Oesophageal cancer

Development and validation of a multivariable risk factor questionnaire to detect oesophageal cancer in 2-week wait patients (2023)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Ho KMA; Rosenfeld A; Hogan Á; McBain H; Duku M; Wolfson PB; Wilson A; Cheung SM; Hennelly L; Macabodbod L; Graham DG; Sehgal V; Banerjee A; Lovat LB; SPIT Study Group Collaborators,. Included *Butterworth, J and *Button, H from Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust as investigators

Citation:
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology, 2023 Mar; Vol. 47 (3), pp. 102087

Abstract:
Introduction: Oesophageal cancer is associated with poor health outcomes. Upper GI (UGI) endoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis but is associated with patient discomfort and low yield for cancer. We used a machine learning approach to create a model which predicted oesophageal cancer based on questionnaire responses. Methods: We used data from 2 separate prospective cross-sectional studies: the Saliva to Predict risk of disease using Transcriptomics and epigenetics (SPIT) study and predicting Risk of disease using detailed Questionnaires (RISQ) study. We recruited patients from National Health Service (NHS) suspected cancer pathways as well as patients with known cancer. We identified patient characteristics and questionnaire responses which were most associated with the development of oesophageal cancer. Using the SPIT dataset, we trained seven different machine learning models, selecting the best area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) to create our final model. We further applied a cost function to maximise cancer detection. We then independently validated the model using the RISQ dataset. Results: 807 patients were included in model training and testing, split in a 70:30 ratio. 294 patients were included in model validation. The best model during training was regularised logistic regression using 17 features (median AUC: 0.81, interquartile range (IQR): 0.69-0.85). For testing and validation datasets, the model achieved an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.61-0.81) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96) respectively. At a set cut off, our model achieved a sensitivity of 97.6% and specificity of 59.1%. We additionally piloted the model in 12 patients with gastric cancer; 9/12 (75%) of patients were correctly classified. Conclusions: We have developed and validated a risk stratification tool using a questionnaire approach. This could aid prioritising patients at high risk of having oesophageal cancer for endoscopy. Our tool could help address endoscopic backlogs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Altmetrics:

Results of a randomized phase III study of dysphagia-optimized intensity modulated radiotherapy (Do-IMRT) versus standard IMRT (S-IMRT) in head and neck cancer (2020)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Conference abstract

Author(s):
Nutting C.; Rooney K.; Foran B.; *Pettit L.; Beasley M.; Finneran L.; Roe J.; Tyler J.; Roques T.; Cook A.; Petkar I.; Bhide S.; Srinivasan D.; Boon C.; De Winton E.; Frogley R.; Mertens K.; Emson M.; Hall E.

Citation:
Journal of Clinical Oncology; 2020; vol. 38 (no. 15)

Abstract:
Background: Most newly diagnosed oro-& hypopharngeal cancers (OPC, HPC) are treated with (chemo)RT with curative intent but at the consequence of adverse effects on quality of life. CRUK/14/014 investigated if using Do-IMRT to reduce RT dose to the dysphagia/aspiration related structures (DARS) improved swallowing function compared to S-IMRT. Method(s): Patients with T1-4, N0-3, M0 OPC/HPC were randomised 1:1 to S-IMRT (65 Gray (Gy)/30 fractions (f) to primary&nodal tumour; 54Gy/30f to remaining pharyngeal subsite&nodal areas at risk of microscopic disease) or Do-IMRT. The volume of the superior∣dle pharyngeal constrictor muscle (PCM) (OPC) or inferior PCM (HPC) lying outside the high-dose target volume was set a mandatory mean dose constraint in Do-IMRT. Treatment allocation was by minimisation balanced by centre, use of induction/concomitant chemotherapy, tumour site&AJCC stage. Primary endpoint was mean MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score 12 months after RT with 102 patients needed to detect a 10 point improvement (assuming S-IMRT score of 72, standard deviation (SD) 13.8; 90% power, 2-sided 5% alpha). Patients were blind to treatment allocation. Secondary endpoints included local control. Result(s): 112 patients (56 S-IMRT, 56 Do-IMRT) were randomised from 22 UK centres from 06/2016 to 04/2018. Mean age was 57 years; 80% were male; 97% had OPC; 90% had AJCC stage 3&4 disease; 86% had concomitant chemotherapy only, 4% induction&concomitant and 10% no chemotherapy. 111/112 had RT doses as prescribed (1 patient died before RT). Median of the mean inferior PCM dose was S-IMRT 49.8Gy (IQR 47.1-52.4) vs. Do-IMRT 28.4Gy (21.3-37.4), p < 0.0001; superior∣dle PCM dose was S-IMRT 57.2Gy (56.3-58.3) vs. Do-IMRT 49.7Gy (49.4-49.9), p < 0.0001. Do-IMRT had significantly higher MDADI scores: S-IMRT 70.3 (SD 17.3) vs. Do-IMRT 77.7 (16.1), p = 0.016. 3 local recurrences (1 S-IMRT, 2 Do-IMRT) have been reported. Conclusion(s): Do-IMRT reduced RT dose to the DARS and improved patient reported swallowing function compared with S-IMRT. This is the first randomised study to demonstrate functional benefit of swallow-sparing IMRT in OPC.

Link to full-text [no password required]

Optimizing chemotherapy for frail and/or elderly patient with advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGOAC): the GO2 phase III trial (2019)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Conference abstract

Author(s):
Swinson D.E.; Hall P.; Seymour M.; Lord S.; Marshall H.; Ruddock S.; Cairns D.; Waters J.; Wadsley J.; Falk S.; Roy R.; Joseph M.; Nicoll J.; Vellios Kamposioras K.; Tillett T.; Cummins S.; Grumett S.; Stokes Z.; Waddell T.; *Chatterjee A.; Garcia A.; Allmark C.; Khan M.; Petty R.

Citation:
Journal of Geriatric Oncology; Nov 2019; vol. 10 (no. 6), Supplement 1, S8

Abstract:
Introduction: aGOAC patients are frequently elderly and/or frail.
Objective(s): (i) find the optimum dose of oxaliplatin capecitabine (OCap) for this population; (ii) explore the use of an objective geriatric assessment to individualize dose for maximum overall treatment utility (OTU), a composite of clinical benefit, tolerability, quality of life (QL) and patient value.
Method(s): Patients with aGOAC were eligible if there was uncertainty of the appropriate dose of chemotherapy. Baseline assessment included global QL; symptoms; functional scales; comorbidity; frailty. Randomization was 1:1:1 to dose Level A (Ox 130 mg/m2 d1, Cap 625 mg/m2 bd d1-21, q21d), B (80% Level A) or C (60% Level A). At 9 weeks, patients were scored for OTU. Non-inferiority (vs A) was assessed using PFS, censored at 12 months, with upper boundary HR 1.34 (based on patients' and clinicians' discussions), needing 284 PFS events per two-way comparison. In a separate sub-study, when there was uncertainty regarding the use of chemotherapy, patients were randomized between level C and supportive care alone (SCA).
Results and Conclusion(s): 512 patients were randomized, 2014-2017, at 61 UK centers. Age, performance status and frailty were similar in all arms. Non-inferiority of PFS is confirmed for Level B vs A (HR 1.09, CI 0.89-1.32) and for Level C vs A (HR 1.10, CI 0.90-1.33). Level C patients had the least toxicity and best OTU outcomes. When analyzed by baseline age, frailty and PS no group was identified who benefit more from higher treatment doses. A further 46 patients were randomized between chemotherapy and SCA. A non-significant trend to improved survival was observed (HR=0.69, CI 0.32-1.48) and QL deteriorated less with chemotherapy. This is the largest RCT specifically investigating frail and/or elderly aGOAC patients, and should guide future treatment. The lowest dose tested was non-inferior in terms of PFS, produced less toxicity and better overall treatment utility.

Gefitinib and EGFR gene copy number aberrations in esophageal cancer (2017)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Conference abstract

Author(s):
Petty R.D.; Dahle-Smith A.; Stevenson D.A.J.; Osborne A.; Massie D.; Clark C.; Miedzybrodzka Z.; Murray G.I.; Dutton S.J.; Roberts C.; Chong I.Y.; Mansoor W.; Thompson J.; Harrison M.; *Chatterjee A.; Falk S.J.; Elyan S.; Garcia-Alonso A.; Fyfe D.W.; Wadsley J.; Chau I; Ferry D.R.; Miedzybrodzka Z.

Citation:
Journal of Clinical Oncology; Jul 2017; vol. 35 (no. 20); p. 2279-2287

Abstract:
Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a secondline treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti- EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.

Gefitinib and EGFR Gene Copy Number Aberrations in Esophageal Cancer (2017)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Petty, Russell D; Dahle-Smith, Asa; Stevenson, David A J; Osborne, Aileen; Massie, Doreen; Clark, Caroline; Murray, Graeme I; Dutton, Susan J; Roberts, Corran; Chong, Irene Y; Mansoor, Wasat; Thompson, Joyce; Harrison, Mark; *Chatterjee, Anirban; Falk, Stephen J; Elyan, Sean; Garcia-Alonso, Angel; Fyfe, David Walter; Wadsley, Jonathan; Chau, Ian; Ferry, David R; Miedzybrodzka, Zosia

Citation:
Journal of Clinical Oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; July 10;35(20):2279-2287

Abstract:
Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a secondline treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti-EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.