| 1. |
- Nilsson, Magnus, et al.
(författare)
-
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Surgery for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Versus Definitive Chemoradiotherapy With Salvage Surgery as Needed : The Study Protocol for the Randomized Controlled NEEDS Trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Oncology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 2234-943X. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The globally dominant treatment with curative intent for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with subsequent esophagectomy. This multimodal treatment leads to around 60% overall 5-year survival, yet with impaired post-surgical quality of life. Observational studies indicate that curatively intended chemoradiotherapy, so-called definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) followed by surveillance of the primary tumor site and regional lymph node stations and surgery only when needed to ensure local tumor control, may lead to similar survival as nCRT with surgery, but with considerably less impairment of quality of life. This trial aims to demonstrate that dCRT, with selectively performed salvage esophagectomy only when needed to achieve locoregional tumor control, is non-inferior regarding overall survival, and superior regarding health-related quality of life (HRQOL), compared to nCRT followed by mandatory surgery, in patients with operable, locally advanced ESCC.Methods: This is a pragmatic open-label, randomized controlled phase III, multicenter trial with non-inferiority design with regard to the primary endpoint overall survival and a superiority hypothesis for the experimental intervention dCRT with regard to the main secondary endpoint global HRQOL one year after randomization. The control intervention is nCRT followed by preplanned surgery and the experimental intervention is dCRT followed by surveillance and salvage esophagectomy only when needed to secure local tumor control. A target sample size of 1200 randomized patients is planned in order to reach 462 events (deaths) during follow-up.
|
|
| 2. |
- Elliott, Jessie A, et al.
(författare)
-
An International Multicenter Study Exploring Whether Surveillance After Esophageal Cancer Surgery Impacts Oncological and Quality of Life Outcomes (ENSURE).
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of surveillance on recurrence pattern, treatment, survival and health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) following curative-intent resection for esophageal cancer.SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although therapies for recurrent esophageal cancer may impact survival and HRQL, surveillance protocols after primary curative treatment are varied and inconsistent, reflecting a lack of evidence.METHODS: European iNvestigation of SUrveillance after Resection for Esophageal cancer was an international multicenter study of consecutive patients undergoing surgery for esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers (2009-2015) across 20 centers (NCT03461341). Intensive surveillance (IS) was defined as annual computed tomography for 3 years postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS), secondary outcomes included treatment, disease-specific survival, recurrence pattern, and HRQL. Multivariable linear, logistic, and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed.RESULTS: Four thousand six hundred eighty-two patients were studied (72.6% adenocarcinoma, 69.1% neoadjuvant therapy, 45.5% IS). At median followup 60 months, 47.5% developed recurrence, oligometastatic in 39%. IS was associated with reduced symptomatic recurrence (OR 0.17 [0.12-0.25]) and increased tumor-directed therapy (OR 2.09 [1.58-2.77]). After adjusting for confounders, no OS benefit was observed among all patients (HR 1.01 [0.89-1.13]), but OS was improved following IS for those who underwent surgery alone (HR 0.60 [0.47-0.78]) and those with lower pathological (y)pT stages (Tis-2, HR 0.72 [0.58-0.89]). IS was associated with greater anxiety ( P =0.016), but similar overall HRQL.CONCLUSIONS: IS was associated with improved oncologic outcome in select cohorts, specifically patients with early-stage disease at presentation or favorable pathological stage post neoadjuvant therapy. This may inform guideline development, and enhance shared decision-making, at a time when therapeutic options for recurrence are expanding.
|
|
| 3. |
- Martin, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members
- 2020
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 44:7, s. 2211-2219
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2020, Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes.
|
|
