Inaccurate Clinical Stage Is Common for Gastric Adenocarcinoma and Is Associated with Undertreatment and Worse Outcomes.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
received:
03
06
2020
accepted:
04
11
2020
pubmed:
4
1
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
3
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate clinical staging (CS) of gastric cancer is critical for appropriate treatment selection and prognostication, but CS remains highly imprecise. Our study evaluates factors associated with inaccurate CS, the impact of inaccurate CS on outcomes, and utilization of adjuvant therapy in patients who are understaged. We conducted a retrospective review of NCDB patients diagnosed with clinical early stage gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-2N0M0) between 2004 and 2016. Patients not undergoing upfront gastrectomy or with missing pathologic staging were excluded. Patients were classified as accurately staged, inaccurately staged with receipt of adjuvant therapy (IS+), and inaccurately staged with no receipt of adjuvant therapy (IS-). Logistic regression was utilized to assess the impact of factors on CS accuracy and receipt of adjuvant therapies. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used for survival analysis. Approximately 40% of patients were inaccurately staged (IS). cT2, moderately/poorly differentiated, and site-overlapping tumors were associated with increased likelihood of being IS. Treatment at an academic facility was associated with decreased likelihood of understaging. Only 54% of patients who were IS received adjuvant therapy. Accurate CS of gastric cancer remains inadequate. Understaging is associated with detrimental effects on receiving guideline-concordant care and, possibly, patient outcomes. Targeted interventions reducing the proportion of understaged patients and ensuring receipt of appropriate therapy is needed to optimize outcomes. Patients with high-risk disease that are frequently understaged may benefit from selective neoadjuvant therapy. Centralization of gastric cancer care may also be a key strategy in improving receipt of guideline-concordant therapies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Accurate clinical staging (CS) of gastric cancer is critical for appropriate treatment selection and prognostication, but CS remains highly imprecise. Our study evaluates factors associated with inaccurate CS, the impact of inaccurate CS on outcomes, and utilization of adjuvant therapy in patients who are understaged.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective review of NCDB patients diagnosed with clinical early stage gastric adenocarcinoma (cT1-2N0M0) between 2004 and 2016. Patients not undergoing upfront gastrectomy or with missing pathologic staging were excluded. Patients were classified as accurately staged, inaccurately staged with receipt of adjuvant therapy (IS+), and inaccurately staged with no receipt of adjuvant therapy (IS-). Logistic regression was utilized to assess the impact of factors on CS accuracy and receipt of adjuvant therapies. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard methods were used for survival analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Approximately 40% of patients were inaccurately staged (IS). cT2, moderately/poorly differentiated, and site-overlapping tumors were associated with increased likelihood of being IS. Treatment at an academic facility was associated with decreased likelihood of understaging. Only 54% of patients who were IS received adjuvant therapy.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Accurate CS of gastric cancer remains inadequate. Understaging is associated with detrimental effects on receiving guideline-concordant care and, possibly, patient outcomes. Targeted interventions reducing the proportion of understaged patients and ensuring receipt of appropriate therapy is needed to optimize outcomes. Patients with high-risk disease that are frequently understaged may benefit from selective neoadjuvant therapy. Centralization of gastric cancer care may also be a key strategy in improving receipt of guideline-concordant therapies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33389294
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09403-8
pii: 10.1245/s10434-020-09403-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2831-2843Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Ajani JA, D’Amico TA, Almhanna K, et al. Gastric cancer, version 3.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(10):1286–312.
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0137
Rawla P, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of gastric cancer: global trends, risk factors and prevention. Prz Gastroenterol. 2019;14(1):26–38. https://doi.org/10.5114/pg.2018.80001 .
doi: 10.5114/pg.2018.80001
pubmed: 30944675
Choi AH, Kim J, Chao J. Perioperative chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: MAGIC and beyond. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(24):7343–8. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7343 .
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7343
pubmed: 26139980
pmcid: 4481429
Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(1):11–20.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa055531
Ikoma N, Lee JH, Bhutani MS, et al. Preoperative accuracy of gastric cancer staging in patient selection for preoperative therapy: race may affect accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017;8(6):1009–17. https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo.2017.04.04 .
doi: 10.21037/jgo.2017.04.04
pubmed: 29299361
pmcid: 5750173
Kwee RM, Kwee TC. The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in differentiating mucosal from deeper gastric cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(7):1801–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01923.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01923.x
pubmed: 18564110
Mocellin S, Marchet A, Nitti D. EUS for the staging of gastric cancer: A meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(6):1122–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.030 .
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.030
pubmed: 21444080
Mocellin S, Pasquali S. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2:CD009944.
Bentrem D, Gerdes H, Tang L, Brennan M, Coit D. Clinical correlation of endoscopic ultrasonography with pathologic stage and outcome in patients undergoing curative resection for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(6):1853–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9037-5 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-006-9037-5
pubmed: 17357856
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442 .
doi: 10.3322/caac.21442
pubmed: 29313949
Worrell SG, Alicuben ET, Oh DS, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR. Accuracy of clinical staging and outcome with primary resection for local-regionally limited esophageal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2018;267(3):484–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002139 .
doi: 10.1097/sla.0000000000002139
pubmed: 28151801
Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): A randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1948–57.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1
Ychou M, Boige V, Pignon JP, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an FNCLCC and FFCD multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(13):1715–21. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.33.0597 .
doi: 10.1200/jco.2010.33.0597
pubmed: 21444866
Mokdad AA, Ali A, Yopp AC, et al. Adoption of evidence-based novel therapies in the treatment of gastric cancer: a national observational study. Cancer. 2018;124(6):1122–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31179 .
doi: 10.1002/cncr.31179
pubmed: 29211302
Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1948–57.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1
Stiles BM, Mirza F, Coppolino A, et al. Clinical T2-T3N0M0 esophageal cancer: the risk of node positive disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(2):491–6; discussion 496–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.04.004 .
Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W, et al. German Rectal Cancer Study Group: preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1731–40.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040694
Lee J, Lim DH, Kim S, et al. Phase III trial comparing capecitabine plus cisplatin versus capecitabine plus cisplatin with concurrent capecitabine radiotherapy in completely resected gastric cancer with D2 lymph node dissection: the ARTIST trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(3):268–73. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2011.39.1953 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.1953
pubmed: 22184384
Kelsen DP, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al. Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113): a random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3719–25. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.10.4760 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4760
pubmed: 17704421
Mohammad NH, ter Veer E, Ngai L, Mali R, van Oijen MG, van Laarhoven HW. Optimal first-line chemotherapeutic treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophagogastric carcinoma: triplet versus doublet chemotherapy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2015;34(3):429–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-015-9576-y .
doi: 10.1007/s10555-015-9576-y
pubmed: 26267802
Ikoma N, Kim B, Elting LS, Shih YT, Badgwell BD, Mansfield P. Trends in volume-outcome relationship in gastrectomies in Texas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(9):2694–702. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07446-0 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07446-0
pubmed: 31264116
pmcid: 7703851
Claassen YHM, van Sandick JW, Hartgrink HH, et al. Association between hospital volume and quality of gastric cancer surgery in the CRITICS trial. Br J Surg. 2018;105(6):728–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10773 .
doi: 10.1002/bjs.10773
pubmed: 29652082
Integrated Network Cancer Programs. American College of Surgeons. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/coc/info/incp .
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 14, 10; https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2016.0137 .
Enthoven AC. Integrated delivery systems: the cure for fragmentation. The American journal of managed care. 2009.
Chang AC. Centralizing esophagectomy to improve outcomes and enhance clinical research: invited expert review. Ann Thor Surg. 2018;106(3):916–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.04.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.04.004
pubmed: 29738757
Aquina CT, Probst CP, Becerra AZ, et al. High volume improves outcomes: the argument for centralization of rectal cancer surgery. Surgery. 2016;159(3):736–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.021
pubmed: 26576696
Ju M, Wang SC, Syed S, Agrawal D, Porembka MR. Multidisciplinary teams improve gastric cancer treatment efficiency at a large safety net hospital. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-08037-9 .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-08037-9
pubmed: 31677108