Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a format for multidisciplinary care and has been shown to predictably improve short term outcomes associated with surgical procedures. Esophagectomy has historically been associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality and as a result routine application and audit of ERAS guidelines specifically designed for esophageal resection has significant potential to improve outcomes associated with this complex procedure. Methods A team of international experts in the surgical management of esophageal cancer was assembled and the existing literature was identified and reviewed prior to the production of the guidelines. Well established procedure specific components of ERAS were reviewed and updated with changes relevant to esophagectomy. Procedure specific, operative and technical sections were produced utilizing the best current level of evidence. All sections were rated regarding the level of evidence and overall recommendation according to the evaluation (GRADE) system. Results Thirty-nine sections were ultimately produced and assessed for quality of evidence and recommendations. Some sections were completely new to ERAS programs due to the fact that esophagectomy is the first guideline with a thoracic component to the procedure. Conclusions The current ERAS society guidelines should be reviewed and applied in all centers looking to improve outcomes and quality associated with esophageal resection.

In a previous meta-analysis, we identified a survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma. We updated this meta-analysis with results from new or updated randomised trials presented in the past 3 years. We also compared the benefits of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. To identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings, we searched Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane clinical trials database) for studies published since January, 2006, and also manually searched for abstracts from major conferences from the same period. Only randomised studies analysed by intention to treat were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data. We also investigated treatment effects by tumour histology and relations between risk (survival after surgery alone) and effect size. We included all 17 trials from the previous meta-analysis and seven further studies. 12 were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1854), nine were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1981), and two compared neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=194) in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma; one factorial trial included two comparisons and was included in analyses of both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=78) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=81). The updated analysis contained 4188 patients whereas the previous publication included 2933 patients. This updated meta-analysis contains about 3500 events compared with about 2230 in the previous meta-analysis (estimated 57% increase). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 0·78 (95% CI 0·70–0·88; p<0·0001); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0·80 (0·68–0·93; p=0·004) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0·75 (0·59–0·95; p=0·02). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0·87 (0·79–0·96; p=0·005); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0·92 (0·81–1·04; p=0·18) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0·83 (0·71–0·95; p=0·01). The HR for the overall indirect comparison of all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0·88 (0·76–1·01; p=0·07). This updated meta-analysis provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. A clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. These results should help inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials. Cancer Australia and the NSW Cancer Institute.

PurposeEnhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been effectively expanded to various surgical specialities including oesophagectomy. Despite nutrition being a key component, actual nutrition outcomes and specific guidelines are lacking. This cohort comparison study aims to compare nutritional status and adherence during implementation of a standardised post-operative nutritional support protocol, as part of ERAS, compared to those who received usual care.MethodsTwo groups of patients undergoing resection of oesophageal cancer were studied. Group 1 (n = 17) underwent oesophagectomy between Oct 2014 and Nov 2016 during implementation of an ERAS protocol. Patients in group 2 (n = 16) underwent oesophagectomy between Jan 2011 and Dec 2012 prior to the implementation of ERAS. Demographic, nutritional status, dietary intake and adherence data were collected. Ordinal data was analysed using independent t tests, and categorical data using chi-square tests.ResultsThere was no significant difference in nutrition status, dietary intake or length of stay following implementation of an ERAS protocol. Malnutrition remained prevalent in both groups at day 42 post surgery (n = 10, 83% usual care; and n = 9, 60% ERAS). A significant difference was demonstrated in adherence with earlier initiation of oral free fluids (p <0.008), transition to soft diet (p <0.004) and continuation of jejunostomy feeds on discharge (p <0.000) for the ERAS group.ConclusionA standardised post-operative nutrition protocol, within an ERAS framework, results in earlier transition to oral intake; however, malnutrition remains prevalent post surgery. Further large-scale studies are warranted to examine individualised decision-making regarding nutrition support within an ERAS protocol.

Adjuvant radiotherapy is recommended for patients with melanoma after lymphadenectomy. We previously showed this treatment reduced risk of repeat lymph-node field cancer in patients with a high risk of recurrence but had no effect on overall survival. Here, we aim to update the relapse and survival data from that trial and assess quality of life and toxic effects. In the ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01 randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients who had undergone lymphadenectomy for a palpable lymph-node field relapse and were at high risk of recurrence at 16 hospitals (11 in Australia, three in New Zealand, one in Netherlands, and one in Brazil). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to adjuvant radiotherapy (48 Gy in 20 fractions, given over a maximum of 30 days) or observation, stratified by institution, areas of lymph-node field (parotid and cervical, axilla, or groin), number of involved nodes (≤3 vs >3), maximum involved node diameter (≤4 cm vs >4 cm), and extent of extracapsular extension (none, limited, or extensive). Participants, those giving treatment, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants were unaware of each other's treatment allocation. In this follow-up, we assessed outcomes every 3 months from randomisation for the first 2 years, then every 6 months up to 5 years, then annually. The primary endpoint was lymph-node field relapse as a first relapse, assessed in patients without major eligibility infringements (determined by an independent data monitoring committee). We assessed late adverse effects (occurring >90 days after surgery or start of radiotherapy) with standard criteria in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00287196. Between March 21, 2003, and Nov 15, 2007, we randomly assigned 123 patients to adjuvant radiotherapy (109 eligible for efficacy assessments) and 127 to observation (108 eligible). The final follow-up date was Nov 15, 2011. Median follow-up was 73 months (IQR 61–91). 23 (21%) relapses occurred in the adjuvant radiotherapy group compared with 39 (36%) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [95% CI 0·31–0·88], p=0·023). Overall survival (HR 1·27 [95% CI 0·89–1·79], p=0·21) and relapse-free survival (0·89 [0·65–1·22], p=0·51) did not differ between groups. Minor, long-term toxic effects from radiotherapy (predominantly pain, and fibrosis of the skin or subcutaneous tissue) were common, and 20 (22%) of 90 patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy developed grade 3–4 toxic effects. 18 (20%) of 90 patients had grade 3 toxic effects, mainly affecting skin (nine [10%] patients) and subcutaneous tissue (six [7%] patients). Over 5 years, a significant increase in lower limb volumes was noted after adjuvant radiotherapy (mean volume ratio 15·0%) compared with observation (7·7%; difference 7·3% [95% CI 1·5–13·1], p=0·014). No significant differences in upper limb volume were noted between groups. Long-term follow-up supports our previous findings. Adjuvant radiotherapy could be useful for patients for whom lymph-node field control is a major issue, but entry to an adjuvant systemic therapy trial might be a preferable first option. Alternatively, observation, reserving surgery and radiotherapy for a further recurrence, might be an acceptable strategy. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Cancer Council Australia, Melanoma Institute Australia, and the Cancer Council South Australia.

Background Isolated limb infusion (ILI) is a minimally invasive procedure for delivering high-dose regional chemotherapy to patients with locally advanced or in-transit melanoma located on a limb. The current international multicenter study evaluated the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes for patients who underwent ILI for stage 3B or 3C melanoma. Methods Patients undergoing a first-time ILI for stage 3B or 3C melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer [AJCC] 7th ed) between 1992 and 2018 at five Australian and four United States of America (USA) tertiary referral centers were identified. The primary outcome measures included treatment response, in-field (IPFS) and distant progression-free survival (DPFS), and overall survival (OS). Results A total of 687 first-time ILIs were performed (stage 3B: n  = 383, 56%; stage 3C; n  = 304, 44%). Significant limb toxicity (Wieberdink grade 4) developed in 27 patients (3.9%). No amputations (grade 5) were performed. The overall response rate was 64.1% (complete response [CR], 28.9%; partial response [PR], 35.2%). Stable disease (SD) occurred in 14.5% and progressive disease (PD) in 19.8% of the patients. The median follow-up period was 47 months, with a median OS of 38.2 months. When stratified by response, the patients with a CR or PR had a significantly longer median IPFS (21.9 vs 3.0 months; p  < 0.0001), DPFS (53.6 vs 12.7 months; p  < 0.0001), and OS (46.5 vs 24.4 months; p  < 0.0001) than the nonresponders (SD + PD). Conclusion This study is the largest to date reporting long-term outcomes of ILI for locoregionally metastatic melanoma. The findings demonstrate that ILI is effective and safe for patients with stage 3B or 3C melanoma confined to a limb. A favorable response to ILI is associated with significantly longer IFPS, DPFS, and OS.

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is a poor prognosis cancer and the molecular features underpinning response to treatment remain unclear. We investigate whole genome, transcriptomic and methylation data from 115 oesophageal adenocarcinoma patients mostly from the DOCTOR phase II clinical trial (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry-ACTRN12609000665235), with exploratory analysis pre-specified in the study protocol of the trial. We report genomic features associated with poorer overall survival, such as the APOBEC mutational and RS3-like rearrangement signatures. We also show that positron emission tomography non-responders have more sub-clonal genomic copy number alterations. Transcriptomic analysis categorises patients into four immune clusters correlated with survival. The immune suppressed cluster is associated with worse survival, enriched with myeloid-derived cells, and an epithelial-mesenchymal transition signature. The immune hot cluster is associated with better survival, enriched with lymphocytes, myeloid-derived cells, and an immune signature including CCL5 , CD8A , and NKG7 . The immune clusters highlight patients who may respond to immunotherapy and thus may guide future clinical trials. It remains critical to understand the genomic events in response to treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC). Here, the authors perform a multi-omics analysis of OAC patients from the DOCTOR phase II clinical trial, finding genomic features and immune clusters associated with survival.

The use of radiotherapy after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for patients with melanoma at high risk of further lymph-node field and distant recurrence is controversial. Decisions for radiotherapy in this setting are made on the basis of retrospective, non-randomised studies. We did this randomised trial to assess the effect of adjuvant radiotherapy on lymph-node field control in patients who had undergone therapeutic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma in regional lymph nodes. This randomised controlled trial included patients from 16 hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Brazil. To be eligible for this trial, patients had to be at high risk of lymph-node field relapse, judged on the basis of number of nodes involved, extranodal spread, and maximum size of involved nodes. After lymphadenectomy, randomisation was done centrally by computer and patients assigned by telephone in a ratio of 1:1 to receive adjuvant radiotherapy of 48 Gy in 20 fractions or observation, with institution, lymph-node field, number of involved nodes, maximum node diameter, and extent of extranodal spread as minimisation factors. Participants, those giving treatment, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was lymph-node field relapse (as a first relapse), analysed for all eligible patients. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00287196. The trial is now closed and follow-up discontinued. 123 patients were randomly allocated to the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 127 to the observation group between March 20, 2002, and Sept 21, 2007. Two patients withdrew consent and 31 had a major eligibility infringement as decided by the independent data monitoring committee, resulting in 217 eligible for the primary analysis (109 in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 108 in the observation group). Median follow-up was 40 months (IQR 27–55). Risk of lymph-node field relapse was significantly reduced in the adjuvant radiotherapy group compared with the observation group (20 relapses in the radiotherapy group vs 34 in the observation group, hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·32–0·98; p=0·041), but no differences were noted for relapse-free survival (70 vs 73 events, HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·65–1·26; p=0·56) or overall survival (59 vs 47 deaths, HR 1·37, 95% CI 0·94–2·01; p=0·12). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were seroma (nine in the radiotherapy group vs 11 in the observation group), radiation dermatitis (19 in the radiotherapy group), and wound infection (three in the radiotherapy group vs seven in the observation group). Adjuvant radiotherapy improves lymph-node field control in patients at high risk of lymph-node field relapse after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma. Adjuvant radiotherapy should be discussed with patients at high risk of relapse after lymphadenectomy. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Cancer Australia, Melanoma Institute Australia, Cancer Council of South Australia.

Background Knowledge of factors related to outcome is vital for the selection of therapeutic alternatives for patients with early (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma. This study was undertaken to determine predictors of lymphatic spread and prognostic factors for T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma following esophagectomy. Materials and Methods A prospectively maintained database identified 85 patients with T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy. Depth of tumor invasion (T stage) was subdivided into mucosal (T1a) or submucosal invasion (T1b). Median follow-up was 59 months. Results Thoracoscopically assisted 3-phase esophagectomy was performed in 73 of 85 patients (86%). Lymph node metastases (N stage) were identified in 9 of 85 patients (11%). Depth of tumor invasion (T stage), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and poor differentiation were associated with N stage. The patients could be stratified into 4 risk groups for lymph node metastases: group I—T1a (0 of 35 patients [0%] with positive nodes); group II—T1b, well/moderate differentiation and no LVI (1 of 28 patients [4%] with positive nodes); group III—T1b, poor differentiation and no LVI (2 of 9 patients [22%] with positive nodes); and group IV—T1b any grade with LVI (6 of 13 patients [46%] with positive nodes). Survival analyses found T stage, N stage, LVI, and poor differentiation to be significant prognostic factors. Conclusions Risk stratification is possible for patents with T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma. Local resection techniques without lymphadenectomy may be alternatives for T1a tumors. Esophagectomy should remain the standard of care for patients with T1b tumors and those with LVI or poor differentiation considered for neoadjuvant therapy.

Background For stage IV melanoma, systemic medical therapy (SMT) is used most frequently; surgery is considered an adjunct in selected patients. We retrospectively compared survival after surgery with or without SMT versus SMT alone for melanoma patients developing distant metastases while enrolled in the first Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy Trial. Methods Patients were randomized to wide excision and sentinel node biopsy, or wide excision and nodal observation. We evaluated recurrence site, therapy (selected by treating clinician), and survival after stage IV diagnosis. Results Of 291 patients with complete data for stage IV recurrence, 161 (55 %) underwent surgery with or without SMT. Median survival was 15.8 versus 6.9 months, and 4-year survival was 20.8 versus 7.0 % for patients receiving surgery with or without SMT versus SMT alone ( p  < 0.0001; hazard ratio 0.406). Surgery with or without SMT conferred a survival advantage for patients with M1a (median > 60 months vs. 12.4 months; 4-year survival 69.3 % vs. 0; p  = 0.0106), M1b (median 17.9 vs. 9.1 months; 4-year survival 24.1 vs. 14.3 %; p  = 0.1143), and M1c (median 15.0 vs. 6.3 months; 4-year survival 10.5 vs. 4.6 %; p  = 0.0001) disease. Patients with multiple metastases treated surgically had a survival advantage, and number of operations did not reduce survival in the 67 patients (42 %) who had multiple surgeries for distant melanoma. Conclusions Our findings suggest that over half of stage IV patients are candidates for resection and exhibit improved survival over patients receiving SMT alone, regardless of site and number of metastases. We have begun a multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing surgery versus SMT as initial treatment for resectable distant melanoma.

Amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma is a clinicopathologic subtype with absent or minimal melanin. This study assessed previously reported coding variants in albinism genes (TYR, OCA2, TYRP1, SLC45A2, SLC24A5, LRMDA) and common intronic, regulatory variants of OCA2 in individuals with amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma, pigmented melanoma cases and controls. Exome sequencing was available for 28 individuals with amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma and 303 individuals with pigmented melanoma, which were compared to whole exome data from 1144 Australian controls. Microarray genotyping was available for a further 17 amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma, 86 pigmented melanoma, 147 melanoma cases (pigmentation unknown) and 652 unaffected controls. Rare deleterious variants in TYR/OCA1 were more common in amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma cases than pigmented melanoma cases (set mixed model association tests P = 0.0088). The OCA2 hypomorphic allele p.V443I was more common in melanoma cases (1.8%) than controls (1.0%, X.sup.2 P = 0.02), and more so in amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma (4.4%, X.sup.2 P = 0.007). No amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma cases carried an eye and skin darkening haplotype of OCA2 (including rs7174027), present in 7.1% of pigmented melanoma cases (P = 0.0005) and 9.4% controls. Variants in TYR and OCA2 may play a role in amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma susceptibility. We suggest that somatic loss of function at these loci could contribute to the loss of tumor pigmentation, consistent with this we found a higher rate of somatic mutation in TYR/OCA2 in amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma vs pigmented melanoma samples (28.6% vs 3.0%; P = 0.021) from The Cancer Genome Atlas Skin Cutaneous Melanoma collection.