Cronin-Fenton DP, Mooney MM, Clegg LX, Harlan LC. Treatment and survival in a population-based sample of patients diagnosed with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14(20): 3165-3173 [PMID: 18506920 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.3165]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Dr. Linda C Harlan, Applied Research Program, DCCPS, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd MSC 7344, Bethesda MD 20892-7344, United States. lh50w@nih.gov
Article-Type of This Article
Rapid Communication
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Deirdre P Cronin-Fenton, Limin X Clegg, Surveillance Research Program, DCCPS, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda MD 20892-7344, United States
Deirdre P Cronin-Fenton, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Olof Palmes Alle 43-45, 8200 Aarhus N, Denmark
Margaret M Mooney, CTEP, DCTD, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda
Linda C Harlan, Applied Research Program, DCCPS, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda MD 20892-7344, United States
Limin X Clegg, Office of Healthcare Inspections, Office of Inspector General, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington DC 20420, United States
ORCID number: $[AuthorORCIDs]
Author contributions: Harlan LC designed research; Cronin-Fenton DP, Clegg LX and Harlan LC analyzed the data; Cronin-Fenton DP, Harlan LC and Mooney MM wrote the paper.
Correspondence to: Dr. Linda C Harlan, Applied Research Program, DCCPS, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd MSC 7344, Bethesda MD 20892-7344, United States. lh50w@nih.gov
Telephone: +1-301-4967085
Fax: +1-301-4353710
Received: September 27, 2007 Revised: April 12, 2008 Accepted: April 19, 2008 Published online: May 28, 2008
Abstract
AIM: To examine the extent of use of specific therapies in clinical practice, and their relationship to therapies validated in clinical trials.
METHODS: The US National Cancer Institutes’ Patterns of Care study was used to examine therapies and survival of patients diagnosed in 2001 with histologically-confirmed gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (n = 1356). The study re-abstracted data and verified therapy with treating physicians for a population-based stratified random sample.
RESULTS: Approximately 62% of patients had stomach adenocarcinoma (SAC), while 22% had gastric-cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA), and 16% lower esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Stage IV/unstaged esophageal cancer patients were most likely and stage I-III stomach cancer patients least likely to receive chemotherapy as all or part of their therapy; gastric-cardia patients received chemotherapy at a rate between these two. In multivariable analysis by anatomic site, patients 70 years and older were significantly less likely than younger patients to receive chemotherapy alone or chemoradiation for all three anatomic sites. Among esophageal and stomach cancer patients, receipt of chemotherapy was associated with lower mortality; but no association was found among gastric-cardia patients.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the relatively low use of clinical trials-validated anti-cancer therapies in community practice. Use of chemotherapy-based treatment was associated with lower mortality, dependent on anatomic site. Findings suggest that physicians treat lower esophageal and SAC as two distinct entities, while gastric-cardia patients receive a mix of the treatment strategies employed for the two other sites.
Citation: Cronin-Fenton DP, Mooney MM, Clegg LX, Harlan LC. Treatment and survival in a population-based sample of patients diagnosed with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14(20): 3165-3173
The incidence and mortality of esophageal and gastric-cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) has increased dramatically since the 1970s in western countries, while that of stomach cancer has decreased[1–3]. Gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas have a poor prognosis[4–8]. However, numerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have evaluated, and continue to evaluate, the survival benefit of various treatment regimens.
Surgery remains standard care for early stage esophageal cancer. The MAGIC trial, a large phase III European RCTs found that patients with resectable lower esophageal or gastric adenocarcinomas treated with peri-operative chemotherapy had better progression-free and overall survival rates compared to surgery only[9]. This benefit was supported by the Fédérale Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre Le Cancer (FNLCC) for patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma who received pre-operative chemotherapy compared to surgery alone[10]. However, RCTs evaluating pre-operative chemoradiation compared to surgery alone have had conflicting results; some indicate better survival for esophageal cancer patients[1112]. For locally advanced esophageal cancer, a phase III RCT, RTOG 85-01, demonstrated improved survival in patients who received chemoradiotherapy compared to radiation alone[13], although most of these patients had squamous esophageal cancer. Another small RCT in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer found chemoradiation superior to radiation alone[14]. These trials support the use of definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced disease and its potential use for some patients with resectable disease. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for patients who are medically unfit for surgery or have unresectable disease recommend radiation and concurrent chemotherapy as treatment or best supportive care if patients cannot tolerate chemotherapy[15].
Surgery is also the standard of care for early stage gastric cancer. A US Intergroup phase III trial, INT-0116, demonstrated post-surgical chemoradiation improved overall and disease-free survival in patients with stomach adenocarcinoma (SAC) and GCA[16]. The MAGIC and FNLCC trials also included patients with SAC and GCA. RCTs have also evaluated various chemotherapy treatments for patients with advanced or metastatic stomach and gastric-cardia cancer and have demonstrated improved survival for particular regimens[1718]. The current NCCN guidelines for patients with metastatic stomach cancer recommend chemotherapy as treatment or best supportive care for those unable to tolerate chemotherapy[19].
Few studies have examined community-based patterns of care for these cancers. A study on esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell carcinoma patients diagnosed between 1996 and 1999 found that chemoradiation was most frequently given although patients with chemoradiation followed by surgery had better survival compared to definitive chemoradiation[20]. Research suggests, however, that community-based use of treatment and the observed survival of patients in the community can vary depending on clinical and non-clinical factors[21–26].
We present a population-based study, analyzing the receipt of various treatment strategies among a stratified random sample of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine whether treatment strategies used in routine community practice are based on anatomic location or cancer origin and to examine community-based use of specific chemotherapy regimens, especially those evaluated in RCTs. Finally, we assess factors that influence treatment receipt and patient survival.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We included individuals aged ≥ 20, newly diagnosed during 2001 with histologically-confirmed lower esophageal (EAC), GCA and SAC. Patients were ineligible if diagnosis was by death certificate only, autopsy, if they had a previous cancer diagnosis, other than non-melanoma skin, or were simultaneously diagnosed with another cancer. Patients were sampled from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results Program (SEER) including Atlanta, Detroit, Seattle, New Mexico, Iowa, Louisiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, Utah, and California (Los Angeles County, San Francisco/Oakland, San Jose/Monterey, and greater California). Individuals were stratified by registry and race/ethnicity, and randomly sampled within strata. Non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans were over-sampled to obtain more stable estimates.
Data from medical records were re-abstracted to verify patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment. Abstractors from each registry were centrally trained to ensure consistency of abstracting and coding. Because therapy is frequently provided in an outpatient setting, each patient’s physician was contacted to verify treatment received, and provide names of any other physician who may have administered therapy. That physician was then contacted. All co-morbid conditions recorded at the hospitalization for most definitive treatment were abstracted. These were coded centrally by a single Registered Health Information Technologist and analyzed using the Charlson score[27]; an index of nineteen conditions, weighted according to the adjusted risk of one-year mortality.
We included 1411 cases. Patients were grouped by anatomic sites based on ICD-O2 codes; EAC (ICD-O: C15.2, C15.5, n = 165), GCA (the portion of the stomach surrounding the gastroesophageal junction) (C16.0, n = 246), and SAC (C16.1-C16.9, n = 1000) and stage, I-III and IV/unstaged. Because of small numbers (18) of IVb EAC, these were grouped with IV/unstaged.
Treatments were defined as the receipt of surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, in any combination. Non-adenocarcinoma cases were excluded from the therapy analyses (n = 55); 1356 adenocarcinoma patients were included in the treatment analyses.
Data analyses were performed using Stata 8.0 and SUDAAN (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC). Analyses were weighted to reflect the SEER population from which the sample was drawn. Multivariable analyses were conducted using logistic and multinomial logistic regression. Cancer survival was analyzed using Cox regression models with a maximum two-year follow-up (through December 2003). All P-values were two-sided.
RESULTS
Approximately 62% of patients had SAC, 22% GCA, and 16% lower EAC (Table 1). Median age was highest (76 years) for stage I-III SAC patients and lowest (67 years) for stage IV/unstaged GCA (data not shown).
Table 1 Percentage distribution (weighted for the sampling fraction) of clinical and non-clinical characteristics for gastroesophageal cancer patients diagnosed in 2001 NCI: Patterns of care study (n = 1411) (Wt%).
Lower esophagus
Gastric cardia
Stomach
I-III (n = 86)
IV-V (n = 79)
I-III (n = 119)
IV-V (n = 127)
I-III (n = 491)
IV-V (n = 509)
Age
< 70
57.5
46.4
57.2
54.0
36.7
42.4
≥ 70
42.5
53.6
42.8
46.0
63.3
57.6
Marital status
Other
39.9
43.6
37.9
41.0
46.4
48.9
Married
60.1
56.4
62.1
59.0
53.6
51.1
Race
NH White
93.9
87.8
78.0
75.1
51.0
47.9
NH Black
1.0
3.3
4.3
5.8
13.4
14.2
Hispanic
4.1
7.9
11.6
12.0
15.8
20.5
A/PI
1.0
1.0
6.2
6.8
19.1
17.0
NA/AI
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.3
Charlson score
Zero
72.3
81.0
77.7
86.5
79.5
78.9
1+
27.7
19.0
22.3
13.5
20.5
21.1
Vital status Dec 2003
Deceased
69.6
88.8
70.0
88.3
53.9
89.9
Histology
Adeno, NOS
92.8
81.0
79.5
70.4
50.4
50.7
A. intestinal
0.0
3.7
9.1
4.1
14.6
7.2
A. diffuse
0.0
0.0
1.8
4.4
4.0
3.0
Signet
6.0
12.0
8.0
18.9
20.6
28.9
Mucinous
1.2
2.4
0.9
1.0
5.5
5.5
Papillary
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.0
0.9
1.5
Tubular
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.2
0.6
Linus plastica
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.8
2.6
Linitis plastica/Signet ring
Linitis plastica
3.9
0.0
0.0
4.1
5.3
7.2
Signet
13.9
13.1
15.2
22.4
24.4
33.6
No mention
81.6
86.9
78.3
71.3
69.5
58.5
Unknown
0.6
0.0
6.5
2.2
0.8
0.7
Intestinal metaplasia in resected tumor
None
31.3
28.5
36.7
17.9
25.4
24.3
Metaplasia
7.9
3.0
18.4
5.9
31.2
9.6
No mention
36.6
29.9
30.6
37.5
30.1
28.0
Unknown
24.2
38.6
14.3
38.8
13.3
38.1
Grade
Well differentiated
4.1
12.0
2.9
4.9
6.9
2.3
Moderate
18.9
39.6
31.3
33.4
28.1
19.4
Poor/Undif
57.1
28.5
59.0
51.3
56.5
60.7
Unknown
19.8
20.0
6.8
10.4
8.4
17.7
Barrett’s esophagus
No
21.3
27.7
39.1
19.9
43.4
28.4
Yes
33.2
9.3
11.0
3.8
0.0
0.6
Other
3.9
1.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
No mention
16.8
21.8
27.8
35.2
43.7
31.5
Unknown
24.8
40.1
20.7
41.1
12.9
39.5
History of Barrett’s
No history
19.3
22.6
27.5
25.6
29.4
29.4
History
22.7
14.0
6.0
8.7
1.7
0.5
No mention
54.5
60.0
59.5
61.8
67.2
67.9
Unknown
3.4
3.4
7.0
3.9
1.8
2.1
H pylori
Negative
22.6
39.2
32.3
29.6
37.6
33.1
Positive
2.1
13.5
10.0
15.9
18.6
15.9
No mention
73.3
41.9
51.1
52.6
41.4
49.0
Pernicious anemia
No history
25.9
33.1
26.9
31.5
31.1
28.7
Pernicious Anemia
0.6
0.0
8.2
0.4
6.1
3.9
No mention
71.5
62.0
60.4
65.4
59.6
64.9
Unknown
2.0
4.9
4.5
2.7
3.2
2.6
History of ulcers
No history
23.5
32.6
28.2
29.5
19.6
23.1
Peptic ulcers, NOS
7.9
11.6
5.8
4.7
12
10.5
Duod/pyloric ulcer
2.1
1.7
0.4
1.3
1.1
2.9
Gastric ulcer
4.3
0
8.6
9.6
22.7
13.3
Other
6.5
7.1
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.8
No mention
55.1
44.7
50.1
51
40.6
46.9
Unknown
0.6
2.4
6.6
2.4
3.1
2.5
Lower EAC
Over 12% of stage I-III patients with EAC received surgery alone (Table 2). About 27% of patients with stage I-III EAC received tri-modality therapy (surgery, radiation and chemotherapy), while 36.5% of these patients received chemotherapy plus radiation therapy with no surgery. One-quarter of stage I-III EAC patients received no chemotherapy. The most frequently administered agent was 5-FU, frequently with cisplatin. Few patients with late/unstaged EAC received surgery, in any combination. Chemoradiotherapy, however, was given to nearly 47% of these patients. In multinomial logistic regression, age ≥ 70 was associated a 70%-80% decreased use of chemotherapy and chemoradiation in patients with EAC (Table 3).
Table 2 Percentage distribution (weighted for the sampling fraction) of treatment characteristics and survival for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients diagnosed in 2001 NCI: Patterns of care study (n = 1356)1 (Wt%).
Lower esophagus
Gastric cardia
Stomach
I-III
IV-V
I-III
IV-V
I-III
IV-V
Therapy received
Surgery only
12.3
1.3
34
2.2
49.6
15.7
Radiation only
8.1
3.5
4.7
7.2
2
3.3
Chemotherapy only
0.5
24
1.2
21.9
3.6
22.1
Surgery and radiation
0.8
0
2.6
0.9
3.9
0.4
Surgery and chemo
2.5
1.3
8.6
4.8
3.2
5.6
Surgery, rad, chemo
27
4.6
25
11.2
19.2
6.1
Chemo and radiation
36.5
46.8
9.8
12.4
1.5
3.4
None
12.4
18.7
14.1
39.4
17.1
43.4
Chemotherapy
No chemo
25.1
21.5
48.7
40.8
64.9
54.5
Single agent
5.4
25.5
11.4
9.9
10.3
8.4
Multi-agent
61.1
50.9
31.4
39.6
17.1
29
Refused
5.9
1.5
4.3
7.2
4
4.3
Rec, unknown if given
1.9
0
1
2.1
1.8
2.3
Unknown
0.6
0.6
3.2
0.4
2
1.5
Chemotherapy agent
5-FU
58.6
37.9
35.7
34.7
23.2
26.4
Doxorubicin
0.5
0
0.3
1
0.5
3.4
Capecitabine
1.2
0
0.7
7.4
0.6
4
Cisplatin
38.7
37.2
22
17.2
2.8
10.8
Etoposid
1
0
0.7
10.7
1.4
5.8
Irinotecan
0.7
12.9
0.5
5.9
1.6
5.6
Leucovorin
4.1
0.9
6.1
21.8
12.1
15.1
Mitomycin-C
13.
4.3
0.5
0.6
0.2
1.8
Oxaliplatin
No one
Epirubicin
0
0
0
1
0
1.2
Paclitaxel
11.8
20.8
5.9
7.3
2.2
4.6
Docetaxel
0
1.6
0.7
2.1
0.6
1.4
Chemotherapy plus surgery (with or without radiation)
No
70.5
94.2
68.3
84
77.7
87.8
Pre-op
23.7
4.9
16.8
6.4
0.3
0.5
Post-op
5.8
0.9
9
8.5
20.3
11.2
Unknown
0
0
5.9
1.1
1.7
0
Surgery plus chemotherapy and radiation
No
73
95.4
75
88.5
80.9
93.9
Pre-op
21.9
4.6
13.4
4.3
0.2
0.5
Post-op
5.1
0
8.6
6.9
17.4
5.6
Unknown
0
0
3
0
1.5
0
Median survival time (mo)
Non-surgical pts
13
8
8
6
5
4
Surgical patients
22
13
19
13
26
6
Table 3 Therapy among patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma by anatomic site, 2001: Multinomial logistic regression for the receipt of chemoradiation (Chemo + RT) and chemotherapy alone.
Site characteristic
Lower esophagus
Gastric-cardia
Stomach
Chemo + RT
Chemo
Chemo + RT
Chemo
Chemo + RT
Chemo
OR
95% CI
OR
95% CI
P
OR
95% CI
OR
95% CI
P
OR
95% CI
OR
95% CI
P
Age
0.05
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 70
1
1
1
1
1
1
≥ 70
0.3
0.1-0.96
0.2
0.03-0.9
0.2
0.1-0.4
0.3
0.1-0.7
0.2
0.1-0.4
0.2
0.1-0.3
Race/ethnicity
0.33
0.64
0.24
Non-hispanic white
1
1
1
1
1
1
Non-hispanic black
1.1
0.1-10.2
0.9
0.1-14.5
0.5
0.1-1.7
1
0.2-6.7
1.3
0.6-2.5
0.6
0.3-1.0
Hispanic
0.1
0.01-0.9
0.3
0.02-3.6
0.4
0.1-1.6
1.6
0.3-7.4
1.2
0.6-2.5
0.6
0.3-1.4
Asian/Pacific Islander
0.5
0.1-1.9
1.4
0.4-4.9
1.7
0.9-3.4
0.8
0.4-1.4
Gender
0.32
0.01
0.64
Male
1
1
1
1
1
1
Female
1.2
0.5-3.3
0.3
0.04-2.1
1.2
0.4-3.3
0.3
0.1-0.8
1.3
0.8-2.1
1.1
0.7-1.8
Marital status
0.28
0.86
0.74
Not married
1
1
1
1
1
1
Married
2.1
0.7-6.5
1
0.3-3.9
1
0.4-2.6
1.4
0.4-4.6
1.2
0.7-2.0
1.2
0.7-1.9
Stage
0.12
0.01
< 0.001
I-III
1
1
1
1
1
1
IV & unknown
1
0.4-2.7
3.6
0.9-13.6
0.7
0.3-1.7
3.
1.3-11.4
0.6
0.4-0.9
5.2
3.0-8.8
Differentiation grade
0.57
0.36
0.38
Well/Moderately differentiated
1
1
1
1
1
Poorly/Undifferentiated
1.2
0.4-3.6
0.9
0.2-3.7
0.8
0.3-1.9
1
0.3-3.1
1.3
0.7-2.2
1.3
0.7-2.5
Unknown
0.6
0.2-1.9
0.2
0.03-1.4
1.5
0.3-7.3
0.2
0.03-1.8
0.7
0.3-2.0
1.6
0.8-3.5
Charlson score
0.25
0.02
0.35
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1+
2
0.6-6.7
0.6
0.1-3.1
0.4
0.1-1.3
0.1
0.02-0.6
0.7
0.4-1.2
0.9
0.5-1.7
H pylori
0.02
0.004
0.65
No
1
1
1
1
1
1
Yes
0.1
0.02-0.8
0.4
0.03-5.6
1
0.2-4.2
0.4
0.1-2.1
1.2
0.6-2.5
1.3
0.6-2.8
Unknown
0.1
0.03-0.4
0.2
0.03-0.8
0.2
0.1-0.7
0.8
0.3-2.3
1
0.6-1.7
1.5
0.9-2.5
Non-Hispanic blacks and Asian/Pacific Islanders with EAC had significantly higher hazards of cancer deaths than non-Hispanic white patients (Table 4). Patients age < 70 with a Charlson score of ≥ 1 had a significantly increased risk as did those with late/unstaged disease. EAC patients who received chemotherapy had better survival, although not statistically significant. In a separate model, EAC patients who received chemoradiation had decreased hazards (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.43-1.06 model not presented). The prognostic factors in the Cox proportional hazards model containing chemoradiation were otherwise the same as those significantly associated with death in the model which adjusted for chemotherapy.
Table 4 Cox proportional hazards model for cancer death among lower esophageal and GCA patients overall (Model 1) and among SAC patients who did or did not receive surgery (Model 2).
Model 1
Model 2
Lower esophagus (n = 164)
Gastric-cardia (n = 241)
Stomach
With & Without surgery
With & Without surgery
No surgery (n = 461)
With surgery (n = 490)
Characteristic
HR
95% CI
P
HR
95% CI
P
HR
95% CI
P
HR
95% CI
P
Age & co-morbidity
0.02
0.44
0.97
0.01
< 70, Charlson score = 0
1
1
1
1
< 70, Charlson score = 1
2.7
1.4-5.2
1
0.4-2.1
0.9
0.6-1.4
2
1.1-3.7
70+, Charlson score = 0
1.5
0.9-2.6
1.4
0.9-2.3
0.9
0.6-1.4
1.5
0.9-2.5
70+, Charlson score = 1
1.5
0.7-3.3
1.1
0.5-2.4
1
0.6-1.6
2.4
1.4-4.0
Race
< 0.001
0.08
0.39
0.003
Non-Hispanic White
1
1
1
1
Non-Hispanic Black
3.4
1.8-6.7
0.8
0.5-1.2
1.1
0.8-1.5
1.1
0.6-1.7
Hispanic
1
0.5-2.0
1.3
0.8-2.2
0.8
0.5-1.2
1.3
0.8-2.1
Asian/Pacific Islander
6.4
2.9-14.4
0.4
0.2-1.0
0.9
0.6-1.2
0.5
0.3-0.9
Gender
0.78
0.87
0.84
0.18
Male
1
1
1
1
Female
0.9
0.6-1.5
1
0.6-1.4
1
0.8-1.4
0.8
0.5-1.1
Marital Status
0.43
0.01
0.39
0.33
Not married
1
1
1
1
Married
0.8
0.5-1.3
0.6
0.4-0.9
1.2
0.8-1.6
1.2
0.8-1.9
Stage
< 0.001
< 0.001
0.004
< 0.001
Stage I-III
1
1
1
1
Stage IV & unknown
2.5
1.5-4.2
2.6
1.6-4.0
1.7
1.2-2.3
5
3.4-7.4
Differentiation grade
0.11
0.049
0.01
0.14
Well/Moderately
1
1
1
1
Poorly/Undifferentiated
1.8
1.0-3.3
1.7
1.1-2.6
1.8
1.2-2.6
1.4
0.9-2.2
Unknown
1.7
0.9-3.2
1.3
0.6-2.8
1.5
1.0-2.3
0.7
0.3-1.7
Chemotherapy
0.09
0.68
< 0.001
0.12
No
1
1
1
1
Yes
0.6
0.4-1.1
1.1
0.7-1.8
0.6
0.4-0.8
0.7
0.5-1.1
GCA
Patients with GCA received therapies at a rate between that of EAC and SAC patients. Surgery alone was provided to 34% of stage I-III GCA patients (Table 2). One-quarter of stage I-III GCA patients received trimodal therapy. Nearly twice as many GCA patients as EAC patients but less GCA than SAC patients received no chemotherapy. Fewer patients received chemoradiotherapy compared to EAC patients. 5-FU was the most frequently used chemotherapeutic agent. Nearly twice as many late/unstaged GCA patients as EAC received no therapy. In multinomial logistic regression, age ≥ 70 was associated with a 70%-80% decrease in chemotherapy alone or chemoradiotherapy (Table 3). Women and patients with a Charlson Score of ≥ 1 were significantly less likely to receive chemotherapy, but not chemoradiation. In the Cox proportional hazards models patients, with late/unstaged disease or poorly/undifferentiated tumors had an increased risk of cancer deaths while married individuals had a decreased risk (Table 4).
SAC
Of the three anatomic sites, patients with SAC were most likely to receive surgery alone (Table 2). Nearly 50% of stage I-III SAC patients received surgery alone. Less than 20% of stage I-III SAC patients received trimodal therapy. Fewer SAC patients than EAC or GCA patients received chemotherapy. As with the other two anatomic sites, 5-FU was most frequently administered. Of the three anatomic sites, late/unstaged SAC patients received no definitive cancer treatment most often. In multinomial regression, age ≥ 70 was associated with 80% less chemotherapy alone or chemoradiation (Table 3). Late/unstaged disease was associated with decreased use of chemoradiation but a substantial increased use of chemotherapy alone. Proportional hazards models for cancer deaths showed that in non-surgical patients, late/unstaged disease or a poor/undifferentiated tumor was associated with increased risk of cancer death (Table 4). However, patients receiving chemotherapy had a significantly decreased risk. Among surgical patients, a Charlson Score of ≥ 1, regardless of age and having late/unstaged disease was associated with increased hazards. Lower risks were seen among Asian/Pacific Islanders, and a non-significant decreased risk among patients who received chemotherapy (Table 4). Patients who received chemoradiation had a statistically significant decreased risk both with (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.35-0.89) and without surgery (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.43-0.92) (model not presented) but all other prognostic factors had similar associations with hazard ratios as the Cox models which adjusted for chemotherapy.
DISCUSSION
RCTs have demonstrated that certain treatment strategies and regimens improve survival for patients with esophageal and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma. Variation in gastroesophageal cancer survival, however, has sometimes been attributed to case mix[28]. We therefore selected adenocarcinoma cases only and categorized patients by anatomic site to assess rates of treatment and survival among a population-based sample of patients treated in the community. We found significant differences in treatment and survival by anatomic site, stage, age, and race/ethnicity. This study highlights the considerably varied approach that community physicians take to treat adenocarcinomas at each anatomic site.
Lower EAC
While there is no consensus definition of the optimal therapy for patients with resectable EAC, clinical trials have indicated survival improvements when surgery is supplemented with additional therapies. Of the three cancer sites investigated in the current study, stage I-III EAC patients had the lowest rates of surgery alone as their primary treatment, but highest rates of pre-operative chemotherapy and chemoradiation as well as definitive chemoradiation. This may reflect the significant morbidity associated with esophageal surgery[29–32]. However, toxicities associated with pre-operative chemotherapy or chemoradiation can preclude a patient from further treatment[33].
RCTs and a meta-analysis have suggested a survival benefit associated with pre-operative and adjuvant chemoradiation compared to surgery alone[1133–37]. The US-Intergroup trial, CALGB-9781, closed early due to poor accrual, but an intent-to-treat analysis on the 56 enrolled patients, demonstrated better median survival in favor of trimodal therapy[12]. In our study, over a quarter of stage I-III EAC patients received trimodality therapy. The MAGIC and FNLCC phase III trials support the use of perioperative or preoperative chemotherapy; however, we found that few (2.5%) stage I-III EAC patients received surgery and chemotherapy as primary treatment. Chemoradiation was the treatment strategy received by the largest percentage of patients with stage I-III EAC (36.5%) and late/unstaged EAC patients (47%).
GCA
Optimal therapy for GCA is not clear. Most RCTs have included patients with this cancer in trials conducted for either or both of the other two anatomic sites[1838]. Reflective of this, we found that GCA patients seemed to receive treatment at a rate that fell midway between the other two anatomic sites. In the current population-based study, stage I-III GCA patients were most frequently treated with surgery alone (34%) or trimodal therapy (22%). For late/unstaged disease less than 25% received chemotherapy alone and a significant percentage received no therapy (39%).
SAC
In contrast to EAC and GCA patients, SAC patients received surgery alone most frequently (50% of stage I-III and 16% of stage IV/unstaged disease) and radiotherapy and chemotherapy less frequently than the other two anatomic sites. Although the MAGIC and FNLCC trials demonstrated a survival advantage for patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma[9], this was not evident in the current population-based study, where less than 20% of stage I-III SAC patients received chemoradiation with surgery.
With respect to advanced disease, several RCTs for SAC have demonstrated survival benefits for chemotherapy compared to best supportive care for stage IV (late-stage) disease[17]. However, we found that only 22% of patients with late/unstaged SAC received chemotherapy alone, with an additional 15% receiving chemotherapy with surgery, with surgery and radiation, or as chemoradiation. Furthermore, for late/unstaged disease, SAC patients received no therapy most frequently (43%).
Overall, our results do suggest that RCT-validated therapies have been incorporated into community practice, albeit at low levels. However, a significant percentage of patients, especially those with stage IV/unstaged disease, across all anatomic sites received no cancer-directed therapy. Our findings also highlight that the sequence and combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery in the adjuvant setting was distinct for each anatomic site. For example, of stage I-III EAC patients who received surgery plus chemotherapy and radiation, 81% received this therapy pre-operatively [most frequently with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin], while of stage I-III SAC patients who received surgery plus chemotherapy and radiation, 91% received this therapy post-operatively (most frequently with 5-FU and leucovorin). These sequences of therapy as well as the chemotherapeutic agents selected were also consistent with RCTs conducted in these disease sites[11].
Chemotherapeutic agents
Overall, the most frequently administered chemo-therapeutic agents in our study were 5-FU, cisplatin, and leucovorin. Newer agents (paclitaxel, irinotecan) have been investigated in phase II trials[3940] for use in EAC patients. We found that these drugs were used in community practice (Table 2). Use of these compounds was much lower among patients with SAC and GCA cancers. No patients received oxaliplatin, possibly because these cases were diagnosed in 2001 and findings advocating oxaliplatin for esophageal cancer were only presented in 2006[38]. Specific chemotherapeutic agents used alone or in combination with surgery and radiation are listed in Table 5. Whether patients received chemotherapy alone, chemoradiation, or trimodal therapy, the majority of patients received 5-FU in combination with another chemotherapeutic agent.
Table 5 Percentage distribution (weighted for the sampling fraction) of chemotherapy agents by selected therapeutic combinations gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients diagnosed in 2001; NCI: Patterns of care study (n = 1356)1 (Wt%).
Lower esophagus
Gastric-cardia
Stomach
I-III
IV-V
I-III
IV-V
I-III
IV-V
Chemotherapy only
Etoposide + Doxorubicin + Cisplatin
1 patient
0
0
0
0
0.6
5-FU only
0
3.2
0
3.3
15.9
5.1
Mitomycin only
0
16.7
0
0
0
0
Paclitaxel only
0
2.1
19.2
3.3
0
0
Capcitabine only
0
0
0
0
0
4.4
Gemcitabine only
0
0
0
3.1
0
1.2
5-FU + 1 agent
0
18
56
16.6
25.5
18.8
5-FU + 2 agents
0
4
24.8
40
26.6
23.3
5-FU + 3 agents
0
0
0
7.9
0
15.6
5-FU + 4 agents
0
0
0
2.6
0
2.2
Irinotecan + Paclitaxel
0
20.6
0
1.2
0
0.6
Irinotecan + Cisplatin
0
15.4
0
1.7
0
8.4
Irinotecan + Cisplatin + Paclitaxel
0
0
0
0
20.4
0
Other
0
20
0
20
11.7
19.7
Radiation and chemotherapy
5-FU only
2.1
9.2
34.8
29.2
5.6
20.6
Cisplatin only
0
17.1
0
3.3
0
0
5-FU + Leucovorin
0
1.2
0
0
0
14.3
5-FU + Cisplatin
50.6
28
61.5
32.6
7.9
0
5-FU + Mitomycin
25.1
0.7
0
0
0
0
5-FU + Irinotecan
0
0
0
0
30.1
0
Paclitaxel + Carboplatin
0
13.6
0
4.7
0
0
Chemo, NOS
4.6
8.9
0
7.5
20
13.1
Other
17.6
21.3
3.7
22.7
36.4
52
Surgery, radiation & chemotherapy
5-FU only
5
0
9.4
0
32.4
26.5
5-FU + Leucovorin
13.3
0
17.6
31.7
46.5
40.9
5-FU + Cisplatin
41.1
15.6
27.7
7.3
2.3
0
5-FU + Paclitaxel + Carboplatin
15.3
44.6
1.6
0
0.7
0
Other agents/Combos
25.3
39.8
43.7
61
18.1
32.6
Age disparities
Less frequent treatment of elderly patients has been widely reported[21–2541]. Sabel et al[31] reported that 50% of patients age < 70 and 32% of those age ≥ 70 were suitable for surgery at diagnosis. Similar to this, we found that in stage I-III EAC, 30% of patients aged ≥ 70 compared to 51% of those age < 70 underwent cancer-directed surgery and 56% of gastric-cardia patients aged ≥ 70 compared to 80% of those age < 70. The age-related treatment decline is likely attributable to a number of factors: (1) Potentially higher morbidity among elderly patients; (2) Compromised treatment options due to delayed presentation by elderly patients; (3) Increased anesthesiological risk[3142]; and (4) A higher prevalence of co-morbidities.
Median age at diagnosis for stomach cancer is approximately 70 years[43], an age when patients have a reasonable life-expectancy[43]. Selected medically-fit elderly patients do as well as younger patients after surgical or adjuvant therapy[4445]. Our models indicate that in EAC or GCA patients, being age < 70 with a Charlson score of 1+ was significantly and inversely associated with surgery (data not shown). Older patients (≥ 70) were also less likely to have surgery even with a Charlson score of 0. In our multinomial models, being age ≥ 70 was associated with a decreased use of chemotherapy or chemoradiation even after adjusting for co-morbid conditions. Although we saw this disparity in the use of chemotherapy or chemoradiation by age group, there was no evidence of treatment-related differences by racial/ethnic groups. This suggests that in a community-based setting, age, in addition to co-morbidity, influences whether or not a patient receives surgery, chemotherapy, and chemoradiation.
Survival
Survival from gastric adenocarcinoma is extremely poor[46]. Theuer et al[46] reported that patients aged ≥ 70 had higher risk of death even after adjusting for clinical, non-clinical and treatment-related factors. In contrast, we observed that in GCA and non-surgical SAC patients, age and co-morbidity were not significant predictors of survival, perhaps due to the poor prognosis for these patients. We noted higher mortality in non-Hispanic blacks and Asian/Pacific Islanders with EAC. Such racial disparities have been reported in other cancers[4748], however the underlying cause for this poorer survival is not clear.
A US-based survey of 59 radiotherapy facilities indicated improved survival associated with pre-operative chemoradiation for patients with esophageal cancer[20]. In the current study, chemotherapy and chemoradiation were associated with decreased mortality for SAC and EAC patients, although not GCA patients. This suggests that the receipt of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy may improve outcome in these poor prognosis cancers. This analysis was not a randomized study of therapy and although we adjusted for Charlson comorbidity score and additional potential confounders, patients who had better baseline health and who were selected for chemotherapy, may have been more likely to respond to such treatment or may have had better survival regardless of the use of chemotherapy.
In conclusion, RCTs have demonstrated that specific treatment strategies prolong survival in certain patient groups. We note that the use of these therapies was very low in US community-based practice despite their demonstrated survival benefits. Our study shows lower mortality among patients with EAC and SAC who received chemotherapy and significant disparities in terms of age in treatment receipt. Our findings highlight the distinctly individualized approach taken by community physicians in treating adenocarcinoma at these three anatomic sites. Community physicians appear to differentiate gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma as two distinct entities (i.e. EAC and SAC) and use different treatment strategies and chemotherapeutic agents for each, while patients with GCA are treated with a mixture of those employed for the other two anatomic sites. Improvements in community-based treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma will require better differentiation of treatments for the different anatomic sites and more extensive incorporation of those treatments proven effective in clinical trials. Future RCTs should be designed and appropriately powered to account for differences related to the anatomic site or origin of the tumor as well as the underlying tumor biology.
COMMENTS
Background
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that specific treatment strategies prolong survival in certain patient groups with gastric, gastro-esophageal and esophageal adenocarcinomas. However, the extent of use of these treatments in routine clinical practice is not clear. Research suggests that community-based use of treatment and the observed survival of patients in the community can vary depending on clinical and non-clinical factors.
Research frontiers
To determine whether treatment strategies used in routine community practice are based on anatomic location or cancer origin. To examine community-based use of specific chemotherapy regimens especially those evaluated in RCTs. To assess factors that influence treatment receipt and patient survival.
Innovations and breakthroughs
We document relatively low community-based use of treatments tested in RCTs in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. The use of these therapies was very low despite their demonstrated survival benefits. Our study shows lower mortality among patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and stomach adenocarcinoma (SAC) who received chemotherapy and significant disparities in terms of age in treatment receipt. Community physicians appear to take an individualized approach in treating adenocarcinoma at these three anatomic sites; differentiating between gastric and EAC and using different treatment strategies and chemotherapeutic agents for each, while patients with gastric cardia adenocarcinoma are treated with a mixture of those employed for the other two anatomic sites.
Applications
Improvements in community-based treatment of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma will require better differentiation of treatments for the different anatomic sites and more extensive incorporation of those treatments proven effective in clinical trials. Future RCTs should be designed and appropriately powered to account for differences related to the anatomic site or origin of the tumor as well as the underlying tumor biology.
Peer review
This is a retrospective study of a large number of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma focusing on treatment modalities and survival. This is an excellent and relevant study, which was well conducted and presented.
Footnotes
Supported by The Health Research Board of Ireland, N01-PC-35133, N01-PC-35135, N01-PC-35136, N01-PC-35137, N01-PC-35138, N01-PC-35139, N01-PC-35141, N01-PC-35142, N01-PC-35143, N01-PC-35145, N02-PC-15105, N02-PC-15106 and N02-PC-15107
Levi F, Lucchini F, Gonzalez JR, Fernandez E, Negri E, La Vecchia C. Monitoring falls in gastric cancer mortality in Europe.Ann Oncol. 2004;15:338-345.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Brewster DH, Fraser LA, McKinney PA, Black RJ. Socioeconomic status and risk of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and cancer of the gastric cardia in Scotland.Br J Cancer. 2000;83:387-390.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
O'Connell JB, Maggard MA, Liu JH, Etzioni DA, Ko CY. A report card on outcomes for surgically treated gastrointestinal cancers: are we improving?J Surg Res. 2004;121:214-221.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Ries LA, Wingo PA, Miller DS, Howe HL, Weir HK, Rosenberg HM, Vernon SW, Cronin K, Edwards BK. The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1997, with a special section on colorectal cancer.Cancer. 2000;88:2398-2424.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Hansson LE, Sparen P, Nyren O. Survival in stomach cancer is improving: results of a nationwide population-based Swedish study.Ann Surg. 1999;230:162-169.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Koshy M, Esiashvilli N, Landry JC, Thomas CR Jr, Matthews RH. Multiple management modalities in esophageal cancer: combined modality management approaches.Oncologist. 2004;9:147-159.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, Thompson JN, Van de Velde CJ, Nicolson M, Scarffe JH, Lofts FJ, Falk SJ, Iveson TJ. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer.N Engl J Med. 2006;355:11-20.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Boige V, Pignon J, Saint-Aubert B, Lasser P, Conroy T, Bouché O, Segol P, Bedenne L, Rougier P, Ychou M. Final results of a randomized trial comparing preoperative 5-fluorouracil (F)/cisplatin (P) to surgery alone in adenocarcinoma of stomach and lower esophagus (ASLE): FNLCC ACCORD07-FFCD 9703 trial.J Clin Oncol. 2007;ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I, 2007; 25:4510.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Walsh TN, Noonan N, Hollywood D, Kelly A, Keeling N, Hennessy TP. A comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma.N Engl J Med. 1996;335:462-467.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Tepper JE, Krasna M, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D, Reed C, Goldberg R, Rich T, Kiel K, Mayer R. Superiority of trimodality therapy to surgery alone in esophageal cancer: Results of CALGB 9781.J Clin Oncol. 2006;ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I, 2006; 24:4012.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Cooper JS, Guo MD, Herskovic A, Macdonald JS, Martenson JA Jr, Al-Sarraf M, Byhardt R, Russell AH, Beitler JJ, Spencer S. Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial (RTOG 85-01). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.JAMA. 1999;281:1623-1627.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Herskovic A, Martz K, al-Sarraf M, Leichman L, Brindle J, Vaitkevicius V, Cooper J, Byhardt R, Davis L, Emami B. Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with cancer of the esophagus.N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1593-1598.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Esophageal Cancer: Professional Treatment Guidelines.
2007. Available from: URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/esophageal.pdf.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, Hundahl SA, Estes NC, Stemmermann GN, Haller DG, Ajani JA, Gunderson LL, Jessup JM. Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction.N Engl J Med. 2001;345:725-730.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sastre J, Garcia-Saenz JA, Diaz-Rubio E. Chemotherapy for gastric cancer.World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:204-213.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Van Cutsem E, Moiseyenko VM, Tjulandin S, Majlis A, Constenla M, Boni C, Rodrigues A, Fodor M, Chao Y, Voznyi E. Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a report of the V325 Study Group.J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4991-4997.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Gastric Cancer: Professional Treatment Guidelines.
2007. Available from: URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/gastric.pdf.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Suntharalingam M, Moughan J, Coia LR, Krasna MJ, Kachnic L, Haller DG, Willet CG, John MJ, Minsky BD, Owen JB. Outcome results of the 1996-1999 patterns of care survey of the national practice for patients receiving radiation therapy for carcinoma of the esophagus.J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2325-2331.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Edwards BK, Brown ML, Wingo PA, Howe HL, Ward E, Ries LA, Schrag D, Jamison PM, Jemal A, Wu XC. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2002, featuring population-based trends in cancer treatment.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1407-1427.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Cronin DP, Harlan LC, Clegg LX, Stevens JL, Yuan G, Davis TA. Patterns of care in a population-based random sample of patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.Hematol Oncol. 2005;23:73-81.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Harlan LC, Clegg LX, Trimble EL. Trends in surgery and chemotherapy for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States.J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3488-3494.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Kaplan RS, Johnson KA, Lynch CF. Age, sex, and racial differences in the use of standard adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1192-1202.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
van Spronsen DJ, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Lemmens VE, Peters WG, Coebergh JW. Independent prognostic effect of co-morbidity in lymphoma patients: results of the population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry.Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:1051-1057.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Cronin DP, Harlan LC, Potosky AL, Clegg LX, Stevens JL, Mooney MM. Patterns of care for adjuvant therapy in a random population-based sample of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer.Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2308-2318.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373-383.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Verdecchia A, Corazziari I, Gatta G, Lisi D, Faivre J, Forman D. Explaining gastric cancer survival differences among European countries.Int J Cancer. 2004;109:737-741.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Wenner J, Zilling T, Bladstrom A, Alvegard TA. The influence of surgical volume on hospital mortality and 5-year survival for carcinoma of the oesophagus and gastric cardia.Anticancer Res. 2005;25:419-424.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D, Bains MS, Turnbull AD, Karpeh M, Brennan MF, Rusch VW. The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:42-50.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sabel MS, Smith JL, Nava HR, Mollen K, Douglass HO, Gibbs JF. Esophageal resection for carcinoma in patients older than 70 years.Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:210-214.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Sabharwal T, Morales JP, Irani FG, Adam A. Quality improvement guidelines for placement of esophageal stents.Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2005;28:284-288.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Geh JI, Crellin AM, Glynne-Jones R. Preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer.Br J Surg. 2001;88:338-356.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Urba SG, Orringer MB, Turrisi A, Iannettoni M, Forastiere A, Strawderman M. Randomized trial of preoperative chemoradiation versus surgery alone in patients with locoregional esophageal carcinoma.J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:305-313.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Urschel JD, Vasan H. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery to surgery alone for resectable esophageal cancer.Am J Surg. 2003;185:538-543.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Stahl M, Stuschke M, Lehmann N, Meyer HJ, Walz MK, Seeber S, Klump B, Budach W, Teichmann R, Schmitt M. Chemoradiation with and without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2310-2317.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Walsh TN, Noonan N, Hollywood D, Kelly A, Keeling N, Hennessy TP. A comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma.N Engl J Med. 1996;335:462-467.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Cunningham D, Rao S, Starling N, Iveson T, Nicolson M, Coxon F, Middleton G, Daniel F, Oates J, Norman AR. Randomised multicentre phase III study comparing capecitabine with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin with cisplatin in patients with advanced oesophagogastric (OG) cancer: The REAL 2 trial.J Clin Oncol. 2006;ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I, 2006; 24:LBA4017.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Ilson DH, Saltz L, Enzinger P, Huang Y, Kornblith A, Gollub M, O'Reilly E, Schwartz G, DeGroff J, Gonzalez G. Phase II trial of weekly irinotecan plus cisplatin in advanced esophageal cancer.J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3270-3275.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Ilson DH, Forastiere A, Arquette M, Costa F, Heelan R, Huang Y, Kelsen DP. A phase II trial of paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with advanced carcinoma of the esophagus.Cancer J. 2000;6:316-323.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Jougon JB, Ballester M, Duffy J, Dubrez J, Delaisement C, Velly JF, Couraud L. Esophagectomy for cancer in the patient aged 70 years and older.Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63:1423-1427.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Perego D, Casella G, Bonavina L, Pozzetti U, Soligo D, Incarbone R, Buda CA, Baldini V. Esophageal involvement as an uncommon modality of relapse of Hodgkin lymphoma.Dis Esophagus. 2003;16:270-272.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Tanisada K, Teshima T, Ikeda H, Abe M, Owen JB, Hanks GE, Yamashita T, Nishio M, Yamada S, Sakai K. A preliminary outcome analysis of the Patterns of Care Study in Japan for esophageal cancer patients with special reference to age: non surgery group.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:1223-1233.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Adam DJ, Craig SR, Sang CT, Cameron EW, Walker WS. Esophagectomy for carcinoma in the octogenarian.Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:190-194.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Theuer CP, Kurosaki T, Taylor TH, Anton-Culver H. Unique features of gastric carcinoma in the young: a population-based analysis.Cancer. 1998;83:25-33.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Zell JA, Rhee JM, Ziogas A, Lipkin SM, Anton-Culver H. Race, socioeconomic status, treatment, and survival time among pancreatic cancer cases in California.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:546-552.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
Crew KD, Neugut AI, Wang X, Jacobson JS, Grann VR, Raptis G, Hershman DL. Racial disparities in treatment and survival of male breast cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1089-1098.
[PubMed] [DOI][Cited in This Article: ]
