 (PR = 41.1-3872.8), respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that the parameter with greatest impact on DSCM was the probability of understaging invasive cancer at diagnosis. CONCLUSION AS could be a viable management strategy for carefully selected DCIS patients, particularly among older age groups and those with substantial competing mortality risks. The effectiveness of AS could be markedly improved by reducing the rate of understaging.

Trends in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

BACKGROUND Impact of contemporary treatment of pre-invasive breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]) on long-term outcomes remains poorly defined. We aimed to evaluate national treatment trends for DCIS and to determine their impact on disease-specific (DSS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry was queried for patients diagnosed with DCIS from 1991 to 2010. Treatment pattern trends were analyzed using Cochran-Armitage trend test. Survival analyses were performed using inverse probability weights (IPW)-adjusted competing risk analyses for DSS and Cox proportional hazard regression for OS. All tests performed were two-sided. RESULTS One hundred twenty-one thousand and eighty DCIS patients were identified. The greatest proportion of patients was treated with lumpectomy and radiation therapy (43.0%), followed by lumpectomy alone (26.5%) and unilateral (23.8%) or bilateral mastectomy (4.5%) with significant shifts over time. The rate of sentinel lymph node biopsy increased from 9.7% to 67.1% for mastectomy and from 1.4% to 17.8% for lumpectomy. Compared with mastectomy, OS was higher for lumpectomy with radiation (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.83, P < .001) and lower for lumpectomy alone (HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.23, P < .001). IPW-adjusted ten-year DSS was highest in lumpectomy with XRT (98.9%), followed by mastectomy (98.5%), and lumpectomy alone (98.4%). CONCLUSIONS We identified substantial shifts in treatment patterns for DCIS from 1991 to 2010. When outcomes between locoregional treatment options were compared, we observed greater differences in OS than DSS, likely reflecting both a prevailing patient selection bias as well as clinically negligible differences in breast cancer outcomes between groups.