Display options
Cite
Anderson E, LeVee A, Kim S, et al. A Comparison of Clinicopathologic Outcomes Across Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment Modalities in Resectable Gastric Cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(12):e2138432doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38432.
Anderson, E., LeVee, A., Kim, S., Atkins, K., Guan, M., Placencio-Hickok, V., Moshayedi, N., Hendifar, A., Osipov, A., Gangi, A., Burch, M., Waters, K., Cho, M., Klempner, S., Chao, J., Kamrava, M., & Gong, J. (2021). A Comparison of Clinicopathologic Outcomes Across Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment Modalities in Resectable Gastric Cancer. JAMA network open, 4(12), e2138432. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38432
Anderson, Eric, et al. "A Comparison of Clinicopathologic Outcomes Across Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment Modalities in Resectable Gastric Cancer." JAMA network open vol. 4,12 (2021): e2138432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38432
Anderson E, LeVee A, Kim S, Atkins K, Guan M, Placencio-Hickok V, Moshayedi N, Hendifar A, Osipov A, Gangi A, Burch M, Waters K, Cho M, Klempner S, Chao J, Kamrava M, Gong J. A Comparison of Clinicopathologic Outcomes Across Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment Modalities in Resectable Gastric Cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 01;4(12):e2138432. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38432. PMID: 34889947; PMCID: PMC8665367.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 01;4(12):e2138432. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38432.

A Comparison of Clinicopathologic Outcomes Across Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatment Modalities in Resectable Gastric Cancer.

JAMA network open

Eric Anderson, Alexis LeVee, Sungjin Kim, Katelyn Atkins, Michelle Guan, Veronica Placencio-Hickok, Natalie Moshayedi, Andrew Hendifar, Arsen Osipov, Alexandra Gangi, Miguel Burch, Kevin Waters, May Cho, Samuel Klempner, Joseph Chao, Mitchell Kamrava, Jun Gong

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
  2. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Department of Medicine, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
  3. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Center, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
  4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
  5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
  6. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California.
  7. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
  8. Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

PMID: 34889947 PMCID: PMC8665367 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38432

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Treatment of resectable gastric cancer (RGC) uses a multimodal approach, including surgical treatment and chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy, and the optimal treatment strategy and timing of each of these modalities is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of various neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment modalities with pathologic complete response (pCR), surgical margin status (SMS), and overall survival (OS) in RGC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For this comparative effectiveness study, the National Cancer Database was interrogated to identify patients with RGC diagnosed from 2004 to 2015. Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma that was cT2-T4b, any N, and M0 and who underwent definitive surgical treatment were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The association of 9 treatment groups (ie, neoadjuvant chemoradiation only [nCRT], neoadjuvant chemotherapy only, adjuvant chemotherapy only [aCT], adjuvant chemoradiation only [aCRT], neoadjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy with timing unknown [CTTU], chemoradiation therapy with timing unknown, radiation therapy with timing unknown (RTTU), and no perioperative therapy [NT]) with 3 end points (ie, pCR, SMS, and OS) was analyzed. The analysis was done using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through February 2020.

RESULTS: Among 183 204 patients with RGC who were screened, 3064 patients were included in the analysis (median [IQR] age, 68 [57-77] years; 1764 [57.6%] men). There were 1584 tumors (51.7%) located in the antrum and 1539 stage 2 tumors (50.2%). On multivariable analyses among 1939 patients (owing to 137 patients with missing data for pCR and the exclusion of 988 patients with aCT and aCRT from pCR analysis), nCRT was associated with increased odds of pCR compared with NT, with the greatest odds ratio (OR) among all treatments (OR, 59.55; 95% CI, 10.63-333.56; P < .001). RTTU had the next highest OR (29.96; 95% CI, 2.92-307.53; P = .004). In multivariable analysis for OS among 3061 patients (owing to missing data for OS), CTTU was associated with decreased risk of death compared with NT (hazard ratio, [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.35-0.48; P < .001), with the lowest HR, as was nCRT (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35-0.66; P < .001), with the next lowest HR. Median OS was greatest among patients treated with CTTU (53.9 months; 95% CI, 44.5-61.0 months), followed by nCRT (39.1 months; 95% CI, 26.9 months-not applicable) and aCT (36.1 months; 95% CI, 28.88-49.18 months), while 2-year OS rates were 65.6% (95% CI, 61.3%-69.5%) for CTTU, 63.6% (95% CI, 52.3%-73.0%) for nCRT, and 59.7% (95% CI, 54.2%-64.7%) for aCT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that nCRT was associated with the highest pCR rate, while CTTU (ie, neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) was associated with the greatest OS.

References

  1. Ann Oncol. 2016 Sep;27(suppl 5):v38-v49 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 1;33(28):3130-6 - PubMed
  3. Ann Oncol. 2021 Mar;32(3):360-367 - PubMed
  4. Control Clin Trials. 1996 Aug;17(4):343-6 - PubMed
  5. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 1;357(18):1810-20 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Dec 10;28(35):5210-8 - PubMed
  7. Stat Methods Med Res. 2007 Jun;16(3):219-42 - PubMed
  8. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Aug;24(8):2252-2258 - PubMed
  9. Lancet Oncol. 2018 May;19(5):616-628 - PubMed
  10. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 6;355(1):11-20 - PubMed
  11. Lancet. 2012 Jan 28;379(9813):315-21 - PubMed
  12. Ann Oncol. 2021 Mar;32(3):368-374 - PubMed
  13. Am Surg. 2021 Jul;87(7):1145-1154 - PubMed
  14. Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1044-52 - PubMed
  15. Stat Med. 2011 Feb 20;30(4):377-99 - PubMed
  16. Gastric Cancer. 2021 Jan;24(1):1-21 - PubMed
  17. Gastric Cancer. 2018 Nov;21(6):1004-1013 - PubMed
  18. J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 1;29(13):1715-21 - PubMed
  19. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2020 Feb;32(2):110-120 - PubMed
  20. N Engl J Med. 2001 Sep 6;345(10):725-30 - PubMed
  21. Cancer Commun (Lond). 2019 Mar 18;39(1):10 - PubMed
  22. Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1948-1957 - PubMed
  23. Eur J Cancer. 2017 Aug;81:183-190 - PubMed

Publication Types