Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 75A)
Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 75A)
Report in English with a Dutch summary (KCE reports 75A)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Wetenschappelijke ondersteun<strong>in</strong>g van het<br />
College voor Oncologie:<br />
een nationale praktijkrichtlijn voor de aanpak<br />
van slokdarm- en maagkanker<br />
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> <strong>75A</strong><br />
Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg<br />
Centre fédéral d’expertise des so<strong>in</strong>s de santé<br />
2008
Het Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg<br />
Voorstell<strong>in</strong>g : Het Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg is een<br />
parastatale, opgericht door de programma-wet van 24 december 2002<br />
(artikelen 262 tot 266) die onder de bevoegdheid valt van de M<strong>in</strong>ister<br />
van Volksgezondheid en Sociale Zaken. Het Centrum is belast met het<br />
realiseren van beleidsondersteunende studies b<strong>in</strong>nen de sector van de<br />
gezondheidszorg en de ziekteverzeker<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Raad van Bestuur<br />
Effectieve leden : Gillet Pierre (Voorzitter), Cuypers Dirk (Ondervoorzitter),<br />
Avontroodt Yolande, De Cock Jo (Ondervoorzitter), Demeyere Frank,<br />
De Ridder Henri, Gillet Jean-Bernard, God<strong>in</strong> Jean-Noël, Goyens Floris,<br />
Maes Jef, Mertens Pascal, Mertens Raf, Moens Marc, Perl François, Van<br />
Massenhove Frank, Vandermeeren Philippe, Verertbruggen Patrick,<br />
Vermeyen Karel.<br />
Plaatsvervangers : Annemans Lieven, Coll<strong>in</strong> Benoît, Cuypers Rita, Dercq Jean-Paul, Désir<br />
Daniel, Lemye Roland, Palsterman Paul, Ponce Annick, Pirlot Viviane,<br />
Remacle Anne, Schoonjans Chris, Schrooten Renaat, Vanderstappen<br />
Anne.<br />
Reger<strong>in</strong>gscommissaris : Roger Yves<br />
Directie<br />
Algemeen Directeur : Dirk Ramaekers<br />
Adjunct-Algemeen Directeur : Jean-Pierre Closon<br />
Contact<br />
Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg (<strong>KCE</strong>)<br />
Wetstraat 62<br />
B-1040 Brussel<br />
Belgium<br />
Tel: +32 [0]2 287 33 88<br />
Fax: +32 [0]2 287 33 85<br />
Email : <strong>in</strong>fo@kce.fgov.be<br />
Web : http://www.kce.fgov.be
Wetenschappelijke ondersteun<strong>in</strong>g<br />
van het College voor Oncologie:<br />
een nationale praktijkrichtlijn voor<br />
de aanpak van slokdarm- en<br />
maagkanker<br />
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> <strong>75A</strong><br />
M. PEETERS, T. LERUT, J. VLAYEN, F. MAMBOURG,<br />
N. ECTORS, P. DEPREZ, T. BOTERBERG, J. DE MEY,<br />
P. FLAMEN, J.-L. VAN LAETHEM, B. NEYNS, P. PATTYN<br />
Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg<br />
Centre fédéral d’expertise des so<strong>in</strong>s de santé<br />
2008
<strong>KCE</strong> REPORTS <strong>75A</strong><br />
Titel : Wetenschappelijke ondersteun<strong>in</strong>g van het College voor Oncologie: een<br />
nationale praktijkrichtlijn voor de aanpak van slokdarm- en maagkanker<br />
Auteurs : M. Peeters (UZ Gent; College Oncologie), T. Lerut (UZ Leuven), J. Vlayen<br />
(<strong>KCE</strong>), F. Mambourg (<strong>KCE</strong>), N. Ectors (UZ Leuven), P. Deprez (UCL), T.<br />
Boterberg (UZ Gent), J. De Mey (UZ Brussel), P. Flamen (Jules Bordet<br />
Instituut), J.-L. Van Laethem (ULB), B. Neyns (UZ Brussel), P. Pattyn (UZ<br />
Gent)<br />
Externe experten : Michel Buset (Belgian Society of Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy), Wim<br />
Ceelen (Belgian Society of Surgical Oncology), Paul Cheyns (Upper GI<br />
sectie van het Kon<strong>in</strong>klijk Belgisch Genootschap Heelkunde), Jean-Marie<br />
Collard (Belgian Society of Surgical Oncology), Jochen Decaestecker<br />
(Vlaamse Verenig<strong>in</strong>g voor Gastro-enterologie), Jacques De Grève<br />
(Voorzitter Work<strong>in</strong>g Party Manual and Guidel<strong>in</strong>es, College Oncologie),<br />
Pierre Demetter (Belgian Digestive Pathology Club), Louis Ferrant<br />
(Domus Medica), Roland Hust<strong>in</strong>x (Belgische Genootschap voor Nucleaire<br />
Geneeskunde), Anne Jouret-Mour<strong>in</strong> (Belgian Digestive Pathology Club),<br />
Cathy Mah<strong>in</strong> (Belgische Verenig<strong>in</strong>g voor Radiotherapie-Oncologie), Max<br />
Mano (Belgische Verenig<strong>in</strong>g voor Medische Oncologie), Hubert Piessevaux<br />
(Société Royale Belge de Gastro-enterologie), Daniel Urba<strong>in</strong> (Belgian<br />
Society of Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy), Eric Van Cutsem (Vlaamse<br />
Verenig<strong>in</strong>g voor Gastro-enterologie), Bart Van den Eynden (Domus<br />
Medica), Didier Verhoeven (Belgische Verenig<strong>in</strong>g voor Medische<br />
Oncologie), Joseph Weerts (Upper GI sectie van het Kon<strong>in</strong>klijk Belgisch<br />
Genootschap Heelkunde)<br />
Acknowledgements Liesbet Van Eycken (Sticht<strong>in</strong>g Kankerregister), Kris Henau (Sticht<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Kankerregister)<br />
Externe validatoren : Harry Bleiberg (Jules Bordet Instituut), Marc De Man (OLV Ziekenhuis<br />
Aalst), Hugo W. Tilanus (Erasmus MC Rotterdam)<br />
Conflict of <strong>in</strong>terest : De meeste auteurs, externe experten en validatoren werken <strong>in</strong> een<br />
centrum gespecialiseerd <strong>in</strong> de behandel<strong>in</strong>g van slokdarm- en maagkanker.<br />
Joseph Weerts ontv<strong>in</strong>g betal<strong>in</strong>g voor deelname aan een postgraduaat<br />
cursus (IRCAD Straatsburg). Andere belangenconflicten werden niet<br />
meegedeeld.<br />
Disclaimer: De externe experten hebben aan het wetenschappelijke rapport<br />
meegewerkt dat daarna aan de validatoren werd voorgelegd. De validatie<br />
van het rapport volgt uit een consensus of een meerderheidsstem tussen<br />
de validatoren. Alleen het <strong>KCE</strong> is verantwoordelijk voor de eventuele<br />
resterende vergiss<strong>in</strong>gen of onvolledigheden alsook voor de aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen<br />
aan de overheid.<br />
Layout :<br />
Brussel, 21 maart 2008<br />
Studie nr 2007-28-01<br />
Ine Verhulst<br />
Dome<strong>in</strong> : Good Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Practice (GCP)<br />
MeSH : Esophageal Neoplasms ; Stomach Neoplasms ; Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Stromal Tumors ; Lymphoma,<br />
B-Cell, Marg<strong>in</strong>al Zone<br />
NLM classification : WI 149<br />
Taal : Nederlands, Engels<br />
Format : Adobe® PDF (A4)<br />
Wettelijk depot : D/2008/10.273/16<br />
Elke gedeeltelijke reproductie van dit document is toegestaan mits bronvermeld<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Dit document is beschikbaar van op de website van het Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de<br />
gezondheidszorg.
Hoe refereren naar dit document?<br />
Peeters M, Lerut T, Vlayen J, Mambourg F, Ectors N, Deprez P, et al. Wetenschappelijke<br />
ondersteun<strong>in</strong>g van het College voor Oncologie: een nationale praktijkrichtlijn voor de aanpak van<br />
slokdarm- en maagkanker. Good Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Practice (GCP). Brussel: Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de<br />
Gezondheidszorg (<strong>KCE</strong>); 2008. <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s <strong>75A</strong> (D/2008/10.273/16)
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s <strong>75A</strong> Slokdarm- en maagkanker i<br />
VOORWOORD<br />
Jaarlijks worden ongeveer 2000 Belgen met de diagnose van slokdarm- of maagkanker<br />
geconfronteerd. Gezien de slechte prognose vormen ze samen de vijfde belangrijkste<br />
oncologische doodsoorzaak <strong>in</strong> België, na long-, dikdarm-, borst- en prostaatkanker. Een<br />
belangrijk deel van de patiënten kan niet genezen worden en valt terug op een<br />
palliatieve behandel<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
In dit rapport wordt een evidence-based praktijkrichtlijn voorgesteld die zorgverleners<br />
en patiënten met slokdarm- of maagkanker moet helpen bij het nemen van kl<strong>in</strong>ische<br />
besliss<strong>in</strong>gen. Voor het opstellen van de aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen werd opnieuw vertrokken van<br />
bestaande <strong>in</strong>ternationale richtlijnen van goede kwaliteit, aangevuld met de meest<br />
recente wetenschappelijke literatuur. Bij potentieel behandelbare tumoren staat<br />
chirurgie centraal, waarbij een goede opleid<strong>in</strong>g en voldoende ervar<strong>in</strong>g van de chirurg<br />
cruciaal is. In de palliatieve situatie primeert de levenskwaliteit. Eens te meer wordt <strong>in</strong><br />
deze richtlijn het belang van multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg benadrukt.<br />
Voorliggende richtlijn is de vierde die tot stand kwam dankzij een ondertussen<br />
vertrouwde samenwerk<strong>in</strong>g tussen het College voor Oncologie en het <strong>KCE</strong>. Een grote<br />
groep experten, waaronder ook vertegenwoordigers van de Vlaamse wetenschappelijke<br />
huisartsenverenig<strong>in</strong>g, werkte aan dit rapport mee. Hun enthousiasme en <strong>in</strong>zet waren<br />
wederom groot en bepaalden <strong>in</strong> belangrijke mate de hoge kwaliteit van dit document.<br />
Onze welgemeende dank hiervoor.<br />
De ontwikkel<strong>in</strong>g van deze richtlijn vormt de eerste stap <strong>in</strong> een lang en cont<strong>in</strong>u proces.<br />
Met het onl<strong>in</strong>e ter beschikk<strong>in</strong>g stellen via de website van het College voor Oncologie<br />
wordt de verspreid<strong>in</strong>g en implementatie van deze richtlijn bevorderd. In de richtlijn<br />
wordt bovendien een prille stap gezet naar de ontwikkel<strong>in</strong>g van kwaliteits<strong>in</strong>dicatoren,<br />
die moeten toelaten de kwaliteit van de kankerzorg op te volgen. Enkele lopende<br />
kwaliteits<strong>in</strong>itiatieven, zoals het PROCARE project, zullen ongetwijfeld duidelijkheid<br />
brengen over de te volgen strategie hieromtrent.<br />
De aanpak van kanker krijgt momenteel behoorlijk wat aandacht met de ontwikkel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
van een nationaal kankerplan. We hopen dat voorliggende richtlijn nuttig kan bijdragen<br />
aan de verdere uitwerk<strong>in</strong>g van dit plan.<br />
Closon Jean Pierre Ramaekers Dirk<br />
Adjunct algemeen directeur Algemeen directeur
ii Slokdarm- en maagkanker <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> <strong>75A</strong><br />
INLEIDING<br />
Samenvatt<strong>in</strong>g<br />
B<strong>in</strong>nen de samenwerk<strong>in</strong>g tussen het College voor Oncologie en het <strong>KCE</strong> werden<br />
aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen ontwikkeld voor de aanpak van slokdarm- en maagkanker (<strong>in</strong>clusief het<br />
primaire maaglymfoom en gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>ale stromale tumoren [GIST]). Deze<br />
aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen beslaan het ganse traject van deze patiënten, gaande van diagnose tot<br />
follow-up. Ze zijn bedoeld voor alle zorgverleners die betrokken zijn <strong>in</strong> de zorg voor<br />
deze patiënten.<br />
METHODOLOGIE<br />
DEFINITIES<br />
Voor de ontwikkel<strong>in</strong>g van deze richtlijn werd de ADAPTE methodologie gebruikt. In<br />
eerste <strong>in</strong>stantie werden met behulp van kl<strong>in</strong>ische experten de belangrijkste kl<strong>in</strong>ische<br />
zoekvragen geformuleerd. Bestaande (<strong>in</strong>ter)nationale richtlijnen werden gezocht <strong>in</strong><br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e, Embase, National Guidel<strong>in</strong>e Clear<strong>in</strong>ghouse en websites van richtlijnorganisaties<br />
en oncologische organisaties. De 17 gevonden richtlijnen werden door middel van het<br />
AGREE <strong>in</strong>strument beoordeeld op hun kwaliteit door twee onafhankelijke reviewers en<br />
al dan niet geselecteerd op basis van een algemeen kwaliteitsoordeel. Vervolgens<br />
werden de 7 geselecteerde richtlijnen geupdated voor elke kl<strong>in</strong>ische vraag, door<br />
bijkomende evidentie te zoeken <strong>in</strong> Medl<strong>in</strong>e en de Cochrane Database of Systematic<br />
Reviews. Een level of evidence werd toegekend aan elke orig<strong>in</strong>ele aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g en<br />
bijkomende studie door gebruik te maken van het GRADE systeem.<br />
Gebaseerd op de gevonden evidentie werden aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen geformuleerd door een<br />
multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>aire richtlijnontwikkel<strong>in</strong>gsgroep. Deze aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen werden op een<br />
formele manier beoordeeld door vertegenwoordigers van de Professionele en<br />
Wetenschappelijke Verenig<strong>in</strong>gen. Belangenconflicten werden genoteerd.<br />
TOPOGRAFISCHE DEFINITIES<br />
VROEGE LETSELS<br />
Er bestaat veel discussie over de classificatie van tumoren van de gastro-oesofagale<br />
overgang. Voor dit rapport werden de volgende def<strong>in</strong>ities gehanteerd:<br />
• Indien meer dan 50% van de tumor zich <strong>in</strong> de maagcardia bev<strong>in</strong>dt,<br />
wordt hij geklasseerd als maagtumor.<br />
• Indien de tumormassa zich vooral <strong>in</strong> de slokdarm bev<strong>in</strong>dt, wordt hij als<br />
slokdarmtumor geklasseerd.<br />
• Tumoren van de gastro-oesofagale overgang dienen beschouwd te<br />
worden als slokdarmtumoren, en dienen als dusdanig te worden<br />
behandeld.<br />
Over de def<strong>in</strong>itie van een Barrett letsel bestaat er geen consensus. De meest gangbare<br />
def<strong>in</strong>itie is: een verander<strong>in</strong>g van het slokdarmepitheel die visueel kan herkend worden<br />
tijdens endoscopie en waarbij op biopsie een <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>ale metaplasie bevestigd wordt.<br />
Meerdere classificaties van dysplasie zijn beschikbaar. Kl<strong>in</strong>ische relevantie is een<br />
belangrijk criterium bij de keuze tussen deze classificaties.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s <strong>75A</strong> Slokdarm- en maagkanker iii<br />
FINALE AANBEVELINGEN<br />
1. SLOKDARMKANKER<br />
MDT: Multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air Team<br />
PET: Positronen Emissie Tomografie
iv Slokdarm- en maagkanker <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> <strong>75A</strong><br />
Diagnose<br />
De diagnose van slokdarmkanker is, naast een anamnese en kl<strong>in</strong>isch onderzoek,<br />
gebaseerd op een oesofagogastroscopie met biopsies. Patiënten met de volgende<br />
alarmsymptomen zouden vroegtijdig verwezen moeten worden voor endoscopie:<br />
dysfagie, aanhoudend braken, anorexie, gewichtsverlies en gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>aal bloedverlies.<br />
Hoge-resolutie endoscopie en chromo-endoscopie zijn niet rout<strong>in</strong>ematig aangewezen,<br />
maar kunnen nuttig zijn bij de opvolg<strong>in</strong>g van patiënten met een hoog risico op<br />
slokdarmkanker, zoals patiënten met een Barrett-slokdarm of hooggradige dysplasie.<br />
Aanpak van dysplastische letsels<br />
Stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Bij patiënten met een Barrett letsel moet een gestructureerd biopsieprotocol<br />
gehanteerd worden, met biopsies elke 2 centimeter uit 4 kwadranten en biopsies van<br />
elk zichtbaar letsel. Bij een vermoeden van hooggradige dysplasie dient er reken<strong>in</strong>g<br />
gehouden te worden met de kl<strong>in</strong>iek en endoscopische bev<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gen. Indien de<br />
hooggradige dysplasie bevestigd wordt en een therapeutische <strong>in</strong>terventie aangewezen is,<br />
is een grondige endoscopische (hoge-resolutie endoscopie +/- chromo-endoscopie,<br />
biopsies elke centimeter uit 4 kwadranten) en pathologische evaluatie (bevestig<strong>in</strong>g van<br />
de diagnose door tweede patholoog, eventueel bijkomende biopsies of diagnostische<br />
endoscopische mucosale resectie [EMR]) aangewezen. Behandel<strong>in</strong>g dient te worden<br />
besproken tijdens een multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg, en gebeurt best <strong>in</strong> centra met de nodige<br />
endoscopische en chirurgische expertise en voorzien<strong>in</strong>gen.<br />
Bij patiënten met slokdarmkanker is een CT van de thorax (<strong>in</strong>clusief lage halsregio) en<br />
het abdomen aangewezen ter uitsluit<strong>in</strong>g van metastasen. Indien curatieve behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
mogelijk geacht wordt, is verdere stag<strong>in</strong>g met echo-endoscopie (EUS) met of zonder<br />
fijne naald aspiratie cytologie (FNAC) aangewezen. Aanvullend kan PET(/CT) scan<br />
overwogen worden voor de evaluatie van lymfeklier- en andere metastasen. Bijkomende<br />
onderzoeken, zoals kernsp<strong>in</strong>tomografie, bronchoscopie (+/- bronchiale echografie +/-<br />
biopsie), thoracoscopie of laparoscopie, kunnen gebeuren op <strong>in</strong>dicatie.<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g van mucosale kanker<br />
Bij patiënten met een T1a letsel dient de diagnose bevestigd te worden door een<br />
tweede patholoog. Bijkomende biopsies of eventuele diagnostische EMR kunnen<br />
aangewezen zijn bij twijfel. Behandel<strong>in</strong>g dient besproken te worden tijdens een<br />
multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg, waarbij – reken<strong>in</strong>g houdende met het stadium, grootte, lengte<br />
van het Barrett letsel, histologische type, differentiatiegraad en lymfovasculaire <strong>in</strong>vasie –<br />
EMR de voorkeur draagt boven chirurgie.<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g van kanker voorbij de mucosa<br />
Neoadjuvante behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Neoadjuvante behandel<strong>in</strong>g is niet rout<strong>in</strong>ematig aangewezen bij patiënten met<br />
slokdarmkanker, en moet besproken worden tijdens een multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg.<br />
Neoadjuvante radiotherapie is niet aangewezen.<br />
Kl<strong>in</strong>ische uitkomsten en nevenwerk<strong>in</strong>gen van gecomb<strong>in</strong>eerde behandel<strong>in</strong>g (neoadjuvante<br />
behandel<strong>in</strong>g en chirurgie) dienen prospectief geregistreerd te worden.<br />
Chirurgie<br />
Chirurgie is de standaardbehandel<strong>in</strong>g bij patiënten met resecabele slokdarmkanker, en<br />
gebeurt bij voorkeur via een transthoracale ‘en bloc’ resectie met uitgebreide twee-veld<br />
lymfadenectomie. Het doel van chirurgie is volledige verwijder<strong>in</strong>g van de tumor (R0<br />
resectie). Chirurgie voor slokdarmkanker gebeurt bij voorkeur <strong>in</strong> gespecialiseerde<br />
diensten met een hoog volume door chirurgen met de nodige ervar<strong>in</strong>g en/of opleid<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s <strong>75A</strong> Slokdarm- en maagkanker v<br />
Adjuvante behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Adjuvante behandel<strong>in</strong>g is niet aangewezen bij patiënten met slokdarmkanker.<br />
Niet-chirurgische behandel<strong>in</strong>g met curatief opzet<br />
Uitsluitend radiochemotherapeutische behandel<strong>in</strong>g is te overwegen bij patiënten met<br />
een lokaal uitgebreide slokdarmkanker die niet-resecabel is, of bij patiënten met een<br />
lokaal uitgebreide slokdarmkanker die om medische redenen <strong>in</strong>operabel zijn of chirurgie<br />
weigeren.<br />
Palliatieve behandel<strong>in</strong>g en metastatische ziekte<br />
Follow-up<br />
Bij obstructie door een slokdarmtumor is stent<strong>in</strong>g, laserbehandel<strong>in</strong>g of argon plasma<br />
coagulatie (APC) aangewezen, afhankelijk van de plaatselijke beschikbaarheid en<br />
expertise. De behandel<strong>in</strong>g van dysfagie t.g.v. een slokdarmtumor gebeurt best met zelfontplooibare<br />
metalen stents of plastic ontplooibare stents. Bij tumor <strong>in</strong>- of overgroei <strong>in</strong><br />
patiënten met een stent is laserbehandel<strong>in</strong>g, APC of re-stent<strong>in</strong>g te overwegen.<br />
Radiotherapie (extern of endolum<strong>in</strong>eel) is te overwegen bij patiënten met dysfagie en<br />
een relatief langere overlev<strong>in</strong>gsverwacht<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Chemotherapie met of zonder radiotherapie is een behandel<strong>in</strong>gsoptie voor patiënten<br />
met lokaal uitgebreide of metastatische slokdarmkanker, die moet besproken worden<br />
tijdens een multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg. Palliatieve chirurgie, zoals oesofagectomie of<br />
substernale bypass, is niet aangewezen.<br />
Patiënten met slokdarmkanker moeten toegang hebben tot een gespecialiseerd palliatief<br />
team, dat specifieke aandacht dient te geven aan symptoomcontrole, voed<strong>in</strong>g en<br />
levenskwaliteit. De huisarts moet een coörd<strong>in</strong>erende rol hebben <strong>in</strong> de organisatie van<br />
de palliatieve thuiszorg.<br />
Bij patiënten die behandeld werden voor slokdarmkanker is een kl<strong>in</strong>isch onderzoek om<br />
de 3 maanden aangewezen. Een CT scan is aangewezen om de 6 maanden gedurende<br />
het eerste jaar, en nadien jaarlijks. Patiënten die behandeld werden met EMR moeten<br />
een controle endoscopie krijgen na 3 maanden, nadien elke 6 maanden gedurende 2<br />
jaar, en nadien jaarlijks.<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g van recidief<br />
Bij patiënten met een recidief slokdarmkanker dienen de therapeutische opties<br />
besproken te worden tijdens een multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg. Bij patiënten met een locaal<br />
recidief of nieuwe tumor na EMR behoort nieuwe lokale behandel<strong>in</strong>g tot de<br />
behandelopties.
vi Slokdarm- en maagkanker <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> <strong>75A</strong><br />
2. MAAGKANKER
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s <strong>75A</strong> Slokdarm- en maagkanker vii<br />
Diagnose<br />
De diagnose van maagkanker is, naast een anamnese en kl<strong>in</strong>isch onderzoek, gebaseerd<br />
op een oesofagogastroscopie met biopsies. Patiënten met de volgende alarmsymptomen<br />
zouden vroegtijdig verwezen moeten worden voor endoscopie: dysfagie, aanhoudend<br />
braken, anorexie, gewichtsverlies en gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>aal bloedverlies. Een test voor H.<br />
pylori positiviteit moet systematisch op weefsel gebeuren, en bij voorkeur bevestigd<br />
worden met een tweede test.<br />
Hoge-resolutie endoscopie en chromo-endoscopie zijn niet rout<strong>in</strong>ematig aangewezen,<br />
maar kunnen nuttig zijn bij de opvolg<strong>in</strong>g van patiënten met een hoog risico op<br />
maagkanker, zoals patiënten met een dysplasie.<br />
Aanpak van dysplastische letsels<br />
Stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Bij patiënten met een hooggradige dysplasie waarvoor therapeutische <strong>in</strong>terventie<br />
aangewezen is, is een grondige endoscopische en pathologische evaluatie (bevestig<strong>in</strong>g<br />
van de diagnose door tweede patholoog, eventueel bijkomende biopsies) aangewezen.<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g dient te worden besproken tijdens een multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg, en gebeurt<br />
best <strong>in</strong> centra met de nodige endoscopische en chirurgische expertise en voorzien<strong>in</strong>gen.<br />
Bij patiënten met maagkanker is een CT van de thorax en het abdomen aangewezen ter<br />
uitsluit<strong>in</strong>g van metastasen. Indien curatieve behandel<strong>in</strong>g mogelijk geacht wordt, is<br />
verdere stag<strong>in</strong>g met EUS met of zonder FNAC aangewezen. Bijkomende onderzoeken,<br />
zoals PET scan, kernsp<strong>in</strong>tomografie of laparoscopie, kunnen gebeuren op <strong>in</strong>dicatie.<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g van mucosale kanker<br />
Biopsies uit een mucosale maagkanker dienen beoordeeld te worden door een<br />
patholoog met relevante ervar<strong>in</strong>g. Behandel<strong>in</strong>g dient besproken te worden tijdens een<br />
multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg, waarbij – reken<strong>in</strong>g houdende met het stadium, grootte,<br />
histologische type, differentiatiegraad – EMR de voorkeur draagt boven chirurgie.<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g van kanker voorbij de mucosa<br />
Neoadjuvante behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Neoadjuvante behandel<strong>in</strong>g is niet rout<strong>in</strong>ematig aangewezen bij patiënten met<br />
maagkanker, maar is een optie die moet besproken worden tijdens een multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air<br />
overleg.<br />
Kl<strong>in</strong>ische uitkomsten en nevenwerk<strong>in</strong>gen van gecomb<strong>in</strong>eerde behandel<strong>in</strong>g (neoadjuvante<br />
behandel<strong>in</strong>g en chirurgie) dienen prospectief geregistreerd te worden.<br />
Chirurgie<br />
Adjuvante behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Chirurgie is de standaardbehandel<strong>in</strong>g bij patiënten met resecabele maagkanker. Distale<br />
tumoren worden behandeld met een partiële gastrectomie, proximale tumoren met een<br />
totale gastrectomie. D2 lymfadenectomie dient standaard te gebeuren. Het doel van<br />
chirurgie is volledige verwijder<strong>in</strong>g van de tumor (R0 resectie). Chirurgie voor<br />
maagkanker gebeurt bij voorkeur <strong>in</strong> gespecialiseerde diensten met een hoog volume<br />
door chirurgen met de nodige ervar<strong>in</strong>g en/of opleid<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Adjuvante chemo- of radiotherapie is niet aangewezen bij patiënten met maagkanker.<br />
Adjuvante chemoradiotherapie wordt niet rout<strong>in</strong>ematig aanbevolen, maar kan<br />
overwogen worden na besprek<strong>in</strong>g tijdens een multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg.
viii Slokdarm- en maagkanker <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> <strong>75A</strong><br />
Palliatieve behandel<strong>in</strong>g en metastatische ziekte<br />
Follow-up<br />
Palliatieve chirurgie is beperkt tot patiënten met symptomatische stenosen, bloedende<br />
tumoren en perforatie. Bij patiënten met een maligne maagobstructie bestaat de keuze<br />
tussen endoscopische stent<strong>in</strong>g of chirurgische gastro-enterostomie.<br />
Bij patiënten met lokaal uitgebreide of metastatische maagkanker en een goede<br />
algemene toestand is comb<strong>in</strong>atie chemotherapie te overwegen.<br />
Patiënten met maagkanker moeten toegang hebben tot een gespecialiseerd palliatief<br />
team, dat specifieke aandacht dient te geven aan symptoomcontrole, voed<strong>in</strong>g en<br />
levenskwaliteit. De huisarts moet een coörd<strong>in</strong>erende rol hebben <strong>in</strong> de organisatie van<br />
de palliatieve thuiszorg.<br />
Bij patiënten die behandeld werden voor maagkanker is een kl<strong>in</strong>isch onderzoek en<br />
bloedanalyse om de 3 maanden aangewezen. Een CT scan is aangewezen om de 6<br />
maanden gedurende het eerste jaar, en nadien jaarlijks. Patiënten die behandeld werden<br />
met EMR moeten een controle endoscopie krijgen na 3 maanden, nadien elke 6<br />
maanden gedurende 2 jaar, en nadien jaarlijks.<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g van recidief<br />
Bij patiënten met een recidief maagkanker dienen de therapeutische opties besproken te<br />
worden tijdens een multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg. Bij patiënten met een locaal recidief of<br />
nieuwe tumor na EMR behoort nieuwe lokale behandel<strong>in</strong>g tot de behandelopties.<br />
3. PRIMAIR MAAGLYMFOOM<br />
Diagnose en stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Bij een vermoeden van een primair maaglymfoom zijn m<strong>in</strong>stens 8-12 biopsies<br />
aangewezen. Biopsies dienen op die manier bewaard te worden dat moleculaire<br />
diagnostiek mogelijk is. Bij patiënten waar een primair maaglymfoom histologisch<br />
bevestigd wordt, is een EUS (zonder FNAC) aangewezen. Verdere stag<strong>in</strong>g is niet nodig<br />
bij patiënten met een laaggradig ‘mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue’ (MALT) lymfoom,<br />
tenzij noodzakelijk voor differentieeldiagnostische redenen.<br />
H. pylori eradicatie is de eerste keuze behandel<strong>in</strong>g voor patiënten met een stadium I<br />
laaggradig MALT lymfoom die geïnfecteerd zijn met H. pylori. Nadien is strikte<br />
opvolg<strong>in</strong>g met endoscopie en biopsies noodzakelijk. Evaluatie van de H. pylori eradicatie<br />
is nodig b<strong>in</strong>nen de 3 maanden. Patiënten met een succesvolle H. pylori eradicatie, maar<br />
zonder tumorregressie na 1 jaar of met tumorprogressie, dienen doorverwezen te<br />
worden naar een gespecialiseerd hematologisch centrum.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s <strong>75A</strong> Slokdarm- en maagkanker ix<br />
4. GASTROINTESTINALE STROMALE MAAGTUMOREN<br />
Diagnose en stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Bij patiënten met een kl<strong>in</strong>isch vermoeden van een gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>ale stromale tumor<br />
(GIST) van de maag is een EUS met FNAC en een immunohistochemische test van<br />
CD117 aangewezen. Indien therapie overwogen wordt, wordt een CT van het abdomen<br />
aanbevolen.<br />
Niet-metastatische resecabele GIST<br />
Bij patiënten <strong>in</strong> goede algemene toestand met een histologisch bevestigde nietmetastatische<br />
GIST, is chirurgische resectie aangewezen. Ook bij patiënten <strong>in</strong> goede<br />
algemene toestand met een maagtumor van > 5 cm die suggestief is voor een GIST en<br />
zonder aanwijz<strong>in</strong>gen voor metastasen, is chirurgische resectie aangewezen.<br />
Bij patiënten <strong>in</strong> goede algemene toestand met een maagtumor van 2-5 cm die suggestief<br />
is voor een GIST en zonder aanwijz<strong>in</strong>gen voor metastasen, dient de keuze tussen<br />
chirurgische resectie en een afwachtende houd<strong>in</strong>g besproken te worden tijdens een<br />
multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>air overleg. Bij patiënten met een maagtumor van < 2 cm die suggestief is<br />
voor een GIST en zonder aanwijz<strong>in</strong>gen voor metastasen, is een afwachtende houd<strong>in</strong>g<br />
aangewezen.<br />
Metastatische en/of niet-resecabele GIST<br />
Bij patiënten met een metastatische en/of niet-resecabele GIST wordt behandel<strong>in</strong>g met<br />
imat<strong>in</strong>ib aanbevolen. PET/CT wordt aanbevolen om de respons op imat<strong>in</strong>ib te<br />
beoordelen. Bij patiënten met imat<strong>in</strong>ib resistentie of <strong>in</strong>tolerantie kan sunit<strong>in</strong>ib<br />
overwogen worden als tweedelijns behandel<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
IMPLEMENTATIE EN HERZIENING VAN DE<br />
RICHTLIJN<br />
De implementatie van deze richtlijn dient bevorderd te worden door middel van een<br />
onl<strong>in</strong>e implementatie <strong>in</strong>strument dat gebaseerd is op de algemene algoritmes van de<br />
richtlijn. Dit <strong>in</strong>strument dient beschikbaar gesteld te worden op de website van het<br />
College voor Oncologie.<br />
Er dienen geschikte kwaliteits<strong>in</strong>dicatoren ontwikkeld te worden op basis van de<br />
belangrijkste aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen van deze richtlijn.<br />
Gezien de evidence evolueert, zal een update van deze richtlijn – na een pre-assessment<br />
van de literatuur – vermoedelijk noodzakelijk zijn over 5 jaar.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 1<br />
Table of contents<br />
Scientific <strong>summary</strong><br />
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 5<br />
1.1 SCOPE.................................................................................................................................................. 5<br />
1.2 EPIDEMIOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 5<br />
1.2.1 Oesophageal cancer............................................................................................................ 5<br />
1.2.2 Gastric cancer ...................................................................................................................... 6<br />
2 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 8<br />
2.1 GENERAL APPROACH........................................................................................................................ 8<br />
2.2 CLINICAL QUESTIONS....................................................................................................................... 8<br />
2.3 SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE..................................................................................................................... 9<br />
2.3.1 Cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice guidel<strong>in</strong>es................................................................................................. 9<br />
2.3.2 Additional evidence...........................................................................................................10<br />
2.4 QUALITY APPRAISAL........................................................................................................................10<br />
2.4.1 Cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice guidel<strong>in</strong>es...............................................................................................10<br />
2.4.2 Additional evidence...........................................................................................................10<br />
2.5 DATA EXTRACTION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................10<br />
2.6 FORMULATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................10<br />
2.7 EXTERNAL REVIEW ..........................................................................................................................10<br />
3 DEFINITIONS...................................................................................................... 12<br />
3.1 TOPOGRAPHIC DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................................12<br />
3.2 EARLY LESIONS.................................................................................................................................13<br />
3.2.1 Histology of the normal oesophagus ............................................................................13<br />
3.2.2 Barrett’s oesophagus ........................................................................................................13<br />
3.2.3 Dysplasia <strong>in</strong> squamous epithelium .................................................................................15<br />
3.2.4 Dysplasia <strong>in</strong> columnar epithelium ..................................................................................15<br />
4 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON OESOPHAGEAL CANCER ................................. 18<br />
4.1 FLOWCHART....................................................................................................................................18<br />
4.2 DIAGNOSIS .......................................................................................................................................19<br />
4.3 WORK-UP OF DYSPLASTIC LESIONS..............................................................................................20<br />
4.4 STAGING...........................................................................................................................................22<br />
4.5 TREATMENT OF MUCOSAL CANCER .............................................................................................23<br />
4.6 TREATMENT OF CANCER BEYOND THE MUCOSA .......................................................................24<br />
4.6.1 Neoadjuvant treatment....................................................................................................24<br />
4.6.2 Surgical treatment .............................................................................................................25<br />
4.6.3 Adjuvant treatment ...........................................................................................................27
2 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
4.6.4 Non-surgical treatment <strong>with</strong> curative <strong>in</strong>tent ..............................................................27<br />
4.7 PALLIATIVE TREATMENT & METASTATIC DISEASE ........................................................................28<br />
4.8 FOLLOW-UP .....................................................................................................................................30<br />
4.9 RECURRENT DISEASE .......................................................................................................................30<br />
5 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON GASTRIC CANCER............................................ 31<br />
5.1 FLOWCHART....................................................................................................................................31<br />
5.2 DIAGNOSIS .......................................................................................................................................32<br />
5.3 WORK-UP OF DYSPLASTIC LESIONS..............................................................................................33<br />
5.4 STAGING...........................................................................................................................................34<br />
5.5 TREATMENT OF MUCOSAL CANCER .............................................................................................35<br />
5.6 TREATMENT OF CANCER BEYOND THE MUCOSA .......................................................................36<br />
5.6.1 Neoadjuvant treatment....................................................................................................36<br />
5.6.2 Surgical treatment .............................................................................................................37<br />
5.6.3 Adjuvant treatment ...........................................................................................................38<br />
5.7 PALLIATIVE TREATMENT & METASTATIC DISEASE ........................................................................39<br />
5.8 FOLLOW-UP .....................................................................................................................................40<br />
5.9 RECURRENT DISEASE .......................................................................................................................41<br />
5.10 TREATMENT OF GASTRIC LYMPHOMA ..........................................................................................41<br />
5.10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................41<br />
5.10.2 Diagnosis and stag<strong>in</strong>g ........................................................................................................41<br />
5.10.3 Treatment............................................................................................................................42<br />
5.11 TREATMENT OF GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMOURS........................................................43<br />
5.11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................43<br />
5.11.2 Diagnosis and stag<strong>in</strong>g ........................................................................................................43<br />
5.11.3 Treatment............................................................................................................................44<br />
6 IMPLEMENTATION AND UPDATING OF THE UPPER GI CANCER GUIDELINE...... 46<br />
6.1 IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................................................46<br />
6.2 QUALITY CONTROL........................................................................................................................46<br />
6.3 GUIDELINE UPDATE.........................................................................................................................46<br />
7 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 47<br />
8 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 65
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 3<br />
ABBREVIATIONS<br />
95% CI 95 percent confidence <strong>in</strong>terval<br />
5-FU 5-fluorouracil<br />
AFE Autofluorescence endoscopy<br />
AGA American Gastroenterological Association<br />
APC Argon plasma coagulation<br />
ASCO American Society of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology<br />
BUS Bronchoscopic ultrasound<br />
CBO <strong>Dutch</strong> Institute for Healthcare Improvement<br />
CCO Cancer Care Ontario<br />
CODG Conventional open distal gastrectomy<br />
CPG Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Practice Guidel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
CRT Chemoradiotherapy<br />
CT Computed tomography<br />
EMR Endoscopic mucosal resection<br />
ESD Endoscopic submucosal dissection<br />
EUS Endoscopic ultrasound<br />
FNA(C F<strong>in</strong>e needle aspiration (cytology)<br />
FNCLCC Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer<br />
GI Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
GIST Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumours<br />
GOJ Gastro-oesophageal junction<br />
GRADE Grad<strong>in</strong>g of Recommendations Assessment, Development and<br />
HR<br />
Evaluation<br />
Hazard ratio<br />
HRE High-resolution endoscopy<br />
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer<br />
IBD Inflammatory bowel disease<br />
IUAC International Union Aga<strong>in</strong>st Cancer<br />
LN Lymph node<br />
MALT Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue<br />
MDCT Multidetector row CT<br />
MDT Multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team<br />
MeSH Medical Subject Head<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
MRI Magnetic resonance imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
NBI Narrow band imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
NICE National Institute for Health and Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Excellence<br />
OR Odds ratio<br />
PDT Photodynamic therapy<br />
PET Positron-emission tomography
4 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
RCT Randomised Controlled Trial<br />
RR Risk ratio<br />
SCJ Squamo-columnar junction<br />
SEMS Self-expand<strong>in</strong>g metal stents<br />
SIGN Scottish Intercollegiate Guidel<strong>in</strong>es Network<br />
SSBE Short-segment Barrett’s oesophagus<br />
UK United K<strong>in</strong>gdom<br />
US United States of America<br />
WHO World Health Organisation
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 5<br />
1 INTRODUCTION<br />
1.1 SCOPE<br />
In the present report, a cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice guidel<strong>in</strong>e (CPG) on upper gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
cancer is presented, which is the result of a collaboration of the College of Physicians<br />
for Oncology and the <strong>KCE</strong>. This cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice guidel<strong>in</strong>e will cover a broad range of<br />
topics: diagnosis, stag<strong>in</strong>g, treatment, supportive therapy, and follow-up. The guidel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
primarily concerns <strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>with</strong> oesophageal or gastric cancer, and is <strong>in</strong>tended to be<br />
used by all care providers <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the care for these patients.<br />
1.2 EPIDEMIOLOGY<br />
1.2.1 Oesophageal cancer<br />
Oesophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer <strong>in</strong> the world and one of the<br />
most lethal [1]. Incidence rates of oesophageal cancer show well-known regional<br />
disparities. Overall, <strong>in</strong>cidence rates for all types of oesophageal cancer range from four<br />
to n<strong>in</strong>e cases per 100.000 males per year (1975 – 1997) <strong>in</strong> Western countries [2].<br />
Lower <strong>in</strong>cidence rates are found <strong>in</strong> Northern Europe (F<strong>in</strong>land, Norway, and Sweden),<br />
whereas the French regions of Burgundy and Calvados have <strong>in</strong>cidence rates of > 14 per<br />
100.000 males per year.<br />
In the Netherlands, Crane et al. found an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> age standardised <strong>in</strong>cidence by 3.4%<br />
and 1.9% per year (1989 – 2003) for males and females respectively [3]. This <strong>in</strong>crease<br />
was almost exclusively caused by oesophageal adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas. In 14 years, age<br />
standardised mortality <strong>in</strong>creased 2.5% per year among males and 1.7% per year among<br />
females. Similar trends were found <strong>in</strong> the UK and the US, but not <strong>in</strong> France [4]. Relative<br />
survival <strong>in</strong> the Netherlands improved significantly from 8.1% <strong>in</strong> 1989-1993 to 12.6% <strong>in</strong><br />
1999-2003 (p
6 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
The differences <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>cidence trends of oesophageal squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma and<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma are less pronounced <strong>in</strong> Belgium (Table 2 and Figure 1). This is probably<br />
due to the fact that the Belgian cancer registration is of recent years (only go<strong>in</strong>g back<br />
until 1997). Dur<strong>in</strong>g the first registration years a high percentage of tumours <strong>with</strong><br />
unspecified histology were registered. However, recently the quality of the cancer<br />
registration markedly improved. This lead to an <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>cidence of both squamous<br />
cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma and adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma and a decrease <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>cidence of tumours <strong>with</strong><br />
unspecified histology (Table 2 and Figure 1) (Belgian Cancer Registry, personal<br />
communication).<br />
Table 2. Age standardised <strong>in</strong>cidence $ of oesophageal cancer <strong>in</strong> Belgium<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to histological type, 1997 – 2003 (n/100.000 person years) (Belgian<br />
Cancer Registry, personal communication).<br />
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003<br />
Males<br />
• SCC # 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.9 5.2 4.7<br />
• Adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.6 4.5 4.0 4.3<br />
• Unspecified tumour<br />
Females<br />
1.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2<br />
• SCC # 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5<br />
• Adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8<br />
• Unspecified tumour 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1<br />
$us<strong>in</strong>g a European standard population. #SCC: squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma.<br />
Figure 1. Age standardised <strong>in</strong>cidence $ of oesophageal cancer <strong>in</strong> Belgium for<br />
males accord<strong>in</strong>g to histological type, 1997 – 2003 (n/100.000 person years)<br />
(Belgian Cancer Registry, personal communication).<br />
$us<strong>in</strong>g a European standard population.<br />
1.2.2 Gastric cancer<br />
With an estimated 934.000 new cases per year <strong>in</strong> 2002 worldwide (8.6% of all new<br />
cancer cases), gastric cancer is <strong>in</strong> fourth place beh<strong>in</strong>d cancers of the lung, breast, and<br />
colon and rectum, <strong>with</strong> almost two-third of the cases occurr<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g countries<br />
[1]. It is the second most common cause of death from cancer.<br />
Gastric cancer <strong>in</strong>cidence rates vary by up to ten-fold throughout the world. Japan and<br />
Korea have the highest gastric cancer <strong>in</strong>cidence rates <strong>in</strong> the world.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 7<br />
High-<strong>in</strong>cidence areas for non-cardia gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong>clude East Asia, Eastern<br />
Europe, and Central and South America. Low <strong>in</strong>cidence rates are found <strong>in</strong> South Asia,<br />
North and East Africa, North America, Australia, and New Zealand [6]. Survival is<br />
moderately good only <strong>in</strong> Japan (52%), where mass screen<strong>in</strong>g by photofluoroscopy has<br />
been practiced s<strong>in</strong>ce the 1960s. Survival is also relatively high <strong>in</strong> North America<br />
(approximatively 21%), possibly due to early diagnosis follow<strong>in</strong>g a higher number of<br />
endoscopic exam<strong>in</strong>ations performed for gastric disorders. Estimated survival is 27% <strong>in</strong><br />
Western Europe [1].<br />
In the Netherlands, age standardised <strong>in</strong>cidence of gastric cancer decl<strong>in</strong>ed from 21.6 to<br />
15.9 per 100.000 person years <strong>in</strong> males and from 10.4 to 6.2 per 100.000 person years<br />
<strong>in</strong> females s<strong>in</strong>ce 1978 [7]. The age standardised mortality rates decreased from 20.7 to<br />
12.8 per 100.000 person years <strong>in</strong> males and from 8.2 to 4.2 per 100.000 person years <strong>in</strong><br />
females.<br />
In Belgium, the crude <strong>in</strong>cidence rate of gastric cancer rose from 12.9 per 100.000 males<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1997 to 14.9 per 100.000 males <strong>in</strong> 2003, and from 8.0 per 100.000 females <strong>in</strong> 1997 to<br />
8.4 per 100.000 females <strong>in</strong> 2003 (Belgian Cancer Registry, personal communication).<br />
Age standardised <strong>in</strong>cidence <strong>in</strong>creased by 2.6% and 0.8% per year (1997 – 2003) for<br />
males and females respectively (Table 3). However, <strong>in</strong> these rates tumours of the<br />
gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) are also <strong>in</strong>cluded.<br />
While the <strong>in</strong>cidence rates of these GOJ tumours recently <strong>in</strong>creased, the <strong>in</strong>cidence rates<br />
of ‘real’ gastric tumours (see chapter 3.1) decl<strong>in</strong>ed [8].<br />
Table 3. Age standardised <strong>in</strong>cidence $ of gastric cancer <strong>in</strong> Belgium, 1997 –<br />
2003 (n/100.000 person years) (Belgian Cancer Registry, personal<br />
communication).<br />
Year<br />
Males Females<br />
Belgium Flanders Belgium Flanders<br />
1997 7.4 9.2 3.1 4.3<br />
1998 7.3 8.3 3.4 4.1<br />
1999 7.9 9.1 3.5 4.4<br />
2000 7.5 9.0 3.9 4.5<br />
2001 8.2 9.8 3.5 4.2<br />
2002 8.5 9.8 3.9 4.5<br />
2003 8.2<br />
$us<strong>in</strong>g a world standard population.<br />
9.1 3.2 3.6
8 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
2 METHODOLOGY<br />
2.1 GENERAL APPROACH<br />
As for the previous CPGs developed <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> the collaboration between the College and<br />
the <strong>KCE</strong>, the present CPG was developed by adapt<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong>ter)national CPGs to the<br />
Belgian context [9]. This approach is currently be<strong>in</strong>g structured <strong>in</strong> a formal<br />
methodology by the ADAPTE group, an <strong>in</strong>ternational group of guidel<strong>in</strong>e developers and<br />
researchers [10]. The ADAPTE methodology generally consists of three major phases:<br />
1. Set-up Phase: Outl<strong>in</strong>es the necessary tasks to be completed prior to<br />
beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g the adaptation process (e.g., identify<strong>in</strong>g necessary skills and<br />
resources).<br />
2. Adaptation Phase: Assists guidel<strong>in</strong>e developers <strong>in</strong> mov<strong>in</strong>g from selection of<br />
a topic to identification of specific cl<strong>in</strong>ical questions; search<strong>in</strong>g for and<br />
retriev<strong>in</strong>g guidel<strong>in</strong>es; assess<strong>in</strong>g the consistency of the evidence there<strong>in</strong>, their<br />
quality, currency, content and applicability; decision mak<strong>in</strong>g around<br />
adaptation; and prepar<strong>in</strong>g the draft adapted guidel<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
3. F<strong>in</strong>alization Phase: Guides guidel<strong>in</strong>e developers through gett<strong>in</strong>g feedback<br />
on the document from stakeholders who will be impacted by the guidel<strong>in</strong>e,<br />
consult<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> the source developers of guidel<strong>in</strong>es used <strong>in</strong> the adaptation<br />
process, establish<strong>in</strong>g a process for review and updat<strong>in</strong>g of the adapted<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>e and the process of creat<strong>in</strong>g a f<strong>in</strong>al document.<br />
2.2 CLINICAL QUESTIONS<br />
The cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice guidel<strong>in</strong>e addresses the follow<strong>in</strong>g cl<strong>in</strong>ical questions:<br />
1. Which diagnostic techniques should be used for the diagnosis of oesophageal<br />
and gastric cancer?<br />
2. What are the best treatment options for dysplastic lesions of the oesophagus<br />
and stomach?<br />
3. What stag<strong>in</strong>g techniques should be used for oesophageal and gastric cancer?<br />
4. What are the best treatment options for mucosal oesophageal and gastric<br />
cancer?<br />
5. What are the best treatment options for oesophageal and gastric cancer<br />
beyond the mucosa?<br />
a. neoadjuvant treatment<br />
b. surgical treatment<br />
c. adjuvant treatment<br />
d. non-surgical treatment <strong>with</strong> curative <strong>in</strong>tent<br />
6. What are the best palliative treatment options for extensive disease?<br />
7. What are the best follow-up strategies for oesophageal and gastric cancer?<br />
8. What are the best treatment options for gastric lymphoma?<br />
9. What are the best treatment options for gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumours?
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 9<br />
2.3 SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE<br />
2.3.1 Cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice guidel<strong>in</strong>es<br />
2.3.1.1 Sources<br />
A broad search of electronic databases (Medl<strong>in</strong>e, EMBASE), specific guidel<strong>in</strong>e websites<br />
and websites of oncologic organisations (Table 4) was conducted <strong>in</strong> July 2007.<br />
Table 4: Searched guidel<strong>in</strong>e websites and websites of oncologic<br />
organisations.<br />
Alberta Heritage Foundation For Medical http://www.ahfmr.ab.ca/<br />
Research (AHFMR)<br />
American Society of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology (ASCO) http://www.asco.org/<br />
American College of Surgeons (ACS) http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/<br />
CMA Infobase http://mdm.ca/cpgsnew/cpgs/<strong>in</strong>dex.asp<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>es International Network (GIN) http://www.g-i-n.net/<br />
National Comprehensive Cancer Network http://www.nccn.org/<br />
(NCCN)<br />
National Guidel<strong>in</strong>e Clear<strong>in</strong>ghouse http://www.guidel<strong>in</strong>e.gov/<br />
National Cancer Institute http://www.cancer.gov/<br />
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) http://bfes.hassante.fr/HTML/<strong>in</strong>dexBFES_HAS.html<br />
BC Cancer Agency http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/default.htm<br />
Institute for Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Systems Improvement (ICSI) http://www.icsi.org/<strong>in</strong>dex.asp<br />
National Health and Medical Research Council<br />
(NHMRC)<br />
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/<br />
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidel<strong>in</strong>es Network<br />
(SIGN)<br />
http://www.sign.ac.uk/<br />
New Zealand Guidel<strong>in</strong>es Group (NZGG) http://www.nzgg.org.nz/<br />
Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte http://www.fnclcc.fr/sor/structure/<strong>in</strong>dex-<br />
Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC)<br />
National Institute for Health and Cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
Excellence (NICE)<br />
2.3.1.2 Search terms<br />
sorspecialistes.html<br />
http://www.nice.org.uk/<br />
For Medl<strong>in</strong>e the follow<strong>in</strong>g MeSH terms were used <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation: stomach neoplasms,<br />
esophageal neoplasms. For EMBASE the follow<strong>in</strong>g Emtree terms were used <strong>in</strong><br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ation: stomach tumor, esophagus tumor. These MeSH and Emtree terms were<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>with</strong> a standardised search strategy to identify CPGs (Table 5).<br />
Table 5: Standardised search strategy for CPGs.<br />
Database Search strategy<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e guidel<strong>in</strong>e [pt] OR practice guidel<strong>in</strong>e [pt] OR<br />
recommendation* [ti] OR standard* [ti] OR<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>e* [ti]<br />
EMBASE 'practice guidel<strong>in</strong>e'/exp<br />
2.3.1.3 In- and exclusion criteria<br />
Both national and <strong>in</strong>ternational CPGs on oesophageal and gastric cancer were searched.<br />
A language (<strong>English</strong>, <strong>Dutch</strong>, French) and date restriction (2001 – 2007) were used.<br />
CPGs <strong>with</strong>out references were excluded, as were CPGs <strong>with</strong>out clear<br />
recommendations.
10 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
2.3.2 Additional evidence<br />
For each cl<strong>in</strong>ical question, the evidence – identified through the <strong>in</strong>cluded CPGs – was<br />
updated by search<strong>in</strong>g Medl<strong>in</strong>e and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from<br />
the search date of the CPG on (search date August – September 2007). A comb<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
of appropriate MeSH terms and free text words was used (see appendix).<br />
For therapeutic <strong>in</strong>terventions, only systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials<br />
(RCT) were <strong>in</strong>cluded. However, for diagnostic <strong>in</strong>terventions we also searched for<br />
observational studies <strong>in</strong> case no systematic review or RCT was found. The identified<br />
studies were selected based on title and abstract. For all eligible studies, the full-text<br />
was retrieved. In case no full-text was available, the study was not taken <strong>in</strong>to account<br />
for the f<strong>in</strong>al recommendations.<br />
2.4 QUALITY APPRAISAL<br />
2.4.1 Cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice guidel<strong>in</strong>es<br />
In total, 17 CPGs were identified. All were quality appraised by two <strong>in</strong>dependent<br />
reviewers (JV, FM) us<strong>in</strong>g the AGREE <strong>in</strong>strument. Disagreement was discussed face-toface.<br />
At the end, agreement was reached for all CPGs, and 7 CPGs were <strong>in</strong>cluded (see<br />
appendix).<br />
2.4.2 Additional evidence<br />
The quality of the retrieved systematic reviews and RCTs was assessed us<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
checklists of the <strong>Dutch</strong> Cochrane Centre (www.cochrane.nl).<br />
2.5 DATA EXTRACTION AND SUMMARY<br />
For each <strong>in</strong>cluded CPG the follow<strong>in</strong>g data were extracted: search date & publication<br />
year, searched databases, availability of evidence tables, recommendations and<br />
referenced evidence.<br />
For each systematic review, the search date, publication year, <strong>in</strong>cluded studies and ma<strong>in</strong><br />
results were extracted. For RCTs, the follow<strong>in</strong>g data were extracted: publication year,<br />
study population, study <strong>in</strong>tervention, and outcomes.<br />
For each cl<strong>in</strong>ical question, the recommendations from the identified CPGs and the<br />
additional evidence were summarized <strong>in</strong> evidence tables. A level of evidence was<br />
assigned to each recommendation and additional study us<strong>in</strong>g the GRADE system (see<br />
appendix).<br />
2.6 FORMULATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS<br />
Based on the retrieved evidence, a first draft of recommendations was prepared by a<br />
small work<strong>in</strong>g group (JV, FM). This first draft together <strong>with</strong> the evidence tables was<br />
circulated to the guidel<strong>in</strong>e development group 2 weeks prior to the first face-to-face<br />
meet<strong>in</strong>g. The guidel<strong>in</strong>e development group met on several occasions (October 1 st 2007,<br />
November 5 th 2007, December 10 th 2007 and January 9 th 2008) to discuss the first draft.<br />
Recommendations were changed if important evidence supported this change. Based on<br />
the discussion meet<strong>in</strong>gs a second draft of recommendations was prepared. A grade of<br />
recommendation was assigned to each recommendation us<strong>in</strong>g the GRADE system (see<br />
appendix). The second draft was once more circulated to the guidel<strong>in</strong>e development<br />
group for f<strong>in</strong>al approval.<br />
2.7 EXTERNAL REVIEW<br />
The recommendations prepared by the guidel<strong>in</strong>e development group were circulated to<br />
the Professional Associations (Table 6). Each association was asked to assign 2 key<br />
persons to discuss the recommendations dur<strong>in</strong>g an open meet<strong>in</strong>g.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 11<br />
These panellists received the recommendations one week prior to this open meet<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
As a preparation of the meet<strong>in</strong>g all <strong>in</strong>vited panellists were asked to score each<br />
recommendation on a 5-po<strong>in</strong>t Likert-scale to <strong>in</strong>dicate their agreement <strong>with</strong> the<br />
recommendation, <strong>with</strong> a score of ‘1’ <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g ‘completely disagree’, ‘2’ <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
‘somewhat disagree’, ‘3’ <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g ‘unsure’, ‘4’ <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g ‘somewhat agree’, and ‘5’<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g ‘completely agree’ (the panellists were also able to answer ‘not applicable’ <strong>in</strong><br />
case they were not familiar <strong>with</strong> the underly<strong>in</strong>g evidence). In case a panellist disagreed<br />
<strong>with</strong> the recommendation (score ‘1’ or ‘2’), (s)he was asked to provide appropriate<br />
evidence. All scores (n = 15) were than anonymized and summarized <strong>in</strong>to a mean score,<br />
standard deviation and % of ‘agree’-scores (score ‘4’ and ‘5’) to allow a targeted<br />
discussion (see appendix). The recommendations were then discussed dur<strong>in</strong>g a face-toface<br />
meet<strong>in</strong>g on January 23 rd 2008. Based on this discussion a f<strong>in</strong>al draft of the<br />
recommendations was prepared, and discussed by the guidel<strong>in</strong>e development group by<br />
email. In appendix, an overview is provided of how the comments of the experts were<br />
taken <strong>in</strong>to account.<br />
Table 6: List of Professional Associations to which the recommendations<br />
were communicated.<br />
Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO)<br />
Belgian Society of Radiotherapy (BVRO – ABRO)<br />
Belgian Society of Nuclear Medic<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Belgian Society of Surgical Oncology (BSSO)<br />
Upper GI section of the Royal Belgian Society of Surgery<br />
Flemish Society of Gastroenterology (VVGE)<br />
Belgian Group of Digestive Oncology (BGDO)<br />
Royal Belgian Society of Gastroenterology (SRBGE)<br />
Domus Medica (Scientific association of Flemish general practitioners)<br />
Belgian Society of Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy (BSGIE)<br />
Belgian Digestive Pathology Club<br />
Belgian Society of Pathology<br />
Royal Belgian Radiological Society<br />
Scientific Society of General Medic<strong>in</strong>e (SSMG)<br />
Belgian Group for Endoscopic Surgery (BGES)
12 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
3 DEFINITIONS<br />
3.1 TOPOGRAPHIC DEFINITIONS<br />
Traditionally, when discuss<strong>in</strong>g cancer of the oesophagus, cancer of the gastrooesophageal<br />
junction (GOJ) is also <strong>in</strong>cluded. Cl<strong>in</strong>icians are very often confronted <strong>with</strong><br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas that straddle the GOJ. Various criteria have been used to categorize<br />
tumours situated at the GOJ. In most classification systems, the anatomic location of the<br />
epicentre or predom<strong>in</strong>ant mass of the tumour is used to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether the<br />
neoplasm is oesophageal or gastric (cardia) <strong>in</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>.<br />
Siewert and Ste<strong>in</strong> proposed a topographic classification for cardia carc<strong>in</strong>omas [11].<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to these authors, epidemiologic, cl<strong>in</strong>ical, and pathologic data support a<br />
subclassification of adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas aris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to the vic<strong>in</strong>ity (i.e. that have their centre<br />
<strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> 5 cm proximal and distal of the anatomical cardia) of the GOJ <strong>in</strong>to:<br />
1. adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the distal oesophagus, which usually arises from an area <strong>with</strong><br />
specialized <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia (i.e. Barrett oesophagus) and may <strong>in</strong>filtrate<br />
the GOJ from above (type I);<br />
2. true carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the cardia aris<strong>in</strong>g immediately at the GOJ (type II);<br />
3. subcardial carc<strong>in</strong>oma that <strong>in</strong>filtrates the GOJ and distal oesophagus from below<br />
(type III).<br />
In contrast to previously described classification systems, Siewert and Ste<strong>in</strong> attempted<br />
to solve the problem of splitt<strong>in</strong>g up GOJ tumours <strong>in</strong>to oesophageal and gastric tumours<br />
by creat<strong>in</strong>g a third entity [11]. This third entity, the so-called cardiacarc<strong>in</strong>oma, is<br />
lump<strong>in</strong>g a large group of tumours and ‘squeezes’ the true GOJ tumours between the<br />
type I and type II tumours. Their effort seems rather add<strong>in</strong>g to the confusion than<br />
help<strong>in</strong>g to solve the true problem. This classification is entirely based on identify<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
“anatomical” cardia and measur<strong>in</strong>g the centre of the tumour <strong>in</strong> relation to this<br />
anatomical cardia on the resected specimen (i.e. pathological stag<strong>in</strong>g). However,<br />
measur<strong>in</strong>g the centre of the tumour is impractical if not impossible for cl<strong>in</strong>ical stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
purposes, which need to be as accurate as possible for mak<strong>in</strong>g appropriate therapeutic<br />
decisions.<br />
In 2000, the World Health Organization Classification of Tumours published Pathology<br />
and Genetics of Tumours of the Digestive System [12]. The authors formulated<br />
diagnostic criteria based on the follow<strong>in</strong>g def<strong>in</strong>ition of the GOJ: “the GOJ is the<br />
anatomical region at which the tubular oesophagus jo<strong>in</strong>s the stomach”. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
these authors, adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas that cross the GOJ are called adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas of the<br />
GOJ, regardless of where the bulk of the tumour lies. Adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas located entirely<br />
above the GOJ, as def<strong>in</strong>ed above, are considered oesophageal carc<strong>in</strong>omas.<br />
Adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas located entirely below the GOJ are considered gastric <strong>in</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>. The<br />
use of the ambiguous and often mislead<strong>in</strong>g term ‘carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the gastric cardia’ is<br />
discouraged. Depend<strong>in</strong>g on their size, these tumours should <strong>in</strong>stead be referred to as<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the body of the stomach [12].<br />
In the most recent recommendations of the International Union Aga<strong>in</strong>st Cancer (IUAC)<br />
[13], accord<strong>in</strong>g to the advice formulated <strong>in</strong> the supplement on the TNM classification,<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas situated at the GOJ are to be classified <strong>in</strong>to oesophageal, GOJ or<br />
cardiac adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas us<strong>in</strong>g a s<strong>in</strong>gle major criterion, i.e. the localization of the bulk of<br />
the tumour. If more than 50% of the mass of the tumour is situated <strong>in</strong> the cardia, the<br />
tumour should be considered to be of cardiac orig<strong>in</strong> and classified as a gastric tumour. If<br />
the mass of the tumour is predom<strong>in</strong>antly found <strong>in</strong> the oesophagus, it is to be classified<br />
as an oesophageal tumour. Furthermore, it is specified that a tumour situated on the<br />
GOJ is likely to be of oesophageal orig<strong>in</strong> when the neoplastic lesion was associated <strong>with</strong><br />
a Barrett oesophagus of the specialized or <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al type. Unfortunately, the<br />
recommendations <strong>in</strong> the most recent Cancer Stag<strong>in</strong>g Manual on how to handle these<br />
tumours may not always be compatible <strong>with</strong> this classification, aga<strong>in</strong> creat<strong>in</strong>g confusion.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 13<br />
The chapter on stomach refers to the 50% rule, whereas the chapter on oesophagus<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicates that “tumours aris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> the GOJ and gastric cardia that have m<strong>in</strong>imal<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement (2 cm or less) of the oesophagus are considered primary gastric cancers”.<br />
A cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>cidence of cardia cancer has been reported s<strong>in</strong>ce the mid<br />
1970s [14]. The output of scientific publications on cardia and cardiac cancer has<br />
evolved <strong>in</strong> parallel <strong>in</strong>ternationally. Today, the vast majority of data available on cardia<br />
and cardiac cancer are not comparable because of lack/variability of diagnostic criteria.<br />
This may result <strong>in</strong> therapeutic approaches based on loose (and non-scientific) grounds.<br />
Uniformity <strong>in</strong> classification, term<strong>in</strong>ology and diagnostic criteria is urgently needed. At<br />
present, at least <strong>in</strong> our experience, it would appear that the similarities between<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the GOJ or cardia and Barrett adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma outnumber the<br />
dissimilarities and are to be differentiated from gastric (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g “subcardia”) cancer<br />
[15, 16].<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce the ‘50% rule’ as proposed by the IUAC [13] is practical from a cl<strong>in</strong>ical stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t of view, easily be<strong>in</strong>g applicable on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) (the top of<br />
the longitud<strong>in</strong>al gastric mucosal folds be<strong>in</strong>g the endoscopic landmark between<br />
oesophagus and stomach), this rule will be used <strong>in</strong> the present CPG. “True” GOJ<br />
tumours should be classified and treated as oesophageal tumours.<br />
Key po<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
• If more than 50% of the mass of the tumour is situated <strong>in</strong> the cardia, the<br />
tumour should be considered to be of cardiac orig<strong>in</strong> and classified as a<br />
gastric tumour.<br />
• If the mass of the tumour is predom<strong>in</strong>antly found <strong>in</strong> the oesophagus, it<br />
should be classified as an oesophageal tumour.<br />
• Tumours of the gastro-oesophageal junction should be classified and have<br />
the same concept of treatment as oesophageal tumours.<br />
3.2 EARLY LESIONS<br />
3.2.1 Histology of the normal oesophagus<br />
The lum<strong>in</strong>al side of the normal oesophagus is l<strong>in</strong>ed by mucosa composed of epithelium,<br />
lam<strong>in</strong>a propria and the muscularis mucosae. Except for a short segment of columnar<br />
epithelium <strong>in</strong> the distal oesophagus at the gastro-oesophageal junction the normal<br />
oesophageal epithelium is a tough non-kerat<strong>in</strong>iz<strong>in</strong>g stratified squamous epithelium. This<br />
epithelium consists of a dynamic cell population which is renewed cont<strong>in</strong>uously. The<br />
different cell layers <strong>in</strong> the squamous epithelium - basal, <strong>in</strong>termediate or prickle cell<br />
layers and superficial layers (functional and surface) - are the morphological expression<br />
of processes of proliferation, differentiation or maturation and dy<strong>in</strong>g cells. A variety of<br />
cell types such as neuroendocr<strong>in</strong>e cells (Merkel cells), rare melanocytes, lymphocytes<br />
and Langerhans cells are normally present <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> the squamous epithelium of the<br />
oesophagus. The lam<strong>in</strong>a propria rests on a muscularis mucosae. The lam<strong>in</strong>a propria<br />
conta<strong>in</strong>s lymphatics, blood vessels, nerve fibres and occasional <strong>in</strong>flammatory cells. The<br />
three rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g layers of the oesophageal wall are the submucosa, an area of loose<br />
connective tissue conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g mucus-secret<strong>in</strong>g glands that open <strong>in</strong>to the lumen via ducts,<br />
the muscularis propria <strong>with</strong> an <strong>in</strong>ner circular and an outer longitud<strong>in</strong>al layer, and the<br />
adventitia. The oesophagus lacks a def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g layer of mesothelial cells.<br />
3.2.2 Barrett’s oesophagus<br />
3.2.2.1 Anatomy<br />
The muscular GOJ is the site at which the most distal portion of the oesophagus (the<br />
most distal segment of the lower oesophageal sph<strong>in</strong>cter [LOS]) meets the proximal<br />
stomach. Endoscopically, one can closely approximate the muscular GOJ by identify<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the proximal marg<strong>in</strong> of the gastric folds.
14 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
3.2.2.2 Histology<br />
The mucosal GOJ, also known as the mucosal squamo-columnar junction (SCJ) or Zl<strong>in</strong>e,<br />
is the site at which the squamous mucosa of the oesophagus meets columnar- l<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
mucosa. It is important to understand, however, that the SCJ may be at the same level<br />
as the muscular GOJ or may lie 1-2 cm above the muscular GOJ <strong>in</strong> ‘normal’ <strong>in</strong>dividuals.<br />
In order to avoid confusion between Barrett’s mucosa and normal – gastric – junctional<br />
columnar mucosa, especially <strong>in</strong> cases further complicated by the presence of hiatus<br />
hernia, an arbitrary m<strong>in</strong>imal length of 3 cm of Barrett’s mucosa from the GOJ was<br />
required before the diagnosis of Barrett’s mucosa could be made [17]. Short-segment<br />
Barrett’s oesophagus (SSBE) was later def<strong>in</strong>ed as Barrett’s mucosa
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 15<br />
The ‘double’ muscularis mucosae can only be visualized <strong>in</strong> (good quality) endoscopic<br />
mucosal resection (EMR) and operation specimens. Only <strong>in</strong>vasion through the orig<strong>in</strong>al,<br />
deeper muscularis mucosae is def<strong>in</strong>ed as “submucosal” <strong>in</strong>vasion [28, 29].<br />
3.2.3 Dysplasia <strong>in</strong> squamous epithelium<br />
In squamous epithelium dysplasia is classified as mild, moderate, or severe. With<br />
<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g grades of dysplasia there is a progressive <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> dysplastic cells from the<br />
basal layer onwards untill the entire thickness of the epithelium is replaced. The latter<br />
state is described as carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> situ [30]. When dysplastic cells reach the lum<strong>in</strong>al<br />
aspect of the epithelium <strong>with</strong>out cytoplasmic maturation the term carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> situ can<br />
be used.<br />
Some authors use a simplified classification for non-<strong>in</strong>vasive squamous neoplastic<br />
lesions: low-grade <strong>in</strong>traepithelial neoplasia, which <strong>in</strong>cludes mild and moderate dysplasia,<br />
and high-grade <strong>in</strong>traepithelial neoplasia, which <strong>in</strong>cludes severe dysplasia and carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
<strong>in</strong> situ.<br />
By def<strong>in</strong>ition, the basement membrane is <strong>in</strong>tact <strong>in</strong> dysplasia. However, the junction of<br />
the epithelium <strong>with</strong> the underly<strong>in</strong>g stroma may become irregular [31].<br />
3.2.4 Dysplasia <strong>in</strong> columnar epithelium<br />
From a biological po<strong>in</strong>t of view, the progression of precursors and precursor lesions<br />
<strong>in</strong>to carc<strong>in</strong>omas is driven by the evolution and proliferation of clones of cells <strong>with</strong><br />
accumulated genetic errors related to control of cell proliferation, <strong>in</strong>tercellular<br />
adhesion, tumour suppression, etc., result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> genomic <strong>in</strong>stability.<br />
Dysplasia is def<strong>in</strong>ed as ‘an unequivocal neoplastic epithelium conf<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> its<br />
basement membrane [32]. Furthermore, dysplasia has the potential to progress <strong>in</strong>to<br />
<strong>in</strong>vasive malignancy. Although morphological detection <strong>in</strong> mucosal biopsy specimens is<br />
still the best method of detect<strong>in</strong>g patients at risk of develop<strong>in</strong>g cancer, it has its<br />
limitations:<br />
INTRA-OBSERVER AND INTER-OBSERVER VARIABILITY<br />
Numerous articles have been published on this topic demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g specific areas of<br />
discordance at the lower and higher end of the spectrum of early lesions. There is a<br />
significant degree of <strong>in</strong>tra-observer and <strong>in</strong>ter-observer variability <strong>in</strong> the diagnosis of<br />
dysplasia (unequivocal neoplastic atypia) versus reactive atypia even among experienced<br />
gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al pathologists [33-35]. Similarly, it has become apparent, especially from<br />
comparative studies between Western and Japanese pathologists, that the differential<br />
diagnosis between high-grade dysplasia, carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> situ and <strong>in</strong>tramucosal carc<strong>in</strong>oma is<br />
prone to <strong>in</strong>tra-observer and <strong>in</strong>ter-observer variability [36-38].<br />
CLASSIFICATIONS<br />
Diagnosis of dysplasia is based on the detection of morphological changes. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
the severity of histological changes, dysplasia has been graded us<strong>in</strong>g either a three tier<br />
system or a two tier system (Table 7). The changes were <strong>in</strong>itially described as mild,<br />
moderate and severe dysplasia (morphological classification, 3-tier). In 1983, the<br />
Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) study group classified dysplasia as negative, <strong>in</strong>def<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
or positive, i.e. low and high-grade (cl<strong>in</strong>ical classification, 2-tier: low-grade = mild and<br />
moderate dysplasia; high-grade = severe dysplasia) (Table 7)) [32].<br />
Grad<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a two tier system would seem to be easier and more reproducible, and<br />
moreover to correlate <strong>with</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical implications. In the US and Western Europe, there<br />
was a general agreement that this cl<strong>in</strong>ically based classification was applicable to<br />
neoplastic changes <strong>in</strong> Barrett’s mucosa too [35, 39, 40]. In 2000, three new<br />
classifications for gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al dysplasia have been proposed: the Padova classification<br />
(gastric) [41], the Vienna classification [42] and the revised Vienna classification [43]<br />
(Table 7).
16 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
These new classifications aimed at : 1) chang<strong>in</strong>g the term<strong>in</strong>ology used, i.e. replac<strong>in</strong>g<br />
dysplasia by (<strong>in</strong>tra)epithelial neoplasia; 2) <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g not only dysplasia but also (<strong>in</strong>vasive)<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>omas; and 3) dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g ‘mucosal high-grade neoplasia’ <strong>in</strong>to high-grade<br />
dysplasia, suspicion for non-<strong>in</strong>vasive or <strong>in</strong>vasive carc<strong>in</strong>oma, non-<strong>in</strong>vasive carc<strong>in</strong>oma,<br />
<strong>in</strong>tramucosal carc<strong>in</strong>oma and carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong>vad<strong>in</strong>g submucosa or beyond. The major<br />
differences amongst these classifications reside <strong>in</strong> the subcategories <strong>in</strong>cluded/grouped<br />
and the figures attributed. Comparative studies us<strong>in</strong>g the new classifications have shown<br />
an improvement of the <strong>in</strong>ter-observer variability especially between the Western and<br />
Japanese pathologists [36-38, 44]. F<strong>in</strong>ally, a revision of the WHO classification of<br />
tumours of the digestive system was published at the end of 2000 [45]. The latter<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduced ‘high-grade <strong>in</strong>traepithelial neoplasia’ (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g severe dysplasia and<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> situ), but did not recommend one or another of the previously mentioned<br />
classifications. Up till now, these new classifications have not yet ga<strong>in</strong>ed widespread<br />
acceptance [25, 46]. Moreover, the authors of the Vienna classification stressed that the<br />
subdivisions related to ‘mucosal high-grade neoplasia’ (high-grade dysplasia, suspicion for<br />
<strong>in</strong>vasive carc<strong>in</strong>oma, non-<strong>in</strong>vasive carc<strong>in</strong>oma and <strong>in</strong>tramucosal carc<strong>in</strong>oma) may be<br />
important for research purposes and may not be needed for cl<strong>in</strong>ical purposes [42].<br />
Moreover, for resection specimens, only specific histological diagnoses should be given.<br />
Group classifications such as ‘mucosal high-grade neoplasia’ should not be used [44].<br />
In conclusion, especially concern<strong>in</strong>g the higher end of the spectrum of early lesions and<br />
<strong>in</strong> view of the importance of a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary approach, it is important for a<br />
pathologist to have a clear understand<strong>in</strong>g of the particular treatment regimens available<br />
and to be applied under particular circumstances. Classification is a chosen arrangement<br />
of elements <strong>in</strong> relation to a purpose. For the physician, a classification should be<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>ically relevant. Currently, the ma<strong>in</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical options are no follow-up, follow-up, local<br />
treatment by endoscopy, m<strong>in</strong>imally <strong>in</strong>vasive (laparoscopic) surgery and extensive<br />
surgery <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g lymph node dissection (see below). Many studies have evaluated the<br />
potential utility of immunohistochemical or molecular markers as additional techniques<br />
<strong>in</strong> detect<strong>in</strong>g dysplasia, however <strong>with</strong> limited success. Additional confirmation by an<br />
expert pathologist (second op<strong>in</strong>ion) is advocated, especially when therapeutic<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervention is considered [25]. Today, the new classifications should be taken for what<br />
they are, i.e. attempts at an <strong>in</strong>ternational level to reach consensus on histological<br />
diagnosis of dysplasia <strong>in</strong> ‘chosen arrangements of elements’ which may eventually<br />
generate guidel<strong>in</strong>es for the development of diagnostic and management strategies.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 17<br />
Table 7. Overview of classifications for dysplasia.<br />
IBD Padova Vienna Revised Vienna TNM<br />
Negative for 1. Negative for dysplasia 1. No neoplasia 1. No neoplasia<br />
dysplasia 1.0. Normal<br />
1.1. Reactive foveolar<br />
hyperplasia<br />
1.2. Intest<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia (IM)<br />
1.2.1. IM complete type<br />
1.2.1. IM <strong>in</strong>complete type<br />
Indef<strong>in</strong>ite for 2. Indef<strong>in</strong>ite for dysplasia 2. Indef<strong>in</strong>ite for dysplasia 2. Indef<strong>in</strong>ite for dysplasia<br />
dysplasia 2.1. Foveolar hyperplasia<br />
2.2. Hyperproliferative IM<br />
3. Non-<strong>in</strong>vasive neoplasia (flat<br />
or elevated)<br />
Low-grade 3.1. Low-grade 3. Low-grade<br />
3. Low-grade<br />
dysplasia<br />
adenoma/dysplasia adenoma/dysplasia<br />
High-grade<br />
dysplasia<br />
3.2. High-grade 4. Non-<strong>in</strong>vasive highgrade<br />
neoplasia<br />
4.1. High-grade<br />
adenoma/dysplasia<br />
3.2.1. High-grade <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
suspicious carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>with</strong>out<br />
<strong>in</strong>vasion (<strong>in</strong>traglandular)<br />
3.2.2. High-grade <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g 4.2. Non-<strong>in</strong>vasive<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>with</strong>out <strong>in</strong>vasion carc<strong>in</strong>oma (carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong><br />
(<strong>in</strong>traglandular)<br />
situ)<br />
4. Suspicious for <strong>in</strong>vasive 4.3. Suspicious for<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
<strong>in</strong>vasive carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
5. Invasive adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma 5. Invasive neoplasia<br />
5.1. Intramucosal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
5.2. Submucosal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (or deeper<br />
<strong>in</strong>filtration)<br />
Key po<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
4. High-grade neoplasia<br />
4.1. High-grade<br />
adenoma/dysplasia<br />
4.2. Non-<strong>in</strong>vasive<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong><br />
situ)<br />
4.3. Suspicious for<br />
<strong>in</strong>vasive carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
4.4. Intramucosal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
• There is no consensus about the def<strong>in</strong>ition of Barrett’s oesophagus.<br />
• Several classifications are available for dysplasia. For the physician, the used<br />
classification should be cl<strong>in</strong>ically relevant.<br />
Tis<br />
T1a<br />
T1b
18 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
4 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON<br />
OESOPHAGEAL CANCER<br />
4.1 FLOWCHART
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 19<br />
4.2 DIAGNOSIS<br />
The diagnosis of oesophageal cancer should <strong>in</strong>clude a history and cl<strong>in</strong>ical exam<strong>in</strong>ation.<br />
However, a diagnosis purely based on cl<strong>in</strong>ical grounds is unreliable [47]. Two diagnostic<br />
procedures, i.e. flexible upper gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al (GI) endoscopy and barium contrast<br />
radiology, are available. However, barium studies are less sensitive than endoscopy for<br />
the diagnosis of early malignancy and they cannot reliably diagnose premalignant lesions<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g dysplasia. Therefore, flexible upper GI endoscopy <strong>with</strong> at least biopsies of all<br />
suspicious lesions is recommended as the diagnostic procedure of choice <strong>in</strong> patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> suspected oesophageal cancer [47]. Nevertheless, barium studies can be useful to<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>e the oesophageal or gastric extent of a tumour, to confirm the presence of a<br />
tracheo-oesophageal fistula or to document complete lum<strong>in</strong>al obstruction [48].<br />
The follow<strong>in</strong>g alarm symptoms are associated <strong>with</strong> oesophageal (and gastric) cancer and<br />
should lead to a referral for early endoscopy and biopsies: dysphagia, recurrent<br />
vomit<strong>in</strong>g, anorexia, weight loss and gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al blood loss [47, 49]. The general<br />
practitioner has an important role <strong>in</strong> recogniz<strong>in</strong>g these symptoms. In a recent<br />
prospective study, Bowrey et al. found a sensitivity of 85% us<strong>in</strong>g alarm symptoms for<br />
the referral for endoscopy [49]. This means that 15% of patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal<br />
cancer would not have been referred for <strong>in</strong>itial endoscopic assessment because of the<br />
absence of alarm symptoms. Importantly, patients <strong>with</strong> alarm symptoms had a<br />
significantly more advanced tumour stage (metastatic disease <strong>in</strong> 47% vs. 11%; p < 0.001),<br />
were less likely to undergo surgical resection (50% vs. 95%; p
20 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Table 8. Features associated <strong>with</strong> high risk for develop<strong>in</strong>g oesophageal<br />
cancer.<br />
Cl<strong>in</strong>ical features:<br />
• Alcohol and tobacco abuse<br />
• Longstand<strong>in</strong>g gastro-oesophageal reflux disease<br />
• Neck, mouth and head cancer<br />
• Previous oesophageal cancer<br />
• Barrett’s oesophagus<br />
• Caustic <strong>in</strong>jury<br />
• Papilloma<br />
• Genetic diseases<br />
• Various: Achalasia, Plummer-V<strong>in</strong>son, Celiac disease<br />
Endoscopic features:<br />
• stricture<br />
• ulceration<br />
• nodularity<br />
Histological features:<br />
Recommendations<br />
• high-grade dysplasia<br />
• multifocal dysplastic lesions, persist<strong>in</strong>g after adequate conservative<br />
treatment for 6-8 weeks<br />
1. Patients present<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> any of the follow<strong>in</strong>g alarm symptoms <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong><br />
the cl<strong>in</strong>ical context of potential oesophageal pathology should be<br />
referred for early endoscopy and biopsies: dysphagia, recurrent<br />
vomit<strong>in</strong>g, anorexia, weight loss, gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al blood loss (1C<br />
recommendation).<br />
2. Flexible upper gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al endoscopy <strong>with</strong> at least biopsies of all<br />
suspicious lesions is recommended as the diagnostic procedure of<br />
choice <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> suspected oesophageal cancer (1C<br />
recommendation).<br />
3. High-resolution endoscopy (HRE) and chromoendoscopy is not<br />
rout<strong>in</strong>ely recommended, but may be of value <strong>in</strong> screen<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
follow-up of high-risk patients (2C recommendation).<br />
4.3 WORK-UP OF DYSPLASTIC LESIONS<br />
Evidence from a few RCTs [47] and one low-quality systematic review [55] suggests<br />
that anti-reflux surgery is not <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett’s oesophagus to reduce<br />
the risk of progression to adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma.<br />
Patients diagnosed <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should have careful endoscopic assessment<br />
[47]. However, dysplastic lesions <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett’s oesophagus are difficult to<br />
detect us<strong>in</strong>g conventional endoscopy. Recent studies suggest that high-resolution<br />
endoscopy (HRE) – <strong>with</strong> or <strong>with</strong>out chromoendoscopy –, narrow band imag<strong>in</strong>g (NBI)<br />
or autofluorescence may improve the detection of dysplastic lesions (see above) [56].
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 21<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett's oesophagus, a structured biopsy protocol <strong>with</strong> quadrantic<br />
biopsies every two centimetres and biopsy of any visible lesion is recommended. In the<br />
presence of dysplasia, quadrantic biopsies should be taken every 1 cm dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
surveillance and control endoscopies [57, 58]. In addition to the endoscopic assessment,<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should have a careful pathological assessment [47].<br />
Evaluation of suspected high-grade dysplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett's oesophagus biopsies should be<br />
undertaken <strong>with</strong> knowledge of the cl<strong>in</strong>ical and endoscopic background. Pathologists<br />
should follow a classification for report<strong>in</strong>g dysplasia that the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team is<br />
familiar <strong>with</strong>. An overview of classifications is already provided <strong>in</strong> chapter 3.2.4. Where<br />
therapeutic <strong>in</strong>tervention is contemplated on the basis of high-grade dysplasia, the<br />
diagnosis should be validated by a second pathologist experienced <strong>in</strong> this area because<br />
of the significant <strong>in</strong>ter- and <strong>in</strong>tra-observer variation [47, 56]. Further biopsies or<br />
diagnostic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should be done if there is uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty.<br />
Biopsies should also be reviewed at a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> access to the<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>ical <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, as the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal highgrade<br />
dysplastic lesions is very specific and new techniques rapidly become available,<br />
these patients should be referred to centres or network reference centres <strong>with</strong> the<br />
appropriate endoscopic and surgical expertise and facilities [47]<br />
Recommendations<br />
4. Reduction of risk of progression to adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma is not an<br />
<strong>in</strong>dication for anti-reflux surgery <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett's<br />
oesophagus (2A recommendation).<br />
5. In patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett's oesophagus there should be a structured<br />
biopsy protocol <strong>with</strong> quadrantic biopsies every two centimetres and<br />
biopsy of any visible lesion (1C recommendation).<br />
6. Pathologists should follow a classification for report<strong>in</strong>g dysplasia that<br />
the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team is familiar <strong>with</strong> (1C recommendation).<br />
7. Evaluation of suspected high-grade dysplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett's oesophagus<br />
biopsies should be undertaken <strong>with</strong> knowledge of the cl<strong>in</strong>ical and<br />
endoscopic background (1C recommendation).<br />
8. Patients confirmed <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should have careful<br />
endoscopic and pathological assessment (1C recommendation).<br />
9. High-resolution endoscopy +/- chromoendoscopy as well as every 1<br />
cm qaudrantic biopsies is recommended <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> a dysplastic<br />
or neoplastic lesion <strong>in</strong> a Barrett's oesophagus (1C recommendation).<br />
10. Where therapeutic <strong>in</strong>tervention is contemplated on the basis of<br />
high-grade dysplasia, the diagnosis should be validated by a second<br />
pathologist experienced <strong>in</strong> this area and further biopsies or<br />
eventually diagnostic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should be<br />
done if there is uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty (1C recommendation).<br />
11. Treatment options for patients <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should be<br />
discussed at a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> access to the cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
and pathological <strong>in</strong>formation (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
12. Patients <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should be referred to centres or<br />
network reference centres <strong>with</strong> the appropriate endoscopic and<br />
surgical expertise and facilities (1C recommendation).
22 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
4.4 STAGING<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer, CT scan of the chest and abdomen <strong>with</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>travenous contrast and gastric distension <strong>with</strong> oral contrast or water should be<br />
performed rout<strong>in</strong>ely. The liver should at least be imaged <strong>in</strong> the arterial and portal<br />
venous phase [47]. Slice thickness should be 5 mm or less [56]. The ma<strong>in</strong> contribution<br />
of CT scan to the stag<strong>in</strong>g of oesophageal cancer is the detection of distant metastases<br />
and gross <strong>in</strong>vasion of adjacent structures/organs [47, 56, 59]. If metastatic disease is<br />
detected <strong>with</strong> CT scan, curative treatment is excluded and additional stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> EUS<br />
and/or PET scan is unnecessary. CT scan has also an acceptable diagnostic accuracy for<br />
locoregional stag<strong>in</strong>g (T and N), although EUS is clearly more sensitive (see below) [47,<br />
56]. Given the high <strong>in</strong>cidence of cervical lymph node metastasis [60], CT scan should<br />
also <strong>in</strong>clude the cervical region.<br />
EUS has emerged as the imag<strong>in</strong>g technique of choice for locoregional stag<strong>in</strong>g [47, 56],<br />
<strong>with</strong> a diagnostic accuracy rang<strong>in</strong>g from 53-94% (median 83%) for T-stag<strong>in</strong>g and from<br />
54-94% for N-stag<strong>in</strong>g (median 76%) [61]. In stenotic tumours, the accuracy of EUS is<br />
further improved <strong>with</strong> the use of dilation, which <strong>in</strong> most cases permits passage of the<br />
endoscope [62, 63]. However, this is associated <strong>with</strong> a risk of perforation [64].<br />
Importantly, most studies deal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> the accuracy of N-stag<strong>in</strong>g only assess the yes-no<br />
possibility of positive lymph nodes, <strong>with</strong>out correlat<strong>in</strong>g the EUS f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of a positive<br />
lymph node to the histopathological f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of that particular node. As a result,<br />
although a f<strong>in</strong>al pathology report may conclude N1 disease to be present, a node <strong>with</strong><br />
positive EUS f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs may be histopathologically negative and vice versa. Therefore, the<br />
diagnostic accuracy of EUS for N-stag<strong>in</strong>g may be overestimated.<br />
The accuracy of N stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> EUS is further improved <strong>with</strong> f<strong>in</strong>e needle aspiration<br />
cytology (FNAC) [47, 56]. FNAC needs to be <strong>in</strong>terpreted by an experienced<br />
pathologist.<br />
Neck imag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> ultrasonography or CT enables the detection of metastatic lymph<br />
nodes that are cl<strong>in</strong>ically not palpable [47] or can be used to guide f<strong>in</strong>e needle aspiration<br />
of suspicious lymph nodes <strong>with</strong> very high accuracy and specificity [56, 65].<br />
In the absence of clear metastatic disease on conventional CT/EUS/cervical US,<br />
PET(/CT) may provide valuable additional <strong>in</strong>formation, <strong>in</strong> particular when consider<strong>in</strong>g<br />
multimodality treatment <strong>with</strong> curative option. In such cases, basel<strong>in</strong>e PET(/CT) allows<br />
better response assessment as compared to conventional CT/EUS/cervical US.<br />
FNCLCC made specific recommendations on the use of PET scan <strong>in</strong> the diagnosis and<br />
stag<strong>in</strong>g of oesophageal cancer [66]. In addition, the <strong>KCE</strong> recently published an HTA<br />
report on the use of PET scan [67]. S<strong>in</strong>ce this HTA report, numerous observational<br />
studies of variable quality have been published [68-75]. For <strong>in</strong>itial stag<strong>in</strong>g of patients<br />
<strong>with</strong>out apparent metastases on CT scan, especially <strong>in</strong> locally advanced disease (cT>2 or<br />
cN1 or cN doubtful), PET(/CT) is useful for detect<strong>in</strong>g positive lymph nodes and distant<br />
metastatic disease [67]. However, <strong>in</strong> early-stage disease (cT1-2N0) the probability that<br />
PET(/CT) will significantly upstage disease is low.<br />
Magnetic resonance imag<strong>in</strong>g (MRI) was not found to be superior to conventional<br />
imag<strong>in</strong>g techniques such as CT scan ([47, 56]. Therefore, MRI should be reserved for<br />
those patients who cannot undergo CT or used for additional <strong>in</strong>vestigation follow<strong>in</strong>g CT<br />
and/or EUS.<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical or imag<strong>in</strong>g features suspicious of tracheobronchial <strong>in</strong>vasion (e.g.<br />
cough aggravated by swallow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> case of a fistula) or extr<strong>in</strong>sic compression,<br />
bronchoscopy comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>with</strong> bronchoscopic ultrasound (BUS)<br />
and/or biopsy can be useful [47, 76, 77]. The underly<strong>in</strong>g evidence, however, is weak to<br />
very weak. Observational data also provide weak evidence for the occurrence of<br />
synchronous neoplasms of the bronchial tree <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
of the oropharynx and the oesophagus, which is an <strong>in</strong>dication for bronchoscopy [78].<br />
Few studies are available to support the use of <strong>in</strong>vasive stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> thoracoscopy and<br />
laparoscopy (+/- peritoneal cytology and/or laparoscopic ultrasound) [47, 56, 79].
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 23<br />
Thoracoscopy can be useful for the detection of positive mediast<strong>in</strong>al lymph nodes, while<br />
laparoscopy can be considered <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal tumours <strong>with</strong> a gastric<br />
component [47]. Laparoscopy has a higher specificity for M stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> comparison <strong>with</strong><br />
CT scan, but obviously carries a higher risk of morbidity [56].<br />
Recommendations<br />
13. In patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer, CT scan of the chest (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
lower neck region) and abdomen <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>travenous contrast and<br />
gastric distension <strong>with</strong> oral contrast or water should be performed<br />
rout<strong>in</strong>ely. The liver should at least be imaged <strong>in</strong> the arterial and<br />
portal venous phase (1C recommendation).<br />
14. Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junction cancers<br />
who are candidates for any curative therapy should have their<br />
tumours staged <strong>with</strong> endoscopic ultrasonography +/- f<strong>in</strong>e needle<br />
aspiration cytology (FNAC) and ultrasonography of the neck (1B<br />
recommendation).<br />
15. F<strong>in</strong>e needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) needs to be <strong>in</strong>terpreted by<br />
an experienced pathologist (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
16. In patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer and an option for curative<br />
treatment after conventional stag<strong>in</strong>g (CT/endoscopic<br />
ultrasonography), PET(/CT) scan may be considered for the stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of lymph nodes (loco-regional, distal or all lymph nodes) and distant<br />
sites other than lymph nodes (1C recommendation).<br />
17. The follow<strong>in</strong>g exam<strong>in</strong>ations can be considered for specific<br />
<strong>in</strong>dications: MRI, bronchoscopy +/- bronchial ultrasonography (BUS)<br />
+/- biopsy, thoracoscopy, or laparoscopy (1C recommendation).<br />
4.5 TREATMENT OF MUCOSAL CANCER<br />
The pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of anatomopathological evaluation of mucosal cancer are similar to those<br />
of high-grade dysplasia, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g validation of the diagnosis by a second pathologist,<br />
additional biopsies or diagnostic EMR <strong>in</strong> case of uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty, and discussion of treatment<br />
options at the MDT [47].<br />
Only observational studies are available compar<strong>in</strong>g endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)<br />
to surgery for the treatment of superficial oesophageal cancer [56]. Both treatments<br />
were found to be equally effective, but EMR was associated <strong>with</strong> less complications.<br />
Therefore, superficial oesophageal cancer limited to the mucosa should be treated <strong>with</strong><br />
EMR, tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the stage, size, length of Barrett, histological type,<br />
differentiation grade, and lymphovascular <strong>in</strong>vasion [47]. For example, <strong>in</strong> case of mucosal<br />
cancer <strong>in</strong> a long Barrett’s segment, complete resection of the Barrett’s area <strong>with</strong> EMR is<br />
unlikely. In these cases, surgery (e.g. gastric pull-up or vagal spar<strong>in</strong>g oesophagectomy<br />
<strong>with</strong> colon <strong>in</strong>terposition) may rema<strong>in</strong> the treatment of choice.<br />
En-bloc resection – allow<strong>in</strong>g better pathology stag<strong>in</strong>g of deep and lateral marg<strong>in</strong>s –<br />
should be aimed at <strong>with</strong> the appropriate technique (EMR for lesions less than 12 mm)<br />
[80-82].<br />
Mucosal ablative techniques, such as argon plasma coagulation (APC), photodynamic<br />
therapy (PDT) or laser, are <strong>in</strong>vestigational [47, 56]. Only small observational studies<br />
showed the benefits of these techniques, and they should therefore be limited to units<br />
<strong>with</strong> appropriate expertise.<br />
Moreover, APC was associated <strong>with</strong> buried neoplastic glands and should not be<br />
considered for curative treatment. Importantly, PDT is associated <strong>with</strong> a risk of<br />
stricture formation <strong>in</strong> up to 30% of patients [83]. Above this, mucosal ablative<br />
techniques make an anatomopathological control of the stag<strong>in</strong>g results impossible.
24 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Recommendations<br />
18. Where therapeutic <strong>in</strong>tervention is considered for a supposedly T1a<br />
mucosal cancer, the diagnosis should be validated by a second<br />
pathologist experienced <strong>in</strong> this area. Further biopsies or eventually<br />
diagnostic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should be done if<br />
there is uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty (1C recommendation).<br />
19. Treatment options for patients <strong>with</strong> mucosal cancer should be<br />
discussed at a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> access to the cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
and pathological <strong>in</strong>formation (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
20. Superficial oesophageal cancer limited to the mucosa should be<br />
treated <strong>with</strong> endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to<br />
account well-def<strong>in</strong>ed criteria relat<strong>in</strong>g to stage, size, length of Barrett,<br />
histological type, differentiation grade, and lymphovascular <strong>in</strong>vasion<br />
(1C recommendation).<br />
21. Mucosal ablative techniques, such as argon plasma coagulation<br />
(APC), photodynamic therapy (PDT) or laser, are <strong>in</strong>vestigational and<br />
should be limited to units <strong>with</strong> appropriate expertise (1C<br />
recommendation).<br />
4.6 TREATMENT OF CANCER BEYOND THE MUCOSA<br />
4.6.1 Neoadjuvant treatment<br />
In 2006, Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) published a high-quality CPG (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g metaanalyses)<br />
on the use of neoadjuvant treatment for oesophageal cancer [84]. Three<br />
additional meta-analyses [85-87] and one systematic review [88] have been published<br />
s<strong>in</strong>ce then. Only Gebski et al. found new evidence <strong>in</strong> addition to that presented by<br />
CCO [86].<br />
CCO identified 6 RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g preoperative radiotherapy and surgery vs. surgery<br />
alone [84]. No significant difference was detected <strong>in</strong> the risk of death at one year (RR<br />
1.01; 95%CI 0.88 – 1.16; p=0.90). These results are <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e <strong>with</strong> those of Arnott et al.,<br />
who found a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.98 (95%CI 0.78 – 1.01), suggest<strong>in</strong>g a small but nonsignificant<br />
absolute survival benefit of 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years <strong>in</strong> favour of<br />
preoperative radiotherapy [85].<br />
N<strong>in</strong>e different RCTs were identified by CCO compar<strong>in</strong>g preoperative chemotherapy<br />
and surgery vs. surgery alone [84]. In addition, two RCTs were identified compar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy and surgery vs. surgery alone. All eleven<br />
trials were also <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> a recent Cochrane review [87]. A meta-analysis of the first 9<br />
RCTs found a pooled RR of 1.00 (95%CI 0.83 – 1.19; p=0.97), detect<strong>in</strong>g no difference <strong>in</strong><br />
survival at one year [84]. These results are <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e <strong>with</strong> the Cochrane review (HR 0.88;<br />
95%CI 0.75 – 1.04). Trials also reported risks of toxicity <strong>with</strong> chemotherapy that ranged<br />
from 11% to 90% [87].<br />
Gebski et al. identified 10 RCTs (of which one was an unpublished thesis, and two were<br />
published as an abstract) compar<strong>in</strong>g preoperative CRT and surgery vs. surgery alone<br />
[86]. A HR for all-cause mortality of 0.81 (95%CI 0.70 – 0.93; p=0.002) <strong>in</strong> favour of<br />
preoperative CRT was found, correspond<strong>in</strong>g to a 13% absolute difference <strong>in</strong> survival at<br />
2 years. Patients <strong>with</strong> adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma seemed to obta<strong>in</strong> the highest benefit, although<br />
conflict<strong>in</strong>g evidence is available.<br />
These results are not <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e <strong>with</strong> those presented by CCO, who found no difference <strong>in</strong><br />
one-year survival between the 2 treatment arms (RR 0.91; 95%CI 0.79 – 1.06; p=0.21)<br />
[84]. CCO also identified 1 RCT compar<strong>in</strong>g preoperative CRT (bleomyc<strong>in</strong> +<br />
radiotherapy) to preoperative radiotherapy alone. No significant difference <strong>in</strong> survival<br />
between the two treatment groups was found [84].
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 25<br />
In a systematic review of 6 RCTs by Graham et al., a RR of 0.81 (95%CI 0.64 – 1.02)<br />
compared to surgery alone was found. This corresponded to an additional 40 days of<br />
quality-adjusted life expectancy [88].<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce the literature search of CCO and Gebski et al., results of two additional small<br />
RCTs became available, compar<strong>in</strong>g preoperative CRT (cisplat<strong>in</strong> + 5-FU) to surgery<br />
alone [89, 90]. No significant difference <strong>in</strong> survival was found.<br />
Based on the evidence presented, the advantage of neoadjuvant treatment is small and<br />
although neoadjuvant treatment is frequently used, it cannot be considered as a rout<strong>in</strong>e<br />
practice <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer. It is clear that for each <strong>in</strong>dividual patient<br />
the need for neoadjuvant treatment should be discussed dur<strong>in</strong>g a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary<br />
meet<strong>in</strong>g. If neoadjuvant treatment is part of the treatment plan, it should be<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istered accord<strong>in</strong>g to a predef<strong>in</strong>ed protocol. This protocol should also specify the<br />
role of PET(/CT) scan <strong>in</strong> the evaluation of treatment response to neoadjuvant<br />
treatment. In a previous <strong>KCE</strong> report, some evidence was identified support<strong>in</strong>g the role<br />
of PET scan <strong>in</strong> the assessment of treatment response to neoadjuvant treatment, us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the <strong>in</strong>itial stag<strong>in</strong>g PET results as a comparison [67]. These conclusions are confirmed by<br />
subsequent prospective trials [74, 91]. F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>in</strong> all trials, a complete pathological<br />
response was associated <strong>with</strong> the most favourable prognosis.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce the use of neoadjuvant treatment for patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer still is<br />
controversial, it is recommended to prospectively register cl<strong>in</strong>ical outcomes and<br />
adverse events of the comb<strong>in</strong>ed treatment. In fact, besides the mandatory cancer<br />
registration, prospective registration of cl<strong>in</strong>ical outcomes and adverse events is<br />
mandatory for all oncologic patients accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Royal Decree of March 21 st 2003<br />
settl<strong>in</strong>g the norms for the healthcare programme <strong>in</strong> oncology [92].<br />
Recommendations<br />
4.6.2 Surgical treatment<br />
22. Preoperative radiotherapy alone is not recommended for patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer (2A recommendation).<br />
23. Neoadjuvant treatment is not rout<strong>in</strong>ely <strong>in</strong>dicated for patients <strong>with</strong><br />
oesophageal cancer (2A recommendation).<br />
24. The need for neoadjuvant treatment should be discussed dur<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
25. Prospective registration of cl<strong>in</strong>ical outcomes and adverse events of<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ed treatment is recommended (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
Surgical resection rema<strong>in</strong>s the standard treatment for patients <strong>with</strong> resectable<br />
oesophageal cancer [47, 56, 84, 88]. Patients are considered to have unresectable<br />
disease <strong>in</strong> case of metastatic disease, positive lymph nodes outside the region of surgery<br />
and/or radiotherapy (i.e. the cervical, thoracic and upper abdom<strong>in</strong>al compartment),<br />
advanced locoregional disease (e.g. tracheo-oesophageal fistula), or severe comorbidity.<br />
Until now, only few studies are available compar<strong>in</strong>g surgery to other treatment<br />
modalities [56, 93, 94]. One moderate-quality eastern RCT compared primary<br />
chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and salvage surgery to primary ‘standard’ oesophagectomy<br />
[94]. No significant difference <strong>in</strong> 2-year survival and disease-free survival was found<br />
between the 2 treatment groups. Six out of 36 patients (17%) assigned to primary CRT<br />
were treated <strong>with</strong> salvage oesophagectomy [94]. A French study compared CRT<br />
followed by surgery to CRT alone <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> operable oesophageal cancer that<br />
responded to CRT [93]. Two-year survival and 2-year local recurrence rate did not<br />
differ significantly.<br />
The results of these two RCTs need to be <strong>in</strong>terpreted <strong>with</strong> caution, s<strong>in</strong>ce they had<br />
important methodological limitations (no accurate <strong>in</strong>formation on randomisation<br />
procedure, absence of bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g). Above this, as <strong>in</strong> many other trials, surgery was not<br />
standardized [93, 94].
26 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Surgery for oesophageal cancer should be aimed at achiev<strong>in</strong>g an R0 resection, and<br />
should be considered preferentially through an en bloc resection (i.e. <strong>with</strong> systematic<br />
abdom<strong>in</strong>al and mediast<strong>in</strong>al lymph node dissection, the so-called two field<br />
lymphadenectomy) [47, 56]. This recommendation is ma<strong>in</strong>ly based on the results of 1<br />
RCT that compared extended transthoracic resection <strong>with</strong> two-field lymphadenectomy<br />
to limited transhiatal resection <strong>with</strong>out two-field lymphadenectomy [95]. A trend<br />
towards improved 5-year survival was found <strong>in</strong> favour of the extended thoracic group.<br />
The goal of lymphadenectomy is to optimize stag<strong>in</strong>g and to improve long-term<br />
outcomes by decreas<strong>in</strong>g the risk for local recurrence and <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g the probability of<br />
an R0 resection [47, 56]. Two-field lymphadenectomy <strong>in</strong>volves the clearance of<br />
mediast<strong>in</strong>al (1 st field) and abdom<strong>in</strong>al (2 nd field) lymph nodes, while three-field<br />
lymphadenectomy also <strong>in</strong>volves cervical lymph node clearance (3 rd field). The extent of<br />
two-field lymphadenectomy is specified <strong>in</strong> relation to the extent of the mediast<strong>in</strong>al part<br />
of the lymphadenectomy. Standard two-field lymphadenectomy <strong>in</strong>volves the clearance of<br />
lymph nodes from the car<strong>in</strong>a down to the diaphragm. In extended two-field<br />
lymphadenectomy, clearance is expanded to the right paratracheal and recurrent nerve,<br />
while <strong>in</strong> total two-field lymphadenectomy clearance is further extended to the left<br />
recurrent nerve [96]. Extensive two-field lymphadenectomy should be standard dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
oesophagectomy [47]. Three-field lymphadenectomy is considered strictly<br />
<strong>in</strong>vestigational, especially <strong>in</strong> distal third adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma [60]. Indeed, data from<br />
Western studies <strong>with</strong> three-field lymphadenectomy are scarce and are based on<br />
relatively small sample sizes [60, 97].<br />
Many studies have shown a relationship between patient outcomes (e.g. 30-day<br />
mortality) and surgeon or hospital volume [47, 56, 98, 99]. Recently, a meta-analysis of<br />
13 studies calculated that the experience of 20 oesophagectomies per year is needed to<br />
significantly reduce postoperative mortality [100]. Therefore, oesophageal cancer<br />
surgery should be carried out <strong>in</strong> high volume specialist surgical units by surgeons <strong>with</strong><br />
experience <strong>in</strong> oesophageal and GOJ cancer [47]. Recently, it was shown that specialty<br />
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> thoracic surgery has an <strong>in</strong>dependent association <strong>with</strong> lower mortality after<br />
oesophageal resection (adjusted mortality 12.4% vs. 16.5%; p = 0.01), although specialty<br />
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g appeared to be less important than hospital and surgeon volume [101]. Of<br />
course, specialty tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and high volume are closely related.<br />
Recommendations<br />
26. Surgical resection is considered standard treatment for patients <strong>with</strong><br />
resectable oesophageal cancer (1A recommendation).<br />
27. Surgery for oesophageal cancer should be aimed at achiev<strong>in</strong>g an R0<br />
resection, and should be considered preferentially through a<br />
transthoracic en bloc resection (1A recommendation).<br />
28. Extensive two-field lymphadenectomy should be standard dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
oesophagectomy to improve stag<strong>in</strong>g, local disease control and<br />
potentially cure rate (1C recommendation).<br />
29. Three-field lymphadenectomy is strictly <strong>in</strong>vestigational (2C<br />
recommendation).<br />
30. Oesophageal cancer surgery should be carried out <strong>in</strong> high volume<br />
specialist surgical units by surgeons <strong>with</strong> experience and/or specialist<br />
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (1C<br />
recommendation).
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 27<br />
4.6.3 Adjuvant treatment<br />
CCO provided an excellent overview of the literature concern<strong>in</strong>g adjuvant treatment<br />
for resectable oesophageal cancer [84]. Three RCTs of postoperative chemotherapy (all<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong>-based regimens) and surgery vs. surgery alone were identified. Pooled results<br />
of 2 RCTs [102, 103] showed no significant difference <strong>in</strong> the risk of death at 3 years (RR<br />
0.94; 95%CI 0.74 – 1.18; p=0.60) [84]. A third RCT also found no survival benefit for<br />
postoperative chemotherapy, but 3-year survival was not reported [104].<br />
CCO identified 5 RCTs of postoperative radiotherapy and surgery vs. surgery alone<br />
[84]. Meta-analysis of these trials showed no significant difference <strong>in</strong> the risk of death<br />
<strong>with</strong> postoperative radiotherapy and surgery at one year compared <strong>with</strong> surgery alone<br />
(RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.95 – 1.59; p=0.11). The rate of local recurrence <strong>with</strong> radiotherapy<br />
was lower <strong>in</strong> two RCTs, but this benefit was achieved at the expense of <strong>in</strong>creased<br />
morbidity [105, 106]. The most recent RCT found significantly improved 5-year survival<br />
rates <strong>with</strong> adjuvant radiotherapy for stage III patients (35% vs. 13%; p=0.0027) [107].<br />
However, this trial was hampered by some important methodological drawbacks (no<br />
<strong>in</strong>formed consent, no <strong>in</strong>tention-to-treat analysis).<br />
No RCTs on postoperative comb<strong>in</strong>ed chemoradiotherapy vs. surgery alone were<br />
identified by CCO [84]. A search for RCTs published s<strong>in</strong>ce the CCO report also did<br />
not identify new evidence.<br />
There is also no available evidence on whether adjuvant therapy is of real benefit <strong>in</strong> R1<br />
or R2 resection.<br />
Recommendations<br />
31. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer (2A recommendation).<br />
32. Postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy is not recommended for<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer (2A recommendation).<br />
33. Postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is not recommended for<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
4.6.4 Non-surgical treatment <strong>with</strong> curative <strong>in</strong>tent<br />
Def<strong>in</strong>itive CRT should be considered <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer who have<br />
locally advanced disease and are unfit for surgery, or <strong>in</strong> patients who decl<strong>in</strong>e surgery<br />
[47, 108]. Recently, a moderate-quality eastern RCT found no difference <strong>in</strong> survival at 2<br />
years between primary CRT (and salvage surgery) and primary surgery <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong><br />
potentially resectable oesophageal cancer (see above) [94]. Bedenne et al. also found no<br />
difference <strong>in</strong> survival at 2 years between CRT followed by surgery and CRT alone <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> operable oesophageal cancer that responded to CRT (see above) [93].<br />
Once aga<strong>in</strong>, the need for an adequate method to predict treatment response is<br />
highlighted.<br />
Def<strong>in</strong>itive CRT should also be considered for patients <strong>with</strong> cervical oesophageal cancer,<br />
for whom it offers the benefit of preserv<strong>in</strong>g the larynx [56]. However, no RCTs are<br />
available compar<strong>in</strong>g surgery to CRT for these patients.<br />
Concomitant CRT is recommended over radiotherapy alone. In their systematic review,<br />
CCO <strong>in</strong>cluded 8 RCTs of concomitant CRT vs. radiotherapy alone, of which 7 RCTs<br />
had 1-year mortality rates available. Pooled analysis showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.61<br />
(95%CI 0.44 – 0.84; p
28 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Sequential radiotherapy and chemotherapy is not recommended as standard practice<br />
[108]. CCO identified 5 RCTs of sequential radiotherapy and chemotherapy vs.<br />
radiotherapy alone. Pooled analysis revealed no significant difference <strong>in</strong> survival between<br />
the treatment groups at one year.<br />
Patients should be made aware of the <strong>in</strong>creased acute toxicity associated <strong>with</strong> the use<br />
of concomitant CRT. Therefore, the decision to use concomitant CRT should only be<br />
made after careful consideration of the potential risks, benefits, and the patient’s general<br />
condition [108].<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced <strong>in</strong>fracar<strong>in</strong>al oesophageal tumours that do not respond<br />
to primary CRT, curative salvage surgery rema<strong>in</strong>s an option provided the patient is fit<br />
for surgery [111]. Piessen et al. found a R0 resection rate of 62.2% <strong>in</strong> these patients.<br />
Overall survival was significantly higher <strong>in</strong> the R0 resection group compared <strong>with</strong> the<br />
<strong>in</strong>complete resection group (18.4 vs. 8.6 months, p
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 29<br />
Therefore, <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced or metastatic cancer of the oesophagus,<br />
chemotherapy or CRT are treatment options that should be discussed <strong>in</strong> the MDT [56,<br />
114].<br />
The use of external-beam radiotherapy for the palliation of dysphagia and pa<strong>in</strong> is<br />
supported by observational studies only [47]. In 1 RCT, endolum<strong>in</strong>al brachytherapy<br />
resulted <strong>in</strong> better dysphagia control than stent placement <strong>in</strong> patients who lived longer<br />
than 140 days [47]. Therefore, it should be considered <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> dysphagia from<br />
oesophageal cancer <strong>with</strong> the perspective of a more prolonged survival.<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer should have access to a specialist (outpatient and/or<br />
<strong>in</strong>patient) palliative care team, <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>in</strong> relation to comfort and symptom control,<br />
and quality of life [47]. This team clearly should <strong>in</strong>volve the general practitioner, who<br />
should have a coord<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g role <strong>in</strong> the organisation of the palliative home care.<br />
Evidence specific to control of symptoms, such as pa<strong>in</strong>, anorexia and bleed<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> these<br />
cancers is limited. Some evidence exists for the use of celiac axis plexus block for the<br />
palliation of pa<strong>in</strong> and for the use of corticosteroids <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer<br />
who are anorexic or who have symptoms of bowel obstruction [47]. Nutritional<br />
support <strong>in</strong> the palliative sett<strong>in</strong>g should take <strong>in</strong>to account the comfort of the patient, <strong>in</strong><br />
that quality of life is much more important than the long-term effects [56].<br />
Limited evidence (com<strong>in</strong>g from a secondary analysis of 1 RCT) is also available for<br />
psychotherapeutic support dur<strong>in</strong>g hospital stay [115].<br />
Recommendations<br />
35. Control of obstruction caused by oesophageal cancer should be<br />
obta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>with</strong> stent placement or laser/ argon plasma coagulation<br />
(APC) therapy, depend<strong>in</strong>g on the local availability and expertise (1A<br />
recommendation).<br />
36. Partially covered self-expand<strong>in</strong>g metal stents or plastic expandable<br />
stents are the best options for palliation of dysphagia caused by<br />
oesophageal cancer (1B recommendation).<br />
37. Laser therapy, argon plasma coagulation (APC) therapy or restent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
should be considered for control of tumour <strong>in</strong>growth or<br />
overgrowth <strong>in</strong> stented patients (1C recommendation).<br />
38. The use of oesophageal dilatation alone should be avoided (2C<br />
recommendation).<br />
39. Oesophagectomy (transthoracic or transhiatal) should not be<br />
performed <strong>with</strong> palliative <strong>in</strong>tent <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer<br />
(1C recommendation).<br />
40. Substernal bypass for oesophageal cancer should not be performed<br />
<strong>with</strong> palliative <strong>in</strong>tent (1C recommendation).<br />
41. In patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced or metastatic cancer of the<br />
oesophagus, chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy are treatment<br />
options that should be discussed <strong>in</strong> the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team (2A<br />
recommendation).<br />
42. Palliative external-beam radiotherapy or endolum<strong>in</strong>al brachytherapy<br />
should be considered <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> dysphagia from oesophageal<br />
cancer and <strong>with</strong> the perspective of a more prolonged survival (2C<br />
recommendation).<br />
43. Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer should have access to a specialist<br />
palliative care team, <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>in</strong> relation to comfort and<br />
symptom control, nutrition and quality of life (1C recommendation).
30 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
4.8 FOLLOW-UP<br />
In patients that underwent treatment for oesophageal cancer, follow-up is needed to<br />
detect recurrent disease (<strong>in</strong> case of curative treatment), progressive disease, symptoms<br />
that warrant treatment, or nutritional problems. However, evidence about the duration,<br />
frequency and type of follow-up is unavailable [56]. Therefore, published guidel<strong>in</strong>es on<br />
the follow-up of patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer are always consensus-based.<br />
A physical exam<strong>in</strong>ation is recommended every three months, and should give special<br />
attention to nutritional status, weight loss, fatigue, etc. Vitam<strong>in</strong> B12 evaluation can be<br />
done, but deficiency after oesophagectomy occurs less frequently than after total<br />
gastrectomy. A CT scan of the chest and abdomen is recommended every six months <strong>in</strong><br />
the first year and afterwards annually until the fifth year. However, it should be stressed<br />
that no evidence is available to support regular imag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the follow-up of these<br />
patients [47].<br />
After endoscopic treatment of dysplastic lesions or mucosal cancer, endoscopic followup<br />
is similar to that of patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett’s oesophagus [56]: three months after<br />
endoscopic treatment, then every six months <strong>in</strong> the first two years, and then annually.<br />
Recommendations<br />
44. It is recommended that the follow-up of patients treated for<br />
oesophageal cancer <strong>in</strong>cludes a physical exam<strong>in</strong>ation every three<br />
months, and a CT scan every six months <strong>in</strong> the first year and<br />
afterwards annually until the fifth year (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
45. Patients treated <strong>with</strong> endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should<br />
have a follow-up endoscopy after three months, then every six<br />
months <strong>in</strong> the first two years, and then annually (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
4.9 RECURRENT DISEASE<br />
In a small number of patients, recurrent disease can be successfully treated <strong>with</strong> curative<br />
<strong>in</strong>tent [116-118]. In patients <strong>with</strong> a localised lymph node recurrence [119-121] or a<br />
localised anastomotic recurrence [122], a comb<strong>in</strong>ed chemoradiotherapy regimen or<br />
occasionally redo-surgery can be considered after discussion by the MDT. Patients who<br />
develop a solitary lung or liver metastasis can also be considered for resection. The<br />
evidence for these treatments, however, is weak and com<strong>in</strong>g from small observational<br />
studies only.<br />
When patients are confronted <strong>with</strong> a local recurrence or a new tumour after EMR for a<br />
mucosal cancer, treatment options <strong>in</strong>clude local treatment or multimodality treatment<br />
[123]. These options should be discussed <strong>in</strong> the MDT. Aga<strong>in</strong>, only small observational<br />
studies are available to support these treatments.<br />
Recommendations<br />
46. In patients <strong>with</strong> recurrent oesophageal cancer, treatment options<br />
should be discussed <strong>in</strong> the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
47. In patients <strong>with</strong> a local recurrence or new tumour after endoscopic<br />
mucosal resection (EMR), treatment options, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g local<br />
treatment, should be discussed <strong>in</strong> the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team (expert<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ion).
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 31<br />
5 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON GASTRIC<br />
CANCER<br />
5.1 FLOWCHART
32 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
5.2 DIAGNOSIS<br />
As for oesophageal cancer, <strong>in</strong> addition to a history and cl<strong>in</strong>ical exam<strong>in</strong>ation, flexible<br />
upper GI endoscopy <strong>with</strong> at least biopsies of all suspicious lesions is recommended as<br />
the diagnostic procedure of choice <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> suspected gastric cancer [47]. The<br />
same alarm symptoms are associated <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer and should lead to a referral<br />
for early endoscopy and biopsies: dysphagia, recurrent vomit<strong>in</strong>g, anorexia, weight loss<br />
and gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al blood loss (see above) [47, 49].<br />
In a prospective trial <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g 202 consecutive patients (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g 47 <strong>with</strong> oesophageal<br />
or gastric carc<strong>in</strong>omas), seven biopsy and cytology specimens were found to yield the<br />
correct diagnosis <strong>in</strong> all patients [124]. However, <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> large gastric folds<br />
(suggestive of l<strong>in</strong>itis plastica or gastric lymphoma), at least 10 biopsies are<br />
recommended, together <strong>with</strong> an additional technique, such as large forceps biopsy.<br />
As <strong>in</strong> patients at high risk for oesophageal cancer, patients at high risk for develop<strong>in</strong>g<br />
gastric cancer (Table 9) may also benefit from screen<strong>in</strong>g and follow-up <strong>with</strong> HRE and/or<br />
chromoendoscopy [47], although the support<strong>in</strong>g evidence is scarce. No recent RCTs<br />
were identified. Ma<strong>in</strong>ly Japanese observational studies have shown that<br />
chromoendosocpy <strong>in</strong>creases the rate of superficial and “early” lesions detection [125].<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> a familial history of gastric cancer should be referred to a centre for<br />
genetic counsell<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
No evidence was found on the most appropriate frequency of surveillance. Frequency of<br />
surveillance endoscopy depends on specific risk factors, e.g. every 3-5 years <strong>in</strong> patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> autoimmune chronic gastritis, annual follow-up for patients <strong>with</strong> low-grade<br />
dysplasia <strong>in</strong> atrophic gastritis, etc.<br />
Table 9. Features associated <strong>with</strong> high risk for develop<strong>in</strong>g gastric cancer.<br />
Histological features:<br />
• Dysplasia<br />
• Gastric atrophy <strong>with</strong> or <strong>with</strong>out <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia<br />
• Adenomatous polyps<br />
Patient’s history:<br />
• Previous gastric cancer<br />
• History of partial gastrectomy<br />
• Familial history of gastric cancer<br />
Cl<strong>in</strong>ical features:<br />
• Refractory gastric ulcer<br />
• Pernicious anaemia<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> suspected gastric cancer or at high risk for develop<strong>in</strong>g gastric cancer, H.<br />
pylori test<strong>in</strong>g should be systematically done on histology and ideally <strong>with</strong> a second test<br />
(rapid urease test, urea breath test, culture or serology) [126-128]. In case of a negative<br />
histology and negative additional test<strong>in</strong>g, a positive serological test suggests the<br />
presence of an unrecognised H. pylori <strong>in</strong>fection, and additional <strong>in</strong>vestigations to confirm<br />
whether the serological test is false positive or reflects active or recent <strong>in</strong>fection should<br />
be carried out [128].
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 33<br />
Recommendations<br />
1. Patients present<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> any of the follow<strong>in</strong>g alarm symptoms <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong><br />
the cl<strong>in</strong>ical context of potential gastric pathology should be referred<br />
for early endoscopy and biopsies: dysphagia, recurrent vomit<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
anorexia, weight loss, gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al blood loss (1C<br />
recommendation).<br />
2. Flexible upper gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al endoscopy <strong>with</strong> at least biopsies of all<br />
suspicious lesions is recommended as the diagnostic procedure of<br />
choice <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> suspected gastric cancer (1C<br />
recommendation).<br />
3. High-resolution endoscopy and chromoendoscopy may be of value <strong>in</strong><br />
screen<strong>in</strong>g and follow-up of high-risk patients (2C recommendation).<br />
4. H. pylori test<strong>in</strong>g should be systematically done on histology and<br />
ideally <strong>with</strong> a second test. Serology should be considered if gastric<br />
sampl<strong>in</strong>g rema<strong>in</strong>s negative (2C recommendation).<br />
5.3 WORK-UP OF DYSPLASTIC LESIONS<br />
Patients diagnosed <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should have careful endoscopic and<br />
pathological assessment [47]. Pathologists should follow a classification for report<strong>in</strong>g<br />
dysplasia that the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team is familiar <strong>with</strong>. An overview of classifications is<br />
already provided <strong>in</strong> chapter 3.2.4. Where therapeutic <strong>in</strong>tervention is contemplated on<br />
the basis of high-grade dysplasia, the diagnosis should be validated by a second<br />
pathologist experienced <strong>in</strong> this area because of the significant <strong>in</strong>ter- and <strong>in</strong>tra-observer<br />
variation [47]. Further biopsies or EMR should be done if there is uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty. Biopsies<br />
should also be reviewed at a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> access to the cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, as the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients <strong>with</strong> gastric high-grade<br />
dysplastic lesions is very specific and new techniques rapidly become available, these<br />
patients should be referred to centres or network reference centres <strong>with</strong> the<br />
appropriate endoscopic and surgical expertise and facilities [47].<br />
Recommendations<br />
5. Patients confirmed <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should have subsequent<br />
careful endoscopic and pathological assessment (1C<br />
recommendation).<br />
6. Pathologists should follow a classification for report<strong>in</strong>g dysplasia that<br />
the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team is familiar <strong>with</strong> (1C recommendation).<br />
7. Where therapeutic <strong>in</strong>tervention is contemplated on the basis of<br />
high-grade dysplasia, the diagnosis should be validated by a second<br />
pathologist experienced <strong>in</strong> this area. Further biopsies should be done<br />
if there is uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty (1C recommendation).<br />
8. Biopsies should be reviewed at a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong><br />
access to the cl<strong>in</strong>ical <strong>in</strong>formation (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
9. Patients <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should be referred to centres or<br />
network reference centres <strong>with</strong> the appropriate endoscopic and<br />
surgical expertise and facilities (1C recommendation).
34 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
5.4 STAGING<br />
As for patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer, the ma<strong>in</strong> contribution of CT scan to the<br />
stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric cancer is the detection of distant metastases [47, 129]. If metastatic<br />
disease is detected <strong>with</strong> CT scan, curative treatment is excluded and additional stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>with</strong> EUS is unnecessary. A recent systematic review identified five observational studies<br />
exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the diagnostic accuracy of multidetector row CT (MDCT) for the T stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of gastric tumours [130]. It was concluded that both EUS and MDCT achieved similar<br />
results <strong>in</strong> terms of diagnostic accuracy <strong>in</strong> T stag<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong> assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal <strong>in</strong>volvement.<br />
Only one of the five <strong>in</strong>cluded studies made a direct comparison between EUS and<br />
MDCT [130]. A more recent prospective study of MDCT (<strong>with</strong> multiplanar reformation<br />
images) found an overall diagnostic accuracy of 89% for T stag<strong>in</strong>g and of 78% for N<br />
stag<strong>in</strong>g [131].<br />
Kwee et al. identified 23 studies exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the diagnostic accuracy of EUS for the T<br />
stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric tumours [130]. Diagnostic accuracy varied between 65% and 92%.<br />
Sensitivity and specificity for assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal <strong>in</strong>volvement varied between 78% and<br />
100% and between 68% and 100%, respectively.<br />
PET(/CT) is not rout<strong>in</strong>ely recommended <strong>in</strong> the stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric cancer. However, it<br />
can be considered <strong>in</strong> locally advanced mass-form<strong>in</strong>g tumours (<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al type a ) <strong>in</strong> a<br />
curative sett<strong>in</strong>g [134].<br />
Kwee et al. identified 3 observational studies exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the diagnostic accuracy of MRI<br />
for the T stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric tumours [130]. Diagnostic accuracy varied between 71% and<br />
83%. Sensitivity and specificity for assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal <strong>in</strong>volvement varied between 90%<br />
and 93% and between 94% and 100%, respectively. Overall, there is no anatomical area<br />
where MRI is superior to CT. Therefore, MRI should be reserved for those patients<br />
who cannot undergo CT. It can also be used for additional <strong>in</strong>vestigation follow<strong>in</strong>g CT<br />
and/or EUS [47].<br />
Laparoscopy can be considered <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> gastric tumours be<strong>in</strong>g considered for<br />
surgery where full thickness gastric wall <strong>in</strong>volvement is suspected [47]. There are<br />
<strong>in</strong>sufficient data to confirm benefit for laparoscopic ultrasound [47, 79].<br />
Sent<strong>in</strong>el lymph node mapp<strong>in</strong>g has been the subject of several observational studies [135-<br />
139]. Overall sensitivity ranged from 71 – 89% [136-138]. In patients <strong>with</strong> a pT1<br />
tumour, sensitivity ranged from 88 – 100% [136, 138].<br />
a Gastric carc<strong>in</strong>omas can be classified accord<strong>in</strong>g to different classification systems (Lauren [132],<br />
Goseki [133], WHO, etc.) based on different criteria. The Lauren classification comb<strong>in</strong>es<br />
etiopathological, cl<strong>in</strong>ical and pathological (macro- and microscopic) features [132]. The most<br />
common type, the <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al type, generates a tumoral mass and has conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly been<br />
demonstrated to arise through a Helicobacter pylori <strong>in</strong>fection, gastritis, <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia,<br />
dysplasia, carc<strong>in</strong>oma sequence. The less common type, the signet r<strong>in</strong>g cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma, often<br />
presents <strong>with</strong> a characteristic macroscopic appearance called “l<strong>in</strong>itis plastica” and will often be<br />
negative on PET.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 35<br />
Recommendations<br />
10. In patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer, CT scan of the chest and abdomen<br />
<strong>with</strong> IV contrast and gastric distension <strong>with</strong> oral contrast or water<br />
should be performed rout<strong>in</strong>ely. The liver should at least be imaged <strong>in</strong><br />
the arterial and portal venous phase (1C recommendation).<br />
11. Endoscopic ultrasonography <strong>with</strong> or <strong>with</strong>out f<strong>in</strong>e-needle aspiration<br />
cytology can be considered <strong>in</strong> patients to be treated <strong>with</strong> curative<br />
<strong>in</strong>tent based on cl<strong>in</strong>ical presentation and/or CT (1C<br />
recommendation).<br />
12. The follow<strong>in</strong>g exam<strong>in</strong>ations can be considered for specific <strong>in</strong>dications<br />
(as expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the text above): PET scan, Magnetic Resonance<br />
Imag<strong>in</strong>g, laparoscopy (1C recommendation).<br />
5.5 TREATMENT OF MUCOSAL CANCER<br />
Treatment options for patients <strong>with</strong> mucosal cancer should be discussed at a<br />
multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g, tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account cl<strong>in</strong>ical and histological <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
Superficial gastric cancer limited to the mucosa can be treated <strong>with</strong> endoscopic mucosal<br />
resection (EMR), tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the stage, size, histological type and differentiation<br />
grade (Table 10) [47]. Large Japanese series of hundreds of patients treated<br />
endoscopically <strong>with</strong> EMR or ESD showed the advantages and success rates of<br />
endoscopic management for mucosal cancer [140-143]. However, a recent Cochrane<br />
review failed to identify RCTs of early gastric cancer patients <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g a treatment arm<br />
of EMR and a comparison arm of gastrectomy [144]. Therefore, the potential harms<br />
(<strong>in</strong>complete resection, recurrence, perforation) and benefits (quality of life, utility <strong>in</strong><br />
patients unfit for surgery) of EMR must be weighed aga<strong>in</strong>st the harms/benefits of surgical<br />
treatment.<br />
En-bloc resection – allow<strong>in</strong>g better pathology stag<strong>in</strong>g of deep and lateral marg<strong>in</strong>s –<br />
should be aimed at dur<strong>in</strong>g mucosectomy <strong>with</strong> the appropriate technique (EMR for<br />
lesions less than 12 mm and ESD for larger lesions) [145].<br />
Mucosal ablative techniques, such as photodynamic therapy (PDT), laser or argon<br />
plasma coagulation (APC), cannot be recommended as a curative option.<br />
Table 10. Criteria associated <strong>with</strong> low risk of lymph node metastasis <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> mucosal gastric cancer [47, 144] (based on Japanese<br />
Classification of Gastric Carc<strong>in</strong>oma [146]).<br />
• Lesion < 2 cm <strong>in</strong> size <strong>in</strong> elevated types<br />
• Lesion < 1 cm <strong>in</strong> size <strong>in</strong> depressed types<br />
• Well or moderately differentiated histology<br />
• No macroscopic ulceration<br />
• Invasion limited to mucosa and certa<strong>in</strong>ly no deeper than the superficial<br />
submucosa<br />
• No residual <strong>in</strong>vasive disease after EMR
36 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Recommendations<br />
13. Biopsies should be reviewed by an experienced pathologist <strong>in</strong> this<br />
area and discussed at a multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> access to the<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>ical <strong>in</strong>formation (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
14. Superficial gastric cancer limited to the mucosa can be treated <strong>with</strong><br />
endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to account the stage,<br />
size, histological type and differentiation grade (2C<br />
recommendation).<br />
15. Mucosal ablative techniques, such as photodynamic therapy (PDT),<br />
laser or argon plasma coagulation (APC), cannot be recommended<br />
as a curative option (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
5.6 TREATMENT OF CANCER BEYOND THE MUCOSA<br />
5.6.1 Neoadjuvant treatment<br />
In a recent Cochrane review, 4 RCTs were identified compar<strong>in</strong>g neoadjuvant<br />
chemotherapy and surgery to surgery alone, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g 2 Japanese trials us<strong>in</strong>g oral<br />
fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>es [147]. Meta-analysis of these 4 trials showed no statistically significant<br />
difference <strong>in</strong> mortality between the two treatment groups (OR 1.05; 95%CI 0.73 – 1.50;<br />
p = 0.29). The MAGIC trial, which was excluded from the Cochrane review because it<br />
also <strong>in</strong>cluded postoperative chemotherapy, found a higher likelihood of overall survival<br />
<strong>in</strong> patients receiv<strong>in</strong>g perioperative chemotherapy (ECF) as compared to surgery alone<br />
(HR 0.75; 95%CI 0.60 – 0.93; p = 0.009) [148]. However, the trial received some<br />
criticism because of a lack of standardisation of surgery, the absence of separate data<br />
for gastric cancer, and some methodological shortcom<strong>in</strong>gs (e.g. lack of stag<strong>in</strong>g accuracy,<br />
no bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g).<br />
One abstract was found present<strong>in</strong>g the results of an RCT compar<strong>in</strong>g preoperative<br />
chemotherapy (5-FU/cisplat<strong>in</strong>) to surgery alone <strong>in</strong> adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of stomach and<br />
lower oesophagus [149]. HR of death was 0.69 (95%CI 0.50 – 0.95; p=0.02) <strong>with</strong> 3 and<br />
5- year overall survival of 35% and 24% respectively <strong>in</strong> the surgery alone group vs. 48%<br />
and 38% respectively <strong>in</strong> the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group.<br />
CCO identified three RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g preoperative radiotherapy and surgery to<br />
surgery alone [150]. However, <strong>in</strong>consistent results were found, mak<strong>in</strong>g it difficult to<br />
draw unambiguous conclusions. Three additional RCTs were identified compar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
neoadjuvant immunotherapy and surgery to surgery alone [150]. No significant survival<br />
benefit was found. A recent small trial of neoadjuvant immunotherapy <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>terleuk<strong>in</strong>-2<br />
found a trend towards better overall and disease-free survival <strong>in</strong> the neoadjuvant<br />
treatment group [151].<br />
As for oesophageal cancer, s<strong>in</strong>ce the use of neoadjuvant treatment for patients <strong>with</strong><br />
gastric cancer still is controversial, it is recommended to prospectively register cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
outcomes and adverse events of the comb<strong>in</strong>ed treatment [92].<br />
Recommendations<br />
16. Neoadjuvant treatment is not rout<strong>in</strong>ely <strong>in</strong>dicated for patients <strong>with</strong><br />
gastric cancer, but is an option to be discussed dur<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g (2A recommendation).<br />
17. Prospective registration of cl<strong>in</strong>ical outcomes and adverse events of<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ed treatment is recommended (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 37<br />
5.6.2 Surgical treatment<br />
Surgical treatment rema<strong>in</strong>s the standard treatment for patients <strong>with</strong> resectable gastric<br />
cancer, and should aim at achiev<strong>in</strong>g an R0 resection [47, 129]. For distal tumours (lower<br />
third, antrum) a partial gastrectomy <strong>with</strong> spar<strong>in</strong>g of the proximal stomach is <strong>in</strong>dicated.<br />
Proximal tumours (upper two third) should be treated <strong>with</strong> a total gastrectomy [129].<br />
Figure 2 gives an overview of the extent of lymphadenectomy for subtotal gastrectomy<br />
<strong>in</strong> terms of dissection of lymph nodes. McCulloch et al. identified 2 RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
limited (D1) versus extended (D2) node dissection (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g splenectomy and distal<br />
pancreatectomy) dur<strong>in</strong>g gastrectomy for gastric cancer [152]. Meta-analysis did not<br />
reveal any survival benefit for extended lymph node dissection (RR 0.95; 95%CI 0.83 –<br />
1.09), but showed <strong>in</strong>creased postoperative mortality (RR 2.23; 95%CI 1.45 – 3.45).<br />
Figure 2. The extent of lymphadenectomy for subtotal gastrectomy <strong>in</strong> terms<br />
of dissection of lymph nodes (figure repr<strong>in</strong>ted from Roukos et al. [153].<br />
D1 requires the dissection of the first-tier nodes (N1, nodal stations no. 1-6). D2 <strong>in</strong>cludes the N1<br />
and second-tier nodes (N2, no. 7-11). D3 requires the dissection of N1, N2 and third-tier nodes<br />
(N3, no. 12-15). D4 requires the dissection of N1, N2, N3 and fourth-tier para-aortic nodes (N4,<br />
no. 16).<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce this Cochrane review, numerous trials have been published exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the extent<br />
of lymph node dissection. An <strong>in</strong>terim analysis of the Italian Gastric Cancer Study Group<br />
(IGCSG) randomised surgical trial showed no statistically significant difference <strong>in</strong><br />
postoperative morbidity and mortality between D1 and D2 gastrectomy [154]. In this<br />
trial, only a m<strong>in</strong>ority of patients received a splenectomy (<strong>in</strong> case of cl<strong>in</strong>ical T > 1 on the<br />
greater curvature of the proximal and middle thirds of the stomach) or a distal<br />
pancreatectomy (suspicion of tumour <strong>in</strong>volvement). However, a subsequent<br />
multicentric phase II study by the same group evaluat<strong>in</strong>g pancreas-preserv<strong>in</strong>g D2<br />
gastrectomy suggested a survival benefit <strong>with</strong> an overall 5-year survival of 55% and a<br />
postoperative <strong>in</strong>-hospital mortality of 3.1% [155]. Hartgr<strong>in</strong>k et al. also compared D1<br />
<strong>with</strong> D2 lymph node dissection [156]. Postoperative morbidity (25% vs. 43%; p = 0.001)<br />
and mortality (4% vs. 10%; p = 0.004) were significantly higher <strong>in</strong> the D2 dissection<br />
group, but after 11 years no overall difference <strong>in</strong> survival was found (30% vs. 35%; p =<br />
0.53).
38 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
As compared to Degiuli et al. [154], the amount of splenectomies and distal<br />
pancreatectomies was higher <strong>in</strong> the Randomized <strong>Dutch</strong> Gastric Cancer Group Trial<br />
[156].<br />
Three trials recently compared standard D2 vs. extended D2 (D2+, i.e. D2 <strong>with</strong> paraaortic<br />
nodal dissection) lymph node dissection [157-159]. No statistically significant<br />
differences <strong>in</strong> postoperative morbidity and mortality were found <strong>in</strong> two trials [157, 158],<br />
while postoperative morbidity was higher <strong>in</strong> the extended D2 group <strong>in</strong> the third trial<br />
[159].<br />
Reconstruction after gastrectomy can be <strong>with</strong> or <strong>with</strong>out pouch formation and <strong>with</strong><br />
(Billroth I and II) or <strong>with</strong>out (Roux-en-Y, jejunal <strong>in</strong>terposition) ma<strong>in</strong>tenance of duodenal<br />
passage [47]. Evidence suggests that pouch procedures may be associated <strong>with</strong> a higher<br />
earlier weight ga<strong>in</strong> [160, 161] and some improvement <strong>in</strong> long-term quality of life [162].<br />
Several articles have compared laparoscopic surgery to conventional surgery for gastric<br />
cancer [163-166]. One SR identified 4 RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g laparoscopy-assisted distal<br />
gastrectomy (LADG) to conventional open distal gastrectomy (CODG) [164]. LADG<br />
was found to be a longer procedure, but was associated <strong>with</strong> a lower postoperative<br />
morbidity. No difference was found <strong>in</strong> postoperative mortality. These results were<br />
confirmed by an RCT published subsequently [166]. Hayashi et al. also found a shorter<br />
operation time <strong>with</strong> CODG, but no differences <strong>in</strong> postoperative morbidity and<br />
mortality [163]. Huscher et al. found no differences <strong>in</strong> duration of surgery and<br />
postoperative morbidity and mortality between laparoscopic-assisted and open radical<br />
subtotal gastrectomy [165]. Overall, duration of analgesic adm<strong>in</strong>istration was shorter<br />
after laparoscopic surgery [163, 164, 166].<br />
As for oesophageal cancer, several studies have shown a relationship between patient<br />
outcomes (e.g. 30-day mortality) and surgeon or hospital volume for gastric cancer<br />
surgery [47, 98, 99]. However, this relationship is less profound than for oesophageal<br />
cancer surgery [98]. Nevertheless, based on these results, gastric cancer surgery should<br />
be carried out <strong>in</strong> high volume specialist surgical units by surgeons <strong>with</strong> experience <strong>in</strong><br />
gastric cancer [47]. Subspecialty tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g is also associated <strong>with</strong> lower postoperative<br />
mortality, although this relationship is not statistically significant [167].<br />
Recommendations<br />
18. Surgical resection should be considered standard treatment for<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> resectable gastric cancer (1A recommendation).<br />
19. Surgery for gastric cancer should aim at achiev<strong>in</strong>g an R0 resection<br />
(1A recommendation).<br />
20. D2 lymphadenectomy (<strong>with</strong> a m<strong>in</strong>imum of 15 lymph nodes removed<br />
and exam<strong>in</strong>ed) should be standard dur<strong>in</strong>g gastrectomy to improve<br />
stag<strong>in</strong>g and local disease control (1B recommendation).<br />
21. Gastric cancer surgery should be carried out <strong>in</strong> high volume<br />
specialist surgical units by surgeons <strong>with</strong> experience and/or specialist<br />
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this area (1C recommendation).<br />
5.6.3 Adjuvant treatment<br />
Numerous RCTs and systematic reviews have been published compar<strong>in</strong>g postoperative<br />
adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone [47, 150]. Most meta-analyses found small<br />
statistically significant differences <strong>in</strong> survival favour<strong>in</strong>g adjuvant chemotherapy, although<br />
only a m<strong>in</strong>ority of the <strong>in</strong>cluded RCTs were of high quality. Subgroup analyses <strong>in</strong> one<br />
meta-analysis showed a trend towards a larger magnitude of the effect for trials <strong>in</strong> which<br />
at least two thirds of the patients had node-positive disease (OR 0.74; 95%CI 0.59 –<br />
0.95) [150]. Therefore, CCO concluded that adjuvant chemotherapy alone may be of<br />
benefit <strong>in</strong> particular for patients <strong>with</strong> lymph node metastases. However, this is not <strong>in</strong><br />
l<strong>in</strong>e <strong>with</strong> SIGN, that did not recommend postoperative chemotherapy outside a cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
trial [47].
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 39<br />
One meta-analysis of 4 Japanese RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g adjuvant oral fluor<strong>in</strong>ated pyrimid<strong>in</strong>es<br />
to surgery alone found a survival benefit <strong>in</strong> favour of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.73;<br />
95%CI 0.60 – 0.89; p = 0.002) [168]. Other trials failed to demonstrate a benefit <strong>in</strong><br />
favour of adjuvant chemotherapy [169-172]. The optimum chemotherapy regimen has<br />
also not yet been def<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />
CCO identified two RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g adjuvant radiotherapy to surgery alone [150]. No<br />
differences <strong>in</strong> survival were found. However, addition of postoperative chemotherapy to<br />
radiotherapy may result <strong>in</strong> better outcomes. Three RCTs were identified by the CCO,<br />
of which one found no statistically significant difference <strong>in</strong> survival. The two other trials<br />
detected improved survival <strong>with</strong> postoperative CRT, but received considerable criticism<br />
[150]. For example, the surgery performed <strong>in</strong> the RCT of McDonald et al. was often not<br />
up to the desired standards [173].<br />
Several RCTs and meta-analyses compared adjuvant <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy to<br />
surgery alone [150, 174, 175]. A recent meta-analysis found a significant survival benefit<br />
<strong>in</strong> favour of hyperthermic <strong>in</strong>traoperative <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy <strong>with</strong> or <strong>with</strong>out<br />
early postoperative <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy [175]. However, <strong>in</strong> general survival<br />
results have been conflict<strong>in</strong>g, and some trials even reported harm from <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal<br />
therapy [150].<br />
CCO identified 9 RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g adjuvant immunochemotherapy to surgery alone<br />
[150]; one meta-analysis on immunochemotherapy <strong>with</strong> polysaccharide K [176] and one<br />
RCT [177] were published subsequently. Overall, <strong>in</strong>consistent results were found,<br />
mak<strong>in</strong>g it difficult to draw def<strong>in</strong>ite conclusions.<br />
Recommendations<br />
22. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer (2A recommendation).<br />
23. Postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy is not recommended for<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer (2A recommendation).<br />
24. Postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is not rout<strong>in</strong>ely<br />
recommended for patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer, but can be<br />
considered after discussion <strong>in</strong> the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team (2A<br />
recommendation).<br />
5.7 PALLIATIVE TREATMENT & METASTATIC DISEASE<br />
Palliative gastric surgery is limited to symptomatic stenoses, bleed<strong>in</strong>g tumours and<br />
perforation [129]. It should be avoided <strong>in</strong> patients who have dissem<strong>in</strong>ated peritoneal<br />
disease [47, 129]. In comparison to palliative gastrectomy, gastric bypass has a higher<br />
mortality [47]. However, reported mortality after laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy is<br />
lower than for open bypass.<br />
For patients <strong>with</strong> malignant gastric outlet obstruction, treatment options <strong>in</strong>clude<br />
endoscopic stent<strong>in</strong>g or surgical gastroenterostomy [178, 179]. Two systematic reviews,<br />
that ma<strong>in</strong>ly comprised observational studies, found a higher <strong>in</strong>itial cl<strong>in</strong>ical success after<br />
endoscopic stent<strong>in</strong>g. However, <strong>in</strong>consistent results were found for associated morbidity<br />
[178, 179]. No significant survival benefit was found. Endoscopic stent<strong>in</strong>g was associated<br />
<strong>with</strong> a shorter hospital stay.<br />
Several RCTs compared palliative chemotherapy to best supportive care for patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> advanced or metastatic gastric cancer [180, 181]. A clear survival benefit was found<br />
<strong>in</strong> favour of palliative chemotherapy. Above this, palliative chemotherapy was associated<br />
<strong>with</strong> a better quality of life [180]. Wagner et al. also found a significant survival benefit <strong>in</strong><br />
favour of comb<strong>in</strong>ation chemotherapy as compared to s<strong>in</strong>gle agent chemotherapy (HR<br />
0.83; 95%CI 0.74 – 0.93) [181]. Therefore, <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced or<br />
metastatic cancer of the stomach <strong>with</strong> good performance status comb<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
chemotherapy should be considered [47, 181].
40 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer should have access to a specialist (outpatient and/or<br />
<strong>in</strong>patient) palliative care team, <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>in</strong> relation to comfort and symptom control,<br />
and quality of life [47]. This team clearly should <strong>in</strong>volve the general practitioner, who<br />
should have a coord<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g role <strong>in</strong> the organisation of the palliative home care.<br />
However, as for oesophageal cancer, evidence specific to control of symptoms, such as<br />
pa<strong>in</strong>, anorexia and bleed<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> these cancers is limited. Some evidence exists for the use<br />
of celiac axis plexus block for the palliation of pa<strong>in</strong> and for the use of corticosteroids <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer who are anorexic or who have symptoms of bowel<br />
obstruction [47]. Nutritional support <strong>in</strong> the palliative sett<strong>in</strong>g should take <strong>in</strong>to account<br />
the comfort of the patient, <strong>in</strong> that quality of life is much more important than the longterm<br />
effects.<br />
Limited evidence (com<strong>in</strong>g from a secondary analysis of 1 RCT) is also available for<br />
psychotherapeutic support dur<strong>in</strong>g hospital stay [115].<br />
Recommendations<br />
5.8 FOLLOW-UP<br />
25. Palliative gastric surgery is limited to symptomatic stenoses,<br />
bleed<strong>in</strong>g tumours and perforation (2C recommendation).<br />
26. For patients <strong>with</strong> malignant gastric outlet obstruction, treatment<br />
options <strong>in</strong>clude endoscopic stent<strong>in</strong>g or surgical gastroenterostomy<br />
(2C recommendation).<br />
27. In patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced or metastatic cancer of the<br />
stomach <strong>with</strong> good performance status comb<strong>in</strong>ation chemotherapy<br />
should be considered (1A recommendation).<br />
28. Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer should have access to a specialist<br />
palliative care team, <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>in</strong> relation to comfort and<br />
symptom control, and quality of life (1C recommendation).<br />
In patients that underwent treatment for gastric cancer, follow-up is needed to detect<br />
recurrent disease (<strong>in</strong> case of curative treatment), progressive disease, symptoms that<br />
warrant treatment, or nutritional problems result<strong>in</strong>g from total gastrectomy (e.g. iron<br />
and vitam<strong>in</strong> deficiency, maldigestion <strong>with</strong> steathorroea, etc). However, evidence about<br />
the duration, frequency and type of follow-up is lack<strong>in</strong>g [182] (one retrospective study<br />
was published after our literature search [183]). Therefore, these recommendations are<br />
made <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e <strong>with</strong> those for oesophageal cancer.<br />
A physical exam<strong>in</strong>ation is recommended every three months, and should give special<br />
attention to nutritional status, weight loss, fatigue, etc. Above this, a blood analysis<br />
(rout<strong>in</strong>e chemistry and haematology, completed <strong>with</strong> serum ferrit<strong>in</strong>e and vitam<strong>in</strong> B12<br />
dos<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> case of anaemia) is recommended. Vitam<strong>in</strong> B12 deficiency is a frequent<br />
phenomenon after total gastrectomy, and should be adequately treated. CT scan of the<br />
abdomen is recommended every six months <strong>in</strong> the first year and afterwards annually<br />
until the fifth year. However, it should be stressed that no evidence is available to<br />
support regular imag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the follow-up of these patients [47]. For patients that<br />
underwent partial gastrectomy, lifelong endoscopic surveillance is <strong>in</strong>dicated because of<br />
the high risk of develop<strong>in</strong>g gastric stump carc<strong>in</strong>oma [184].<br />
Patients treated <strong>with</strong> endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should have strict<br />
endoscopic surveillance [144] <strong>with</strong> a follow-up endoscopy after three months, then<br />
every six months <strong>in</strong> the first two years, and then annually.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 41<br />
Recommendations<br />
29. It is recommended that the follow-up of patients treated for gastric<br />
cancer <strong>in</strong>cludes a physical exam<strong>in</strong>ation and blood analysis every<br />
three months, and a CT scan every six months <strong>in</strong> the first year and<br />
afterwards annually until the fifth year (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
30. Patients treated <strong>with</strong> endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should<br />
have a follow-up endoscopy after three months, then every six<br />
months <strong>in</strong> the first two years, and then annually (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
5.9 RECURRENT DISEASE<br />
In a small number of patients, recurrent disease can be successfully treated <strong>with</strong> curative<br />
<strong>in</strong>tent. In patients <strong>with</strong> cancer of the gastric stump after distal gastrectomy, R0 resection<br />
can be achieved <strong>in</strong> a relatively high number of patients [185, 186]. Patients who develop<br />
a solitary lung or liver metastasis can also be considered for resection [187, 188]. When<br />
patients are confronted <strong>with</strong> a local recurrence after EMR for a mucosal cancer, local<br />
treatment can be reconsidered [145, 189]. The evidence for these treatments, however,<br />
is weak and com<strong>in</strong>g from small observational studies only. Treatment options for<br />
recurrent disease should therefore be discussed <strong>in</strong> the MDT.<br />
Recommendations<br />
31. In patients <strong>with</strong> recurrent gastric cancer, treatment options should<br />
be discussed <strong>in</strong> the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
32. In patients <strong>with</strong> a local recurrence or new tumour after endoscopic<br />
mucosal resection (EMR), treatment options, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g local<br />
treatment, should be discussed <strong>in</strong> the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary team (expert<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
5.10 TREATMENT OF GASTRIC LYMPHOMA<br />
5.10.1 Introduction<br />
Primary gastric lymphoma is a rare tumour, account<strong>in</strong>g for less than 5% of primary<br />
gastric neoplasms. However, it is the most common extranodal lymphoma, represent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
4-20% of all extranodal lymphomas [190]. Helicobacter pylori <strong>in</strong>fection,<br />
immunosuppression after solid-organ transplantation, celiac disease, <strong>in</strong>flammatory bowel<br />
disease, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) <strong>in</strong>fection are known risk factors for<br />
GI lymphoma. A significant proportion of gastric lymphomas is of low-grade histology<br />
and arises from mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) [191].<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the most recent WHO classification, the term ‘MALT lymphoma’ should<br />
only be applied to tumours previously def<strong>in</strong>ed as low-grade MALT lymphomas<br />
composed mostly by small cells. High-grade lymphomas are known as large B-cell<br />
lymphoma [192]. Patients <strong>with</strong> low-grade B-cell lymphoma or MALT lymphoma have a<br />
better prognosis than patients <strong>with</strong> diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [193].<br />
Tumours of T-cell orig<strong>in</strong> are rare [190]. Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric lymphomas are currently<br />
staged us<strong>in</strong>g the Ann Arbor stag<strong>in</strong>g system <strong>with</strong> the Cotswold modification. This has<br />
largely replaced the older International Workshop stag<strong>in</strong>g system [194].<br />
5.10.2 Diagnosis and stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
There is no consensus regard<strong>in</strong>g the diagnostic work-up and stag<strong>in</strong>g of primary gastric<br />
lymphomas. Evidence is scarce and exclusively based on observational studies. As for all<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> suspected gastric cancer, upper GI endoscopy is <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> case of<br />
suspected gastric lymphoma.
42 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Dedicated endoscopic-bioptic techniques are recommended, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a m<strong>in</strong>imum of 8 –<br />
12 biopsies from visible lesions, mapp<strong>in</strong>g of macroscopically normal-appear<strong>in</strong>g areas, and<br />
repeated exam<strong>in</strong>ations <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dividual case. Biopsies should be preserved <strong>in</strong> such a way<br />
to allow molecular diagnostic <strong>in</strong>vestigation [195, 196].<br />
Several classifications of lymphomas are available [197, 198]. It is recommended to<br />
diagnose and classify gastric lymphomas accord<strong>in</strong>g to the most recent appropriate<br />
classification.<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> histologically confirmed gastric lymphoma, endoscopic ultrasonography<br />
is <strong>in</strong>dicated [199, 200]. EUS-guided FNA of suspicious LN is not recommended. For<br />
other stag<strong>in</strong>g procedures, such as CT scan or PET scan, even less evidence is available<br />
[201-203]. Therefore, for patients <strong>with</strong> low-grade MALT lymphoma no further stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
procedures are recommended, unless otherwise required for differential diagnostic<br />
reasons.<br />
Recommendations<br />
5.10.3 Treatment<br />
1. In patients <strong>with</strong> suspected gastric lymphoma, subtle endoscopicbioptic<br />
techniques are needed, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a m<strong>in</strong>imum of 8–12<br />
biopsies from visible lesions, mapp<strong>in</strong>g of macroscopically normalappear<strong>in</strong>g<br />
areas, and repeated exam<strong>in</strong>ations <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
case. Biopsies should be preserved <strong>in</strong> such a way to allow<br />
molecular diagnostic <strong>in</strong>vestigation (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
2. Lymphomas should be diagnosed and classified accord<strong>in</strong>g to the<br />
most recent appropriate classification (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
3. In patients <strong>with</strong> histologically confirmed gastric lymphoma,<br />
endoscopic ultrasonography is <strong>in</strong>dicated. Endoscopic ultrasoundguided<br />
f<strong>in</strong>e needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes is not<br />
recommended (1C recommendation).<br />
4. For patients <strong>with</strong> low-grade MALT lymphoma no further stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
procedures are recommended, unless otherwise required for<br />
differential diagnostic reasons (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
In the past, surgery was thought to be necessary for the diagnosis, stag<strong>in</strong>g, and<br />
treatment of low-grade gastric lymphomas. However, as mentioned above, most<br />
patients now can be adequately diagnosed <strong>with</strong> biopsy and appropriately staged <strong>with</strong><br />
non-<strong>in</strong>vasive studies. Furthermore, gastrectomy can be associated <strong>with</strong> significant<br />
morbidity [194]. Numerous observational studies have demonstrated successful<br />
treatment of gastric MALT lymphomas <strong>with</strong> H. pylori eradication alone [204-208].<br />
Complete remission rates ranged from 62 – 95%. No trials were found compar<strong>in</strong>g H.<br />
pylori eradication to surgical treatment.<br />
In one RCT, 245 previously untreated patients <strong>with</strong> gastric low-grade MALT lymphoma<br />
(stage IE and IIE) were randomised to surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy [209]. No<br />
statistically significant differences were found <strong>in</strong> overall survival, but event-free survival<br />
was significantly higher <strong>in</strong> the group randomised to chemotherapy.<br />
Because the time from H. pylori eradication to lymphoma regression ranges from 1-28<br />
months, close follow-up is required <strong>with</strong> upper GI endoscopy <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g biopsy [128,<br />
194]. No evidence is available on the most appropriate duration of this follow-up, but<br />
an annual control dur<strong>in</strong>g the first three years seems rational. Patients beyond stage I<br />
have a significantly decreased response to H. pylori eradication therapy [206, 207].<br />
These patients, and patients <strong>with</strong>out tumour regression after successful H. pylori<br />
eradication, should be referred to a specialized haematology centre [205].
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 43<br />
Recommendations<br />
5. H. pylori eradication is the treatment of first choice for H. pylori<br />
<strong>in</strong>fected patients <strong>with</strong> stage I low grade gastric MALT lymphoma<br />
(1C recommendation).<br />
6. In patients <strong>with</strong> low-grade MALT lymphoma treated <strong>with</strong><br />
antibiotic eradication, close follow-up <strong>with</strong> upper GI endoscopy<br />
and biopsies is required, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g evaluation of H. pylori<br />
eradication <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> 3 months (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
7. Patients <strong>with</strong> successful H. pylori eradication but <strong>with</strong>out tumour<br />
regression after 1 year or <strong>with</strong> tumour progression should be<br />
referred to a specialized haematology centre (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
5.11 TREATMENT OF GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL<br />
TUMOURS<br />
5.11.1 Introduction<br />
Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumours (GIST) are relatively rare tumours, represent<strong>in</strong>g less<br />
than 1% of all tumours of the gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al tract. They are most common <strong>in</strong> the<br />
stomach (39% to 70%) and the small <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>e (20% to 32%), whereas the colon, rectum<br />
and oesophagus are affected <strong>in</strong> less than 15% of cases [210]. GISTs predom<strong>in</strong>antly occur<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividuals over 40 years of age, <strong>with</strong> the majority occurr<strong>in</strong>g between the ages of 55<br />
to 65. Estimates of <strong>in</strong>cidence vary widely from 4 to 14 cases per million populations<br />
[211].<br />
Present<strong>in</strong>g features of these tumours <strong>in</strong>clude abdom<strong>in</strong>al discomfort or pa<strong>in</strong>, a feel<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
abdom<strong>in</strong>al fullness and the presence of a palpable mass. However, many people <strong>with</strong><br />
GISTs are asymptomatic dur<strong>in</strong>g early stages of the disease until tumours reach a large<br />
size, at which time the tumours rupture and bleed or obstruct the gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al tract<br />
[211].<br />
Overall, literature on GIST is relatively scarce and of low quality. Most studies are<br />
observational studies or case series <strong>with</strong>out an adequate control. Therefore, the<br />
recommendations presented below often have a low level of evidence or are based on<br />
expert op<strong>in</strong>ion.<br />
5.11.2 Diagnosis and stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical suspicion of GIST, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUSguided<br />
FNA are recommended for differential diagnostic reasons and to confirm the<br />
presence of positive lymph nodes or malignancy <strong>in</strong> adjacent organs [212]. F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs on<br />
EUS of a diameter > 3 cm, irregular extralum<strong>in</strong>al border, cystic spaces, echogenic foci,<br />
and adjacent malignant-appear<strong>in</strong>g lymph nodes are features that can suggest malignancy.<br />
Unfortunately, EUS f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs do not accurately predict the malignant potential of a small<br />
GIST (< 3 cm).<br />
Most GISTs (80 – 100%) express the tyros<strong>in</strong>e k<strong>in</strong>ase growth factor receptor c-KIT,<br />
which is detected by immunosta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> the antibody for the cell-surface marker<br />
CD117. This immunohistochemical test (performed on tissue) is now considered to be<br />
an appropriate diagnostic marker for the diagnosis of GIST [212].<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> a (suspected) GIST tumour, a CT abdomen is recommended if<br />
treatment is considered [213-217]. However, the evidence support<strong>in</strong>g this<br />
recommendation is observational and of low quality.
44 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Recommendations<br />
1. In patients <strong>with</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical suspicion of GIST, endoscopic<br />
ultrasonography and endoscopic ultrasound-guided f<strong>in</strong>e needle<br />
aspiration can be recommended for differential diagnostic<br />
reasons and to confirm the presence of positive lymph nodes or<br />
malignancy <strong>in</strong> adjacent organs (2C recommendation).<br />
2. In patients <strong>with</strong> a (suspected) GIST, immunohistochemical<br />
test<strong>in</strong>g of CD117 is recommended (1C recommendation).<br />
3. In patients <strong>with</strong> a (suspected) GIST tumour, a CT abdomen is<br />
recommended if treatment is considered (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
5.11.3 Treatment<br />
5.11.3.1 Non-metastatic resectable GIST<br />
Discrepancies were found <strong>in</strong> the literature on the strategy to predict malignant<br />
behaviour of GISTs. AGA proposed criteria <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g size (>3 cm), mitotic count on<br />
histology, and several EUS criteria (size; irregularity of the extralum<strong>in</strong>al border; the<br />
presence of cystic spaces, echogenic foci, and heterogeneity) [212]. The National<br />
Institutes of Health proposed a strategy for predict<strong>in</strong>g malignant behaviour of GISTs<br />
based on size (>2cm, 2-5cm, 5-10 cm, or >10) and mitotic count on histology (10 per 50 high-power field), <strong>with</strong> the understand<strong>in</strong>g that no GIST can be def<strong>in</strong>ed as<br />
benign on the basis of currently available diagnostic test<strong>in</strong>g [218].<br />
Debate also exists as to whether the potential morbidity and mortality associated <strong>with</strong><br />
surgical resection are acceptable for remov<strong>in</strong>g a lesion <strong>with</strong> low potential for<br />
malignancy. Given the overall lack of evidence to guide management, it is recommended<br />
to perform surgical resection <strong>in</strong> patients that are fit for surgery and <strong>with</strong> a histologically<br />
confirmed non-metastatic GIST or <strong>with</strong> a gastric tumour of >5 cm that is highly<br />
suspicious of a GIST (and <strong>with</strong>out evidence for metastatic disease) [211, 212, 219]. For<br />
lesions of 2 – 5 cm that are highly suspicious of GIST and <strong>with</strong>out evidence for<br />
metastatic disease, the choice between surveillance and surgical resection should be<br />
discussed at the MDT, tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to consideration histology, size, marg<strong>in</strong>s, age,<br />
comorbidities and fitness for surgery. In patients <strong>with</strong> a gastric tumour of
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 45<br />
Recommendations<br />
4. In patients <strong>with</strong> a histologically confirmed non-metastatic GIST<br />
and who are fit for surgery, resectional surgery is <strong>in</strong>dicated<br />
(expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
5. In patients <strong>with</strong> a gastric tumour of >5 cm that is highly suspicious<br />
of a GIST, <strong>with</strong>out evidence for metastatic disease, and who are<br />
fit for surgery, resectional surgery is <strong>in</strong>dicated (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
6. In patients <strong>with</strong> a gastric tumour of 2-5 cm that is highly<br />
suspicious of a GIST, <strong>with</strong>out evidence for metastatic disease, and<br />
who are fit for surgery, the choice between surveillance and<br />
resectional surgery should be discussed at the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary<br />
team (expert op<strong>in</strong>ion).<br />
7. In patients <strong>with</strong> a gastric tumour of
46 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
6 IMPLEMENTATION AND UPDATING OF THE<br />
UPPER GI CANCER GUIDELINE<br />
6.1 IMPLEMENTATION<br />
The implementation of the present guidel<strong>in</strong>e will be led by the College of Oncology. An<br />
onl<strong>in</strong>e implementation tool – similar to the tools accompany<strong>in</strong>g previous guidel<strong>in</strong>es<br />
(https://portal.health.fgov.be/portal/page?_pageid=56,10338450&_dad=portal&_schema=<br />
PORTAL) – will be developed. The tool will be based on the general algorithms of this<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
6.2 QUALITY CONTROL<br />
The implementation of the guidel<strong>in</strong>e has to be evaluated <strong>with</strong> appropriate quality<br />
control criteria. These criteria should at least assess the follow<strong>in</strong>g items of the general<br />
algorithms:<br />
• diagnostic work-up<br />
• stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
• treatment accord<strong>in</strong>g to stage<br />
• follow-up<br />
• multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary approach<br />
For each of these steps, quality <strong>in</strong>dicators should be developed, which should be<br />
preferentially based on the recommendations <strong>with</strong> a high level of evidence. Additionally,<br />
a literature search for exist<strong>in</strong>g quality <strong>in</strong>dicators should be done. However, a preassessment<br />
of the literature (Medl<strong>in</strong>e and the National Quality Measures Clear<strong>in</strong>ghouse,<br />
http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/) only identified a limited number of exisit<strong>in</strong>g<br />
quality <strong>in</strong>dicators (Table 11).<br />
Table 11. Exist<strong>in</strong>g quality <strong>in</strong>dicators for oesophageal and gastric cancer,<br />
identified through pre-assessment of the literature.<br />
Quality Indicator Source<br />
Oesophageal resection mortality rate Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality<br />
Oesophageal resection: volume Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality<br />
6.3 GUIDELINE UPDATE<br />
In view of the chang<strong>in</strong>g evidence, and based on a pre-assessment of the literature, this<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>e should be fully updated <strong>in</strong> 5 years. In the meanwhile, when important evidence<br />
becomes available, this will be mentioned on the website of the College of Oncology<br />
(https://portal.health.fgov.be/portal/page?_pageid=56,10338450&_dad=portal&_schema=<br />
PORTAL).
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 47<br />
7 REFERENCES<br />
1. Park<strong>in</strong>, D.M., et al., Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Cl<strong>in</strong>, 2005. 55(2): p. 74-108.<br />
2. Bollschweiler, E., et al., Demographic variations <strong>in</strong> the ris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cidence of esophageal adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
<strong>in</strong> white males. Cancer, 2001. 92(3): p. 549-55.<br />
3. Crane, L.M., et al., Oesophageal cancer <strong>in</strong> The Netherlands: <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cidence and mortality but<br />
improv<strong>in</strong>g survival. Eur J Cancer, 2007. 43(9): p. 1445-51.<br />
4. Qiu, D. and S. Kaneko, Comparison of esophageal cancer mortality <strong>in</strong> five countries: France, Italy,<br />
Japan, UK and USA from the WHO mortality database (1960-2000). Jpn J Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol, 2005. 35(9):<br />
p. 564-7.<br />
5. Vizca<strong>in</strong>o, A.P., et al., Time trends <strong>in</strong>cidence of both major histologic types of esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>omas<br />
<strong>in</strong> selected countries, 1973-1995. Int J Cancer, 2002. 99(6): p. 860-8.<br />
6. Crew, K.D. and A.I. Neugut, Epidemiology of gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol, 2006. 12(3):<br />
p. 354-62.<br />
7. Wijnhoven, B.P.L., et al., Increased <strong>in</strong>cidence of adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas at the gastro-oesophageal junction<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Dutch</strong> males s<strong>in</strong>ce the 1990s. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2002. 14(2): p. 115-22.<br />
8. Crane, S.J., et al., The chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cidence of oesophageal and gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma by anatomic<br />
sub-site. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2007. 25(4): p. 447-53.<br />
9. Peeters, M., et al., Nationale Richtlijnen van het College voor oncologie: A. Algemeen kader oncologish<br />
kwaliteitshandboek B. Wetenschappelijke basis voor kl<strong>in</strong>ische paden voor diagnose en behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
colorectale kanker en testiskanker, <strong>in</strong> <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong>. 2006, Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de<br />
Gezondheidszorg (<strong>KCE</strong>): Brussel.<br />
10. Fervers, B., et al., Adaptation of cl<strong>in</strong>ical guidel<strong>in</strong>es: literature review and proposition for a framework<br />
and procedure. Int J Qual Health Care, 2006. 18(3): p. 167-76.<br />
11. Siewert, J.R. and H.J. Ste<strong>in</strong>, Classification of adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the oesophagogastric junction. Br J<br />
Surg, 1998. 85(11): p. 1457-9.<br />
12. Spechler, S.J., et al., Adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophago-gastric junction., <strong>in</strong> Pathology and Genetics of<br />
Tumours of the Digestive System., S.R. Hamilton and L.A. Aaltonen, Editors. 2000, IARC Press:<br />
Lyon, France. p. 31-36.<br />
13. (UICC), I.U.A.C., TNM classification of malignant tumours. 6th ed. ed. 2002, Berl<strong>in</strong>: Spr<strong>in</strong>ger-<br />
Verlag.<br />
14. Corley, D.A. and A. Kubo, Influence of site classification on cancer <strong>in</strong>cidence rates: an analysis of<br />
gastric cardia carc<strong>in</strong>omas. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2004. 96(18): p. 1383-7.<br />
15. Driessen, A., et al., Identical cytokerat<strong>in</strong> expression pattern CK7+/CK20- <strong>in</strong> esophageal and cardiac<br />
cancer: etiopathological and cl<strong>in</strong>ical implications. Mod Pathol, 2004. 17(1): p. 49-55.<br />
16. Driessen, A., et al., Are carc<strong>in</strong>omas of the cardia oesophageal or gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas? Eur J<br />
Cancer, 2003. 39(17): p. 2487-94.<br />
17. Sk<strong>in</strong>ner, D.B., et al., Barrett's esophagus. Comparison of benign and malignant cases. Ann Surg,<br />
1983. 198(4): p. 554-65.<br />
18. Paull, A., et al., The histologic spectrum of Barrett's esophagus. N Engl J Med, 1976. 295(9): p. 476-<br />
80.<br />
19. Naef, A.P., M. Savary, and L. Ozzello, Columnar-l<strong>in</strong>ed lower esophagus: an acquired lesion <strong>with</strong><br />
malignant predisposition. <strong>Report</strong> on 140 cases of Barrett's esophagus <strong>with</strong> 12 adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas. J<br />
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 1975. 70(5): p. 826-35.<br />
20. Haggitt, R.C., et al., Adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma complicat<strong>in</strong>g columnar epithelium-l<strong>in</strong>ed (Barrett's) esophagus.<br />
Am J Cl<strong>in</strong> Pathol, 1978. 70(1): p. 1-5.<br />
21. Reid, B.J., et al., Barrett's esophagus. Correlation between flow cytometry and histology <strong>in</strong> detection of<br />
patients at risk for adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma. Gastroenterology, 1987. 93(1): p. 1-11.
48 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
22. Spechler, S.J. and R.K. Goyal, The columnar-l<strong>in</strong>ed esophagus, <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia, and Norman<br />
Barrett. Gastroenterology, 1996. 110(2): p. 614-21.<br />
23. Sampl<strong>in</strong>er, R.E., Practice guidel<strong>in</strong>es on the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus.<br />
The Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J<br />
Gastroenterol, 1998. 93(7): p. 1028-32.<br />
24. Sharma, P., et al., A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus: the AGA<br />
Chicago Workshop. Gastroenterology, 2004. 127(1): p. 310-30.<br />
25. British Society of Gastroenterology, Guidel<strong>in</strong>es for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s<br />
columnar-l<strong>in</strong>ed oesophagus., B.S.o. Gastroenterology, Editor. 2005, British Society of<br />
Gastroenterology: London.<br />
26. Flejou, J.F. and M. Svrcek, Barrett's oesophagus--a pathologist's view. Histopathology, 2007. 50(1):<br />
p. 3-14.<br />
27. Takubo, K., et al., Double muscularis mucosae <strong>in</strong> Barrett's esophagus. Hum Pathol, 1991. 22(11): p.<br />
1158-61.<br />
28. Nigro, J.J., et al., Prevalence and location of nodal metastases <strong>in</strong> distal esophageal adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
conf<strong>in</strong>ed to the wall: implications for therapy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 1999. 117(1): p. 16-23;<br />
discussion 23-5.<br />
29. Westerterp, M., et al., Outcome of surgical treatment for early adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus or<br />
gastro-esophageal junction. Virchows Arch, 2005. 446(5): p. 497-504.<br />
30. Watanabe, H., J.R. Jass, and L.H. Sob<strong>in</strong>, Histological typ<strong>in</strong>g of oesophageal and gastric tumours. 2nd<br />
ed. ed. 1990, Berl<strong>in</strong>: Spr<strong>in</strong>ger-Verlag.<br />
31. Rubio, C.A., F.S. Liu, and H.Z. Zhao, Histological classification of <strong>in</strong>traepithelial neoplasias and<br />
micro<strong>in</strong>vasive squamous carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus. Am J Surg Pathol, 1989. 13(8): p. 685-90.<br />
32. Riddell, R.H., et al., Dysplasia <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>flammatory bowel disease: standardized classification <strong>with</strong><br />
provisional cl<strong>in</strong>ical applications. Hum Pathol, 1983. 14(11): p. 931-68.<br />
33. Montgomery, E., Is there a way for pathologists to decrease <strong>in</strong>terobserver variability <strong>in</strong> the diagnosis<br />
of dysplasia? Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2005. 129(2): p. 174-6.<br />
34. Montgomery, E., et al., Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett esophagus: a<br />
reaffirmation. Hum Pathol, 2001. 32(4): p. 368-78.<br />
35. Reid, B.J., et al., Observer variation <strong>in</strong> the diagnosis of dysplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett's esophagus. Hum Pathol,<br />
1988. 19(2): p. 166-78.<br />
36. Schlemper, R.J., et al., International comparability of the pathological diagnosis for early cancer of the<br />
digestive tract: Munich meet<strong>in</strong>g. J Gastroenterol, 2000. 35 Suppl 12: p. 102-10.<br />
37. Schlemper, R.J., et al., Differences <strong>in</strong> diagnostic criteria for esophageal squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
between Japanese and Western pathologists. Cancer, 2000. 88(5): p. 996-1006.<br />
38. Schlemper, R.J., et al., Differences <strong>in</strong> diagnostic criteria for gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma between Japanese and<br />
western pathologists. Lancet, 1997. 349(9067): p. 1725-9.<br />
39. Antonioli, D.A. and H.H. Wang, Morphology of Barrett's esophagus and Barrett's-associated<br />
dysplasia and adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma. Gastroenterol Cl<strong>in</strong> North Am, 1997. 26(3): p. 495-506.<br />
40. Haggitt, R.C., Barrett's esophagus, dysplasia, and adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma. Hum Pathol, 1994. 25(10): p.<br />
982-93.<br />
41. Rugge, M., et al., Gastric dysplasia: the Padova <strong>in</strong>ternational classification. Am J Surg Pathol, 2000.<br />
24(2): p. 167-76.<br />
42. Schlemper, R.J., et al., The Vienna classification of gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al epithelial neoplasia. Gut, 2000.<br />
47(2): p. 251-5.<br />
43. Schlemper, R.J., Y. Kato, and M. Stolte, Diagnostic criteria for gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al carc<strong>in</strong>omas <strong>in</strong> Japan<br />
and Western countries: proposal for a new classification system of gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al epithelial neoplasia.<br />
J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2000. 15 Suppl: p. G49-57.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 49<br />
44. Schlemper, R.J., Y. Kato, and M. Stolte, Review of histological classifications of gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
epithelial neoplasia: differences <strong>in</strong> diagnosis of early carc<strong>in</strong>omas between Japanese and Western<br />
pathologists. J Gastroenterol, 2001. 36(7): p. 445-56.<br />
45. Hamilton, S.R. and L.A. Aaltonen, Pathology and genetics of tumours of the digestive system., ed.<br />
S.R. Hamilton and L.A. Aaltonen. 2000, Lyon, France: IARC Press.<br />
46. Odze, R.D., Diagnosis and grad<strong>in</strong>g of dysplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett's oesophagus. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Pathol, 2006. 59(10):<br />
p. 1029-38.<br />
47. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidel<strong>in</strong>es Network, Management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. A<br />
national cl<strong>in</strong>ical guidel<strong>in</strong>e., SIGN, Editor. 2006, SIGN: Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh.<br />
48. Wang, K.K., M. Wongkeesong, and N.S. Buttar, American Gastroenterological Association technical<br />
review on the role of the gastroenterologist <strong>in</strong> the management of esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma.<br />
Gastroenterology, 2005. 128(5): p. 1471-505.<br />
49. Bowrey, D.J., et al., Use of alarm symptoms to select dyspeptics for endoscopy causes patients <strong>with</strong><br />
curable esophagogastric cancer to be overlooked. Surgical Endoscopy, 2006. 20(11): p. 1725-8.<br />
50. Slee, G.R., S.M. Wagner, and F.S. McCullough, Odynophagia <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> malignant disorders.<br />
Cancer, 1985. 55(12): p. 2877-9.<br />
51. Dubuc, J., et al., Endoscopic screen<strong>in</strong>g for esophageal squamous-cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> high-risk patients: a<br />
prospective study conducted <strong>in</strong> 62 French endoscopy centers. Endoscopy, 2006. 38(7): p. 690-5.<br />
52. Borovicka, J., et al., Autofluorescence endoscopy <strong>in</strong> surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter<br />
randomized trial on diagnostic efficacy. Endoscopy, 2006. 38(9): p. 867-72.<br />
53. Lim, C.H., et al., Randomized crossover study that used methylene blue or random 4-quadrant biopsy<br />
for the diagnosis of dysplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett's esophagus.[see comment]. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy,<br />
2006. 64(2): p. 195-9.<br />
54. Kara, M.A., et al., High-resolution endoscopy plus chromoendoscopy or narrow-band imag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
Barrett's esophagus: a prospective randomized crossover study. Endoscopy, 2005. 37(10): p. 929-36.<br />
55. Corey, K.E., S.M. Schmitz, and N.J. Shaheen, Does a surgical antireflux procedure decrease the<br />
<strong>in</strong>cidence of esophageal adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> Barrett's esophagus? A meta-analysis.[see comment].<br />
American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2003. 98(11): p. 2390-4.<br />
56. Kwaliteits<strong>in</strong>stituut voor de Gezondheidszorg (CBO), Diagnostiek en behandel<strong>in</strong>g<br />
57.<br />
oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom., V.Z.C. B.V., Editor. 2005, CBO: Alphen aan den Rijn.<br />
Reid, B.J., et al., Optimiz<strong>in</strong>g endoscopic biopsy detection of early cancers <strong>in</strong> Barrett's high-grade<br />
dysplasia. Am J Gastroenterol, 2000. 95(11): p. 3089-96.<br />
58. Reid, B.J., et al., Predictors of progression to cancer <strong>in</strong> Barrett's esophagus: basel<strong>in</strong>e histology and flow<br />
cytometry identify low- and high-risk patient subsets. Am J Gastroenterol, 2000. 95(7): p. 1669-76.<br />
59. Lowe, V.J., et al., Comparison of positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and<br />
endoscopic ultrasound <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>itial stag<strong>in</strong>g of patients <strong>with</strong> esophageal cancer. Molecular Imag<strong>in</strong>g &<br />
Biology, 2005. 7(6): p. 422-30.<br />
60. Lerut, T., et al., Three-field lymphadenectomy for carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal<br />
junction <strong>in</strong> 174 R0 resections: impact on stag<strong>in</strong>g, disease-free survival, and outcome: a plea for<br />
adaptation of TNM classification <strong>in</strong> upper-half esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Ann Surg, 2004. 240(6): p.<br />
962-72; discussion 972-4.<br />
61. van Vliet, E.P.M., et al., Publication bias does not play a role <strong>in</strong> the report<strong>in</strong>g of the results of<br />
endoscopic ultrasound stag<strong>in</strong>g of upper gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al cancers. Endoscopy, 2007. 39(4): p. 325-32.<br />
62. Pfau, P.R., et al., Esophageal dilation for endosonographic evaluation of malignant esophageal<br />
strictures is safe and effective. Am J Gastroenterol, 2000. 95(10): p. 2813-5.<br />
63. Shimpi, R.A., et al., Stag<strong>in</strong>g of esophageal cancer by EUS: stag<strong>in</strong>g accuracy revisited. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<br />
Endosc, 2007. 66(3): p. 475-82.<br />
64. Egan, J.V., et al., Esophageal dilation. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test Endosc, 2006. 63(6): p. 755-60.
50 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
65. Doldi, S.B., et al., Ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervical lymph nodes <strong>in</strong> preoperative stag<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
esophageal neoplasms. Abdom Imag<strong>in</strong>g, 1998. 23(3): p. 275-7.<br />
66. Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC), Recommandations<br />
pour la pratique cl<strong>in</strong>ique: Standards, Options et Recommandations 2003 pour l’utilisation de la<br />
tomographie par émission de positons au [18F]-FDG (TEP-FDG) en cancérologie (rapport <strong>in</strong>tégral). <strong>in</strong><br />
Standards, Options et Recommendations. 2003, FNCLCC: Paris.<br />
67. Cleemput, I., et al., HTA Positron Emission Tomography Imag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Belgium, <strong>in</strong> <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong>. 2005,<br />
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (<strong>KCE</strong>): Brussels.<br />
68. Choi, J.Y., et al., 18F-FDG PET <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> esophageal squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
curative surgery: prognostic implications. Journal of Nuclear Medic<strong>in</strong>e, 2004. 45(11): p. 1843-50.<br />
69. Kneist, W., et al., Prospective evaluation of positron emission tomography <strong>in</strong> the preoperative stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Archives of Surgery, 2004. 139(10): p. 1043-9.<br />
70. Leong, T., et al., A prospective study to evaluate the impact of FDG-PET on CT-based radiotherapy<br />
treatment plann<strong>in</strong>g for oesophageal cancer.[see comment]. Radiotherapy & Oncology, 2006. 78(3):<br />
p. 254-61.<br />
71. Moureau-Zabotto, L., et al., Impact of CT and 18F-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography<br />
image fusion for conformal radiotherapy <strong>in</strong> esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma. International Journal of Radiation<br />
Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2005. 63(2): p. 340-5.<br />
72. Ott, K., et al., Metabolic imag<strong>in</strong>g predicts response, survival, and recurrence <strong>in</strong> adenocarc<strong>in</strong>omas of<br />
the esophagogastric junction. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2006. 24(29): p. 4692-8.<br />
73. Sihvo, E.I.T., et al., Adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus and the esophagogastric junction: positron<br />
emission tomography improves stag<strong>in</strong>g and prediction of survival <strong>in</strong> distant but not <strong>in</strong> locoregional<br />
disease. Journal of Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Surgery, 2004. 8(8): p. 988-96.<br />
74. Song, S.Y., et al., FDG-PET <strong>in</strong> the prediction of pathologic response after neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy <strong>in</strong> locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer. International Journal of<br />
Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2005. 63(4): p. 1053-9.<br />
75. Yuan, S., et al., Additional value of PET/CT over PET <strong>in</strong> assessment of locoregional lymph nodes <strong>in</strong><br />
thoracic esophageal squamous cell cancer. Journal of Nuclear Medic<strong>in</strong>e, 2006. 47(8): p. 1255-9.<br />
76. Osugi, H., et al., Bronchoscopic ultrasonography for stag<strong>in</strong>g supracar<strong>in</strong>al esophageal squamous cell<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma: impact on outcome. World Journal of Surgery, 2003. 27(5): p. 590-4.<br />
77. Wakamatsu, T., et al., Usefulness of preoperative endobronchial ultrasound for airway <strong>in</strong>vasion<br />
around the trachea: esophageal cancer and thyroid cancer.[see comment]. Respiration, 2006. 73(5):<br />
p. 651-7.<br />
78. Imadahl, A., et al., [Is bronchoscopy a useful additional preoperative exam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> esophageal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma?]. Langenbecks Arch Chir, 1990. 375(6): p. 326-9.<br />
79. Mortensen, M.B., et al., Comb<strong>in</strong>ed preoperative endoscopic and laparoscopic ultrasonography for<br />
prediction of R0 resection <strong>in</strong> upper gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al tract cancer. British Journal of Surgery, 2006.<br />
93(6): p. 720-5.<br />
80. Oka, S., et al., Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared <strong>with</strong> EMR for early gastric<br />
cancer. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test Endosc, 2006. 64(6): p. 877-83.<br />
81. Esaki, M., et al., Risk factors for local recurrence of superficial esophageal cancer after treatment by<br />
endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy, 2007. 39(1): p. 41-5.<br />
82. Katada, C., et al., Local recurrence of squamous-cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus after EMR.<br />
Gastro<strong>in</strong>test Endosc, 2005. 61(2): p. 219-25.<br />
83. Overholt, B.F., et al., Photodynamic therapy <strong>with</strong> porfimer sodium for ablation of high-grade dysplasia<br />
<strong>in</strong> Barrett's esophagus: <strong>in</strong>ternational, partially bl<strong>in</strong>ded, randomized phase III trial.[see<br />
comment][erratum appears <strong>in</strong> Gastro<strong>in</strong>test Endosc. 2006 Feb;63(2):359]. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
Endoscopy, 2005. 62(4): p. 488-98.<br />
84. Malthaner, R.A., et al., Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer. Practice<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>e <strong>Report</strong> #2-11., CCO, Editor. 2005, CCO: Ottawa.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 51<br />
85. Arnott, S.J., et al., Preoperative radiotherapy for esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma.[update of Cochrane<br />
Database Syst Rev. 2000;(4):CD001799; PMID: 11034728]. Cochrane Database of Systematic<br />
Reviews, 2005(4): p. CD001799.<br />
86. Gebski, V., et al., Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy <strong>in</strong><br />
oesophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma: a meta-analysis.[see comment]. Lancet Oncology, 2007. 8(3): p. 226-34.<br />
87. Malthaner, R.A., S. Coll<strong>in</strong>, and D. Fenlon, Preoperative chemotherapy for resectable thoracic<br />
esophageal cancer.[update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD001556; PMID: 14583936].<br />
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006. 3: p. CD001556.<br />
88. Graham, A.J., et al., Def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the optimal treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer: a<br />
systematic review and decision analysis.[see comment]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2007. 83(4): p.<br />
1257-64.<br />
89. Natsugoe, S., et al., Randomized controlled study on preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by<br />
surgery versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell cancer <strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle <strong>in</strong>stitution. Diseases of<br />
the Esophagus, 2006. 19(6): p. 468-72.<br />
90. Carstens, H., et al., A randomized trial of chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong><br />
resectable esophageal cancer. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol (Meet<strong>in</strong>g Abstracts), 2007. 25(18_suppl): p. 4530-.<br />
91. Cerfolio, R.J., et al., The accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography <strong>with</strong> f<strong>in</strong>e-needle aspiration,<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegrated positron emission tomography <strong>with</strong> computed tomography, and computed tomography <strong>in</strong><br />
restag<strong>in</strong>g patients <strong>with</strong> esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Journal of Thoracic<br />
& Cardiovascular Surgery, 2005. 129(6): p. 1232-41.<br />
92. FOD Volksgezondheid Veiligheid van de voedselketen en Leefmilieu, K.B. 21 maart 2003.<br />
Kon<strong>in</strong>klijk besluit houdende vaststell<strong>in</strong>g van de normen waaraan het zorgprogramma voor oncologische<br />
basiszorg en het zorgprogramma voor oncologie moeten voldoen om te worden erkend. 2003: B.S. 25-<br />
04-2003.<br />
93. Bedenne, L., et al., Chemoradiation followed by surgery compared <strong>with</strong> chemoradiation alone <strong>in</strong><br />
squamous cancer of the esophagus: FFCD 9102.[see comment]. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2007.<br />
25(10): p. 1160-8.<br />
94. Chiu, P.W.Y., et al., Multicenter prospective randomized trial compar<strong>in</strong>g standard esophagectomy<br />
<strong>with</strong> chemoradiotherapy for treatment of squamous esophageal cancer: early results from the Ch<strong>in</strong>ese<br />
University Research Group for Esophageal Cancer (CURE). Journal of Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Surgery,<br />
2005. 9(6): p. 794-802.<br />
95. Hulscher, J.B., et al., Extended transthoracic resection compared <strong>with</strong> limited transhiatal resection for<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med, 2002. 347(21): p. 1662-9.<br />
96. Fumagalli, U., H. Akiyama, and T.R. DeMeester, Resective surgery for cancer of the thoracic<br />
esophagus: results of a consensus conference held at the VIth World congress of the <strong>in</strong>ternational<br />
society for diseases of the esophagus. Dis Esophagus, 1996. 9: p. 30-38.<br />
97. Altorki, N., et al., Three-field lymph node dissection for squamous cell and adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the<br />
esophagus. Ann Surg, 2002. 236(2): p. 177-83.<br />
98. Halm, E.A., C. Lee, and M.R. Chass<strong>in</strong>, Is volume related to outcome <strong>in</strong> health care? A systematic<br />
review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med, 2002. 137(6): p. 511-20.<br />
99. Killeen, S.D., et al., Provider volume and outcomes for oncological procedures. Br J Surg, 2005. 92(4):<br />
p. 389-402.<br />
100. Metzger, R., et al., High volume centers for esophagectomy: what is the number needed to achieve<br />
low postoperative mortality? Diseases of the Esophagus, 2004. 17(4): p. 310-4.<br />
101. Dimick, J.B., et al., Specialty tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and mortality after esophageal cancer resection. Ann Thorac<br />
Surg, 2005. 80(1): p. 282-6.<br />
102. Pouliquen, X., et al., 5-Fluorouracil and cisplat<strong>in</strong> therapy after palliative surgical resection of<br />
squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus. A multicenter randomized trial. French Associations for<br />
Surgical Research. Ann Surg, 1996. 223(2): p. 127-33.
52 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
103. Ando, N., et al., A randomized trial of surgery <strong>with</strong> and <strong>with</strong>out chemotherapy for localized squamous<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the thoracic esophagus: the Japan Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology Group Study. J Thorac Cardiovasc<br />
Surg, 1997. 114(2): p. 205-9.<br />
104. Ando, N., et al., Surgery plus chemotherapy compared <strong>with</strong> surgery alone for localized squamous cell<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the thoracic esophagus: a Japan Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology Group Study--JCOG9204. Journal of<br />
Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2003. 21(24): p. 4592-6.<br />
105. Fok, M., et al., Postoperative radiotherapy for carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus: a prospective, randomized<br />
controlled study. Surgery, 1993. 113(2): p. 138-47.<br />
106. Teniere, P., et al., Postoperative radiation therapy does not <strong>in</strong>crease survival after curative resection<br />
for squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the middle and lower esophagus as shown by a multicenter controlled<br />
trial. French University Association for Surgical Research. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1991. 173(2): p.<br />
123-30.<br />
107. Xiao, Z.F., et al., Value of radiotherapy after radical surgery for esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma: a report of<br />
495 patients.[see comment]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2003. 75(2): p. 331-6.<br />
108. Wong, R.K., et al., Comb<strong>in</strong>ed Modality Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy <strong>in</strong> the Non-surgical<br />
Management of Localized Carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the Esophagus. Practice Guidel<strong>in</strong>e <strong>Report</strong> #2-12., CCO,<br />
Editor. 2005, CCO: Ottawa.<br />
109. Hao, D., et al., Plat<strong>in</strong>um-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy for tumors of the head and neck and<br />
the esophagus. Sem<strong>in</strong>ars <strong>in</strong> Radiation Oncology, 2006. 16(1): p. 10-9.<br />
110. Zhao, K.-l., et al., Late course accelerated hyperfractionated radiotherapy plus concurrent<br />
chemotherapy for squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus: a phase III randomized study.<br />
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 2005. 62(4): p. 1014-20.<br />
111. Piessen, G., et al., Patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma nonresponder to<br />
radiochemotherapy: who will benefit from surgery? Ann Surg Oncol, 2007. 14(7): p. 2036-44.<br />
112. Wenger, U., et al., Health economic evaluation of stent or endolum<strong>in</strong>al brachytherapy as a palliative<br />
strategy <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>curable cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction: results of<br />
a randomized cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 2005. 17(12): p.<br />
1369-77.<br />
113. Pol<strong>in</strong>der, S., et al., Cost study of metal stent placement vs s<strong>in</strong>gle-dose brachytherapy <strong>in</strong> the palliative<br />
treatment of oesophageal cancer. British Journal of Cancer, 2004. 90(11): p. 2067-72.<br />
114. Homs, M.Y.V., et al., Chemotherapy for metastatic carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal<br />
junction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006(4): p. CD004063.<br />
115. Kuchler, T., et al., Impact of psychotherapeutic support for patients <strong>with</strong> gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al cancer<br />
undergo<strong>in</strong>g surgery: 10-year survival results of a randomized trial.[see comment]. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
Oncology, 2007. 25(19): p. 2702-8.<br />
116. Kunisaki, C., et al., Surgical Outcomes <strong>in</strong> Esophageal Cancer Patients <strong>with</strong> Tumor Recurrence After<br />
Curative Esophagectomy. J Gastro<strong>in</strong>test Surg, 2007.<br />
117. Natsugoe, S., et al., The role of salvage surgery for recurrence of esophageal squamous cell cancer.<br />
Eur J Surg Oncol, 2006. 32(5): p. 544-7.<br />
118. Yamashita, H., et al., Salvage radiotherapy for postoperative loco-regional recurrence of esophageal<br />
cancer. Dis Esophagus, 2005. 18(4): p. 215-20.<br />
119. Yano, M., et al., Prognosis of patients who develop cervical lymph node recurrence follow<strong>in</strong>g curative<br />
resection for thoracic esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus, 2006. 19(2): p. 73-7.<br />
120. Komatsu, S., et al., Survival and cl<strong>in</strong>ical evaluation of salvage operation for cervical lymph node<br />
recurrence <strong>in</strong> esophageal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology, 2005. 52(63): p. 796-9.<br />
121. Nishimura, Y., et al., Concurrent chemoradiotherapy <strong>with</strong> protracted <strong>in</strong>fusion of 5-FU and cisplat<strong>in</strong> for<br />
postoperative recurrent or residual esophageal cancer. Jpn J Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol, 2003. 33(7): p. 341-5.<br />
122. Schipper, P.H., et al., Locally recurrent esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma: when is re-resection <strong>in</strong>dicated? Ann<br />
Thorac Surg, 2005. 80(3): p. 1001-5; discussion 1005-6.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 53<br />
123. Nomura, T., et al., Recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial esophageal cancer.<br />
Endoscopy, 2000. 32(4): p. 277-80.<br />
124. Graham, D.Y., et al., Prospective evaluation of biopsy number <strong>in</strong> the diagnosis of esophageal and<br />
gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Gastroenterology, 1982. 82(2): p. 228-31.<br />
125. Sugano, K., K. Sato, and K. Yao, New diagnostic approaches for early detection of gastric cancer.<br />
Dig Dis, 2004. 22(4): p. 327-33.<br />
126. Wang, C., Y. Yuan, and R.H. Hunt, The association between Helicobacter pylori <strong>in</strong>fection and early<br />
gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol, 2007. 102(8): p. 1789-98.<br />
127. Fuccio, L., et al., Systematic review: Helicobacter pylori eradication for the prevention of gastric<br />
cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2007. 25(2): p. 133-41.<br />
128. Malferthe<strong>in</strong>er, P., et al., Current concepts <strong>in</strong> the management of Helicobacter pylori <strong>in</strong>fection: the<br />
Maastricht III Consensus <strong>Report</strong>. Gut, 2007. 56(6): p. 772-81.<br />
129. Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC), Recommandations<br />
pour la pratique cl<strong>in</strong>ique: Standards, Options et Recommandations 2003 pour la prise en charge des<br />
patients atte<strong>in</strong>ts d’adénocarc<strong>in</strong>omes de l’estomac (cancers du cardia, autres types histologiques exclus)<br />
(rapport <strong>in</strong>tégral), <strong>in</strong> Standards, Options et Recommandations. 2004, FNCLCC: Paris.<br />
130. Kwee, R.M. and T.C. Kwee, Imag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> local stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric cancer: a systematic review. Journal<br />
of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2007. 25(15): p. 2107-16.<br />
131. Chen, C.-Y., et al., Gastric cancer: preoperative local stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> 3D multi-detector row CTcorrelation<br />
<strong>with</strong> surgical and histopathologic results. Radiology, 2007. 242(2): p. 472-82.<br />
132. Lauren, P., The Two Histological Ma<strong>in</strong> Types of Gastric Carc<strong>in</strong>oma: Diffuse and So-Called Intest<strong>in</strong>al-<br />
Type Carc<strong>in</strong>oma. an Attempt at a Histo-Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Classification. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand, 1965.<br />
64: p. 31-49.<br />
133. Goseki, N., T. Takizawa, and M. Koike, Differences <strong>in</strong> the mode of the extension of gastric cancer<br />
classified by histological type: new histological classification of gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Gut, 1992. 33(5): p.<br />
606-12.<br />
134. Mukai, K., et al., Usefulness of preoperative FDG-PET for detection of gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer,<br />
2006. 9(3): p. 192-6.<br />
135. Gretschel, S., et al., Prediction of gastric cancer lymph node status by sent<strong>in</strong>el lymph node biopsy and<br />
the Maruyama computer model. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2005. 31(4): p. 393-400.<br />
136. Lee, J.H., et al., Sent<strong>in</strong>el node biopsy us<strong>in</strong>g dye and isotope double tracers <strong>in</strong> early gastric cancer.<br />
Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2006. 13(9): p. 1168-74.<br />
137. Miwa, K., et al., Mapp<strong>in</strong>g sent<strong>in</strong>el nodes <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> early-stage gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma. British Journal<br />
of Surgery, 2003. 90(2): p. 178-82.<br />
138. Mochiki, E., et al., Sent<strong>in</strong>el lymph node mapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> technetium-99m colloidal rhenium sulfide <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma. American Journal of Surgery, 2006. 191(4): p. 465-9.<br />
139. Simsa, J., et al., Sent<strong>in</strong>el node biopsy <strong>in</strong> gastric cancer: prelim<strong>in</strong>ary results. Acta Chirurgica Belgica,<br />
2003. 103(3): p. 270-3.<br />
140. Ono, H., et al., Endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of early gastric cancer. Gut, 2001. 48(2):<br />
p. 225-9.<br />
141. Tajima, Y., et al., Histopathologic f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs predict<strong>in</strong>g lymph node metastasis and prognosis of patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> superficial esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma: analysis of 240 surgically resected tumors. Cancer, 2000.<br />
88(6): p. 1285-93.<br />
142. Gotoda, T., et al., Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation <strong>with</strong> a<br />
large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer, 2000. 3(4): p. 219-225.<br />
143. Kitajima, K., et al., Correlations between lymph node metastasis and depth of submucosal <strong>in</strong>vasion <strong>in</strong><br />
submucosal <strong>in</strong>vasive colorectal carc<strong>in</strong>oma: a Japanese collaborative study. J Gastroenterol, 2004.<br />
39(6): p. 534-43.
54 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
144. Wang, Y.P., C. Bennett, and T. Pan, Endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer.<br />
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006(1): p. CD004276.<br />
145. Oka, S., et al., Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/local recurrence of early gastric cancer<br />
after endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy, 2006. 38(10): p. 996-1000.<br />
146. Japanese Gastric Cancer, A., Japanese Classification of Gastric Carc<strong>in</strong>oma - 2nd <strong>English</strong> Edition.<br />
Gastric Cancer, 1998. 1(1): p. 10-24.<br />
147. Wu, A.W., et al., Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus none for resectable gastric cancer. Cochrane<br />
Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007(2): p. CD005047.<br />
148. Cunn<strong>in</strong>gham, D., et al., Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable<br />
gastroesophageal cancer.[see comment]. New England Journal of Medic<strong>in</strong>e, 2006. 355(1): p. 11-20.<br />
149. Boige, V., et al., F<strong>in</strong>al results of a randomized trial compar<strong>in</strong>g preoperative 5-fluorouracil (F)/cisplat<strong>in</strong><br />
(P) to surgery alone <strong>in</strong> adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of stomach and lower esophagus (ASLE): FNLCC ACCORD07-<br />
FFCD 9703 trial. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol (Meet<strong>in</strong>g Abstracts), 2007. 25(18_suppl): p. 4510-.<br />
150. Earle, C.C., et al., Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Gastric Cancer. Practice Guidel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>Report</strong> #2-14., CCO, Editor. 2003, CCO: Ottawa.<br />
151. Romano, F., et al., Phase-II randomized study of preoperative IL-2 adm<strong>in</strong>istration <strong>in</strong> radically operable<br />
gastric cancer patients. Hepato-Gastroenterology, 2004. 51(60): p. 1872-6.<br />
152. McCulloch, P., et al., Extended versus limited lymph nodes dissection technique for adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
of the stomach.[update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD001964; PMID: 14583942].<br />
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2004(4): p. CD001964.<br />
153. Roukos, D.H. and A.M. Kappas, Perspectives <strong>in</strong> the treatment of gastric cancer. Nat Cl<strong>in</strong> Pract<br />
Oncol, 2005. 2(2): p. 98-107.<br />
154. Degiuli, M., et al., Morbidity and mortality after D1 and D2 gastrectomy for cancer: <strong>in</strong>terim analysis<br />
of the Italian Gastric Cancer Study Group (IGCSG) randomised surgical trial. European Journal of<br />
Surgical Oncology, 2004. 30(3): p. 303-8.<br />
155. Degiuli, M., et al., Survival results of a multicentre phase II study to evaluate D2 gastrectomy for<br />
gastric cancer. Br J Cancer, 2004. 90(9): p. 1727-32.<br />
156. Hartgr<strong>in</strong>k, H.H., et al., Extended lymph node dissection for gastric cancer: who may benefit? F<strong>in</strong>al<br />
results of the randomized <strong>Dutch</strong> gastric cancer group trial.[see comment]. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
Oncology, 2004. 22(11): p. 2069-77.<br />
157. Kulig, J., et al., Standard D2 versus extended D2 (D2+) lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: an<br />
<strong>in</strong>terim safety analysis of a multicenter, randomized, cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial. American Journal of Surgery, 2007.<br />
193(1): p. 10-5.<br />
158. Sano, T., et al., Gastric cancer surgery: morbidity and mortality results from a prospective randomized<br />
controlled trial compar<strong>in</strong>g D2 and extended para-aortic lymphadenectomy--Japan Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology<br />
Group study 9501.[see comment]. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2004. 22(14): p. 2767-73.<br />
159. Yonemura, Y., et al., Operative morbidity and mortality after D2 and D4 extended dissection for<br />
advanced gastric cancer: a prospective randomized trial conducted by Asian surgeons. Hepato-<br />
Gastroenterology, 2006. 53(69): p. 389-94.<br />
160. Iwata, T., et al., Evaluation of reconstruction after proximal gastrectomy: prospective comparative<br />
study of jejunal <strong>in</strong>terposition and jejunal pouch <strong>in</strong>terposition. Hepato-Gastroenterology, 2006.<br />
53(68): p. 301-3.<br />
161. Yoo, C.H., et al., Proximal gastrectomy reconstructed by jejunal pouch <strong>in</strong>terposition for upper third<br />
gastric cancer: prospective randomized study. World Journal of Surgery, 2005. 29(12): p. 1592-9.<br />
162. Kono, K., et al., Improved quality of life <strong>with</strong> jejunal pouch reconstruction after total gastrectomy.<br />
American Journal of Surgery, 2003. 185(2): p. 150-4.<br />
163. Hayashi, H., et al., Prospective randomized study of open versus laparoscopy-assisted distal<br />
gastrectomy <strong>with</strong> extraperigastric lymph node dissection for early gastric cancer. Surgical Endoscopy,<br />
2005. 19(9): p. 1172-6.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 55<br />
164. Hosono, S., et al., Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy.<br />
World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2006. 12(47): p. 7676-83.<br />
165. Huscher, C.G.S., et al., Laparoscopic versus open subtotal gastrectomy for distal gastric cancer: fiveyear<br />
results of a randomized prospective trial. Annals of Surgery, 2005. 241(2): p. 232-7.<br />
166. Lee, J.H., H.S. Han, and J.H. Lee, A prospective randomized study compar<strong>in</strong>g open vs laparoscopyassisted<br />
distal gastrectomy <strong>in</strong> early gastric cancer: early results. Surgical Endoscopy, 2005. 19(2): p.<br />
168-73.<br />
167. Callahan, M.A., et al., Influence of surgical subspecialty tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong>-hospital mortality for<br />
gastrectomy and colectomy patients. Ann Surg, 2003. 238(4): p. 629-36; discussion 636-9.<br />
168. Oba, K., et al., Efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy us<strong>in</strong>g oral fluor<strong>in</strong>ated pyrimid<strong>in</strong>es for curatively<br />
resected gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of centrally randomized controlled cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials <strong>in</strong> Japan.<br />
Journal of Chemotherapy, 2006. 18(3): p. 311-7.<br />
169. Bouche, O., et al., Adjuvant chemotherapy <strong>with</strong> 5-fluorouracil and cisplat<strong>in</strong> compared <strong>with</strong> surgery<br />
alone for gastric cancer: 7-year results of the FFCD randomized phase III trial (8801). Annals of<br />
Oncology, 2005. 16(9): p. 1488-97.<br />
170. Chipponi, J., et al., Randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection for gastric<br />
cancer. American Journal of Surgery, 2004. 187(3): p. 440-5.<br />
171. Nashimoto, A., et al., Randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy <strong>with</strong> mitomyc<strong>in</strong>, Fluorouracil, and<br />
Cytos<strong>in</strong>e arab<strong>in</strong>oside followed by oral Fluorouracil <strong>in</strong> serosa-negative gastric cancer: Japan Cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
Oncology Group 9206-1.[see comment]. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2003. 21(12): p. 2282-7.<br />
172. Nitti, D., et al., Randomized phase III trials of adjuvant FAMTX or FEMTX compared <strong>with</strong> surgery<br />
alone <strong>in</strong> resected gastric cancer. A comb<strong>in</strong>ed analysis of the EORTC GI Group and the ICCG. Annals of<br />
Oncology, 2006. 17(2): p. 262-9.<br />
173. Macdonald, J.S., et al., Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared <strong>with</strong> surgery alone for<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med, 2001. 345(10): p. 725-<br />
30.<br />
174. Xu, D.-Z., et al., Meta-analysis of <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric cancer. World Journal of<br />
Gastroenterology, 2004. 10(18): p. 2727-30.<br />
175. Yan, T.D., et al., Hp40p a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomised controlled trials on<br />
adjuvant <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 2007.<br />
77 Suppl 1: p. A49.<br />
176. Oba, K., et al., Efficacy of adjuvant immunochemotherapy <strong>with</strong> polysaccharide K for patients <strong>with</strong><br />
curative resections of gastric cancer. Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy, 2007. 56(6): p. 905-11.<br />
177. Popiela, T., et al., Efficiency of adjuvant immunochemotherapy follow<strong>in</strong>g curative resection <strong>in</strong> patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> locally advanced gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer, 2004. 7(4): p. 240-5.<br />
178. Hosono, S., et al., Endoscopic stent<strong>in</strong>g versus surgical gastroenterostomy for palliation of malignant<br />
gastroduodenal obstruction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Gastroenterology, 2007. 42(4): p. 283-90.<br />
179. Jeurn<strong>in</strong>k, S.M., et al., Stent versus gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction: a<br />
systematic review. BMC Gastroenterology, 2007. 7: p. 18.<br />
180. Casaretto, L., P.L.R. Sousa, and J.J. Mari, Chemotherapy versus support cancer treatment <strong>in</strong><br />
advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Brazilian Journal of Medical & Biological Research, 2006.<br />
39(4): p. 431-40.<br />
181. Wagner, A.D., et al., Chemotherapy <strong>in</strong> advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis<br />
based on aggregate data. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2006. 24(18): p. 2903-9.<br />
182. Whit<strong>in</strong>g, J., et al., Follow-up of gastric cancer: a review. Gastric Cancer, 2006. 9(2): p. 74-81.<br />
183. Tan, I.T. and B.Y. So, Value of <strong>in</strong>tensive follow-up of patients after curative surgery for gastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma. J Surg Oncol, 2007. 96(6): p. 503-6.<br />
184. S<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g, C., et al., Gastric stump carc<strong>in</strong>oma - epidemiology and current concepts <strong>in</strong> pathogenesis and<br />
treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2007. 33(2): p. 133-9.
56 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
185. Ohashi, M., et al., Cancer of the gastric stump follow<strong>in</strong>g distal gastrectomy for cancer. Br J Surg,<br />
2007. 94(1): p. 92-5.<br />
186. Chen, L., et al., Surgical management of gastric stump cancer: a report of 37 cases. J Zhejiang Univ<br />
Sci B, 2005. 6(1): p. 38-42.<br />
187. Hirai, I., et al., Surgical management for metastatic liver tumors. Hepatogastroenterology, 2006.<br />
53(71): p. 757-63.<br />
188. Lehnert, T., et al., Surgical therapy for loco-regional recurrence and distant metastasis of gastric<br />
cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2002. 28(4): p. 455-61.<br />
189. Yokoi, C., et al., Endoscopic submucosal dissection allows curative resection of locally recurrent early<br />
gastric cancer after prior endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test Endosc, 2006. 64(2): p. 212-8.<br />
190. Al-Akwaa, A.M., N. Siddiqui, and I.A. Al-Mofleh, Primary gastric lymphoma. World J<br />
Gastroenterol, 2004. 10(1): p. 5-11.<br />
191. Crump, M., M. Gospodarowicz, and F.A. Shepherd, Lymphoma of the gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al tract. Sem<strong>in</strong><br />
Oncol, 1999. 26(3): p. 324-37.<br />
192. Zucca, E. and F. Cavalli, Are antibiotics the treatment of choice for gastric lymphoma? Curr Hematol<br />
Rep, 2004. 3(1): p. 11-6.<br />
193. B<strong>in</strong>n, M., et al., Surgical resection plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone: comparison of two<br />
strategies to treat diffuse large B-cell gastric lymphoma.[see comment]. Ann Oncol, 2003. 14(12): p.<br />
1751-7.<br />
194. Yoon, S.S. and E.P. Hochberg, Chemotherapy is an effective first l<strong>in</strong>e treatment for early stage gastric<br />
mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma. Cancer Treat Rev, 2006. 32(2): p. 139-43.<br />
195. Fischbach, W., et al., Primary gastric B-cell lymphoma: results of a prospective multicenter study. The<br />
German-Austrian Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Lymphoma Study Group.[see comment][erratum appears <strong>in</strong><br />
Gastroenterology 2000 Dec;119(6):1809]. Gastroenterology, 2000. 119(5): p. 1191-202.<br />
196. Strecker, P., et al., [Diagnostic value of stomach biopsy <strong>in</strong> comparison <strong>with</strong> surgical specimen <strong>in</strong><br />
gastric B-cell lymphomas of the MALT type]. Pathologe, 1998. 19(3): p. 209-13.<br />
197. Isaacson, P.G., J. Spencer, and D.H. Wright, Classify<strong>in</strong>g primary gut lymphomas. Lancet, 1988.<br />
2(8620): p. 1148-9.<br />
198. Harris, N.L., et al., A revised European-American classification of lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal<br />
from the International Lymphoma Study Group. Blood, 1994. 84(5): p. 1361-92.<br />
199. Caletti, G., et al., Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography <strong>in</strong> the diagnosis and stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric<br />
cancer and lymphoma. Surgery, 1993. 113(1): p. 14-27.<br />
200. Fischbach, W., M.-E. Goebeler-Kolve, and A. Gre<strong>in</strong>er, Diagnostic accuracy of EUS <strong>in</strong> the local<br />
stag<strong>in</strong>g of primary gastric lymphoma: results of a prospective, multicenter study compar<strong>in</strong>g EUS <strong>with</strong><br />
histopathologic stage. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test Endosc, 2002. 56(5): p. 696-700.<br />
201. Rodriguez, M., et al., [18F] FDG PET <strong>in</strong> gastric non-Hodgk<strong>in</strong>'s lymphoma. Acta Oncol, 1997. 36(6):<br />
p. 577-84.<br />
202. Vorbeck, F., et al., Comparison of spiral-computed tomography <strong>with</strong> water-fill<strong>in</strong>g of the stomach and<br />
endosonography for gastric lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue-type. Digestion, 2002.<br />
65(4): p. 196-9.<br />
203. Hoepffner, N., et al., [Value of endosonography <strong>in</strong> diagnostic stag<strong>in</strong>g of primary gastric lymphoma<br />
(MALT type)]. Med Kl<strong>in</strong> (Munich), 2003. 98(6): p. 313-7.<br />
204. Hong, S.S., et al., A prospective analysis of low-grade gastric malt lymphoma after Helicobacter pylori<br />
eradication. Helicobacter, 2006. 11(6): p. 569-73.<br />
205. Nakamura, S., et al., Long-term cl<strong>in</strong>ical outcome of Helicobacter pylori eradication for gastric mucosaassociated<br />
lymphoid tissue lymphoma <strong>with</strong> a reference to second-l<strong>in</strong>e treatment. Cancer, 2005.<br />
104(3): p. 532-40.<br />
206. Wundisch, T., et al., Long-term follow-up of gastric MALT lymphoma after Helicobacter pylori<br />
eradication. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol, 2005. 23(31): p. 8018-24.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 57<br />
207. Fischbach, W., et al., Long term outcome of patients <strong>with</strong> gastric marg<strong>in</strong>al zone B cell lymphoma of<br />
mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) follow<strong>in</strong>g exclusive Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy:<br />
experience from a large prospective series. Gut, 2004. 53(1): p. 34-7.<br />
208. Montalban, C., et al., Treatment of low grade gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma <strong>in</strong><br />
stage I <strong>with</strong> Helicobacter pylori eradication. Long-term results after sequential histologic and molecular<br />
follow-up. Haematologica, 2001. 86(6): p. 609-17.<br />
209. Aviles, A., et al., Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma of the stomach: results of a<br />
controlled cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial. Medical Oncology, 2005. 22(1): p. 57-62.<br />
210. Verma, S., et al., Imat<strong>in</strong>ib Mesylate (Gleevec) for the Treatment of Adult Patients <strong>with</strong> Unresectable<br />
or Metastatic Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Stromal Tumours:A Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Practice Guidel<strong>in</strong>e. 2006, CCO: Ottawa.<br />
211. Wilson, J.S., et al., Imat<strong>in</strong>ib mesylate for the treatment of patients <strong>with</strong> unresectable and/or<br />
metastatic gastro-<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumours (GIST). 2004, West Midlands Health Technology<br />
Assessment Collaboration, University of Birm<strong>in</strong>gham: Birm<strong>in</strong>gham.<br />
212. Hwang, J.H., S.D. Rulyak, and M.B. Kimmey, American Gastroenterological Association Institute<br />
technical review on the management of gastric subepithelial masses. Gastroenterology, 2006.<br />
130(7): p. 2217-28.<br />
213. Rimond<strong>in</strong>i, A., et al., Contribution of CT to treatment plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> GIST. Radiol Med<br />
(Tor<strong>in</strong>o), 2007. 112(5): p. 691-702.<br />
214. Lupescu, I.G., et al., Computer tomographic evaluation of digestive tract non-Hodgk<strong>in</strong> lymphomas. J<br />
Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong> Liver Dis, 2007. 16(3): p. 315-9.<br />
215. De Leo, C., et al., Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumours: experience <strong>with</strong> multislice CT. Radiol Med<br />
(Tor<strong>in</strong>o), 2006. 111(8): p. 1103-14.<br />
216. Da Ronch, T., A. Modesto, and M. Bazzocchi, Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumour: spiral computed<br />
tomography features and pathologic correlation. Radiol Med (Tor<strong>in</strong>o), 2006. 111(5): p. 661-73.<br />
217. Hong, X., et al., Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumor: role of CT <strong>in</strong> diagnosis and <strong>in</strong> response evaluation and<br />
surveillance after treatment <strong>with</strong> imat<strong>in</strong>ib. Radiographics, 2006. 26(2): p. 481-95.<br />
218. Fletcher, C.D.M., et al., Diagnosis of gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumors: A consensus approach. Hum<br />
Pathol, 2002. 33(5): p. 459-65.<br />
219. Blay, J.-Y., et al., [Recommendations for the management of GIST patients]. Bull Cancer, 2005.<br />
92(10): p. 907-18.<br />
220. Dematteo, R.P., et al. Adjuvant imat<strong>in</strong>ib mesylate <strong>in</strong>creases recurrence free survival (RFS) <strong>in</strong> patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> completely resected localized primary gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumor (GIST): North American<br />
Intergroup Phase III trial ACOSOG Z9001. 2007 [cited 2008 23-01-2008]; Available from:<br />
http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/?vgnext<br />
oid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=4<br />
7&abstractID=100001.<br />
221. Z<strong>in</strong>cirkeser, S., et al., Early detection of response to imat<strong>in</strong>ib therapy for gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal<br />
tumor by us<strong>in</strong>g 18F-FDG-positron emission tomography and computed tomography imag<strong>in</strong>g. World J<br />
Gastroenterol, 2007. 13(15): p. 2261-2.<br />
222. Goh, B.K., et al., Pathologic, radiologic and PET scan response of gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumors after<br />
neoadjuvant treatment <strong>with</strong> imat<strong>in</strong>ib mesylate. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2006. 32(9): p. 961-3.<br />
223. He<strong>in</strong>icke, T., et al., Very early detection of response to imat<strong>in</strong>ib mesylate therapy of gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
stromal tumours us<strong>in</strong>g 18fluoro-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. Anticancer Res, 2005.<br />
25(6C): p. 4591-4.<br />
224. Goldste<strong>in</strong>, D., et al., Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al stromal tumours: correlation of F-FDG gamma camera-based<br />
co<strong>in</strong>cidence positron emission tomography <strong>with</strong> CT for the assessment of treatment response--an<br />
AGITG study. Oncology, 2005. 69(4): p. 326-32.<br />
225. Demetri, G.D., et al., Efficacy and safety of sunit<strong>in</strong>ib <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> advanced gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
stromal tumour after failure of imat<strong>in</strong>ib: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2006. 368(9544): p.<br />
1329-38.
58 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
226. Jacobson, B.C., et al., The role of endoscopy <strong>in</strong> the assessment and treatment of esophageal cancer.<br />
Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy, 2003. 57(7): p. 817-22.<br />
227. National Comprehens<strong>in</strong>e Cancer Network (NCCN), Esophageal Cancer, <strong>in</strong> NCCN Cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
Practice Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> Oncology, NCCN, Editor. 2007, NCCN.<br />
228. National Comprehens<strong>in</strong>e Cancer Network (NCCN), Gastric Cancer, <strong>in</strong> NCCN Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Practice<br />
Guidel<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> Oncology, NCCN, Editor. 2007, NCCN.<br />
229. Cunn<strong>in</strong>gham, D., et al., ESMO M<strong>in</strong>imum Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and<br />
follow-up of gastric cancer. Annals of Oncology, 2005. 16(1).<br />
230. Stahl, M., et al., ESMO M<strong>in</strong>imal Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of<br />
esophageal cancer. Annals of Oncology, 2005. 16(1).<br />
231. Sampl<strong>in</strong>er, R.E. and G. Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of, Updated<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>es for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus. American Journal of<br />
Gastroenterology, 2002. 97(8): p. 1888-95.<br />
232. Allum, W.H., et al., Guidel<strong>in</strong>es for the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. Gut, 2002.<br />
1(50).<br />
233. Marmo, R., et al., Comb<strong>in</strong>ation of age and sex improves the ability to predict upper gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
malignancy <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> uncomplicated dyspepsia: a prospective multicentre database study. Am J<br />
Gastroenterol, 2005. 100(4): p. 784-91.<br />
234. Kim, S.H., et al., Three-dimensional MDCT imag<strong>in</strong>g and CT esophagography for evaluation of<br />
esophageal tumors: prelim<strong>in</strong>ary study. European Radiology, 2006. 16(11): p. 2418-26.<br />
235. Umeoka, S., et al., Esophageal cancer: evaluation <strong>with</strong> triple-phase dynamic CT--<strong>in</strong>itial experience.<br />
Radiology, 2006. 239(3): p. 777-83.<br />
236. Panebianco, V., et al., 3D CT protocol <strong>in</strong> the assessment of the esophageal neoplastic lesions: can it<br />
improve TNM stag<strong>in</strong>g? European Radiology, 2006. 16(2): p. 414-21.<br />
237. Onbas, O., et al., Preoperative stag<strong>in</strong>g of esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>with</strong> multidetector CT and virtual<br />
endoscopy. Eur J Radiol, 2006. 57(1): p. 90-5.<br />
238. Weaver, S.R., et al., Comparison of special <strong>in</strong>terest computed tomography, endosonography and<br />
histopathological stage of oesophageal cancer. Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Radiology, 2004. 59(6): p. 499-504.<br />
239. Yoon, Y.C., et al., Metastasis to regional lymph nodes <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> esophageal squamous cell<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma: CT versus FDG PET for presurgical detection prospective study. Radiology, 2003. 227(3):<br />
p. 764-70.<br />
240. Vazquez-Sequeiros, E., et al., Rout<strong>in</strong>e vs. selective EUS-guided FNA approach for preoperative nodal<br />
stag<strong>in</strong>g of esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma.[see comment]. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy, 2006. 63(2): p. 204-<br />
11.<br />
241. May, A., et al., Accuracy of stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> early oesophageal cancer us<strong>in</strong>g high resolution endoscopy and<br />
high resolution endosonography: a comparative, prospective, and bl<strong>in</strong>ded trial. Gut, 2004. 53(5): p.<br />
634-40.<br />
242. Yanai, H., et al., Prognostic value and <strong>in</strong>terobserver agreement of endoscopic ultrasonography for<br />
superficial squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus: a prospective study. International Journal of<br />
Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Cancer, 2003. 34(1): p. 1-8.<br />
243. Chang, K.J., et al., Impact of endoscopic ultrasound comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>with</strong> f<strong>in</strong>e-needle aspiration biopsy <strong>in</strong> the<br />
management of esophageal cancer. Endoscopy, 2003. 35(11): p. 962-6.<br />
244. Mariette, C., et al., Value of endoscopic ultrasonography as a predictor of long-term survival <strong>in</strong><br />
oesophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma.[see comment]. British Journal of Surgery, 2003. 90(11): p. 1367-72.<br />
245. Menon, K.V. and T.C.B. Dehn, Multiport stag<strong>in</strong>g laparoscopy <strong>in</strong> esophageal and cardiac carc<strong>in</strong>oma.<br />
Diseases of the Esophagus, 2003. 16(4): p. 295-300.<br />
246. Riddell, A.M., et al., Potential of surface-coil MRI for stag<strong>in</strong>g of esophageal cancer. AJR, 2006.<br />
American Journal of Roentgenology. 187(5): p. 1280-7.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 59<br />
247. Meyers, B.F., et al., The utility of positron emission tomography <strong>in</strong> stag<strong>in</strong>g of potentially operable<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the thoracic esophagus: results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group<br />
Z0060 trial. Journal of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery, 2007. 133(3): p. 738-45.<br />
248. van Baardwijk, A., et al., The current status of FDG-PET <strong>in</strong> tumour volume def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>in</strong> radiotherapy<br />
treatment plann<strong>in</strong>g. Cancer Treatment Reviews, 2006. 32(4): p. 245-60.<br />
249. Lev<strong>in</strong>e, E.A., et al., Predictive value of 18-fluoro-deoxy-glucose-positron emission tomography (18F-<br />
FDG-PET) <strong>in</strong> the identification of responders to chemoradiation therapy for the treatment of locally<br />
advanced esophageal cancer. Annals of Surgery, 2006. 243(4): p. 472-8.<br />
250. Kato, H., et al., Comparison between whole-body positron emission tomography and bone sc<strong>in</strong>tigraphy<br />
<strong>in</strong> evaluat<strong>in</strong>g bony metastases of esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>omas. Anticancer Research, 2005. 25(6C): p.<br />
4439-44.<br />
251. van Westreenen, H.L., et al., Comparison of 18F-FLT PET and 18F-FDG PET <strong>in</strong> esophageal cancer.<br />
Journal of Nuclear Medic<strong>in</strong>e, 2005. 46(3): p. 400-4.<br />
252. Vrieze, O., et al., Is there a role for FGD-PET <strong>in</strong> radiotherapy plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma?<br />
Radiotherapy & Oncology, 2004. 73(3): p. 269-75.<br />
253. Pohl, J., et al., Comparison of computed virtual chromoendoscopy and conventional chromoendoscopy<br />
<strong>with</strong> acetic acid for detection of neoplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopy, 2007. 39(7): p. 594-8.<br />
254. Ragunath, K., et al., A randomized, prospective cross-over trial compar<strong>in</strong>g methylene blue-directed<br />
biopsy and conventional random biopsy for detect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia and dysplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett's<br />
esophagus. Endoscopy, 2003. 35(12): p. 998-1003.<br />
255. Pech, O., et al., The impact of endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography on the TNM stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of early cancer <strong>in</strong> Barrett's esophagus. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2006. 101(10): p.<br />
2223-9.<br />
256. Larghi, A., et al., EUS followed by EMR for stag<strong>in</strong>g of high-grade dysplasia and early cancer <strong>in</strong><br />
Barrett's esophagus. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy, 2005. 62(1): p. 16-23.<br />
257. Waxman, I., et al., High-frequency probe ultrasonography has limited accuracy for detect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>vasive<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett's esophagus and high-grade dysplasia or <strong>in</strong>tramucosal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma: a case series. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2006. 101(8): p. 1773-9.<br />
258. May, A., et al., A prospective randomized trial of two different endoscopic resection techniques for<br />
early stage cancer of the esophagus.[see comment]. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy, 2003. 58(2): p.<br />
167-75.<br />
259. Geh, J.I., et al., Systematic overview of preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemoradiotherapy trials <strong>in</strong><br />
oesophageal cancer: evidence of a radiation and chemotherapy dose response. Radiotherapy &<br />
Oncology, 2006. 78(3): p. 236-44.<br />
260. Greer, S.E., et al., Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma: a meta-analysis.[see<br />
comment]. Surgery, 2005. 137(2): p. 172-7.<br />
261. Burmeister, B.H., et al., Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for resectable<br />
cancer of the oesophagus: a randomised controlled phase III trial.[see comment]. Lancet Oncology,<br />
2005. 6(9): p. 659-68.<br />
262. Duong, C.P., et al., FDG-PET status follow<strong>in</strong>g chemoradiotherapy provides high management impact<br />
and powerful prognostic stratification <strong>in</strong> oesophageal cancer. European Journal of Nuclear Medic<strong>in</strong>e<br />
& Molecular Imag<strong>in</strong>g, 2006. 33(7): p. 770-8.<br />
263. Br<strong>in</strong>k, I., et al., Effects of neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy on 18F-FDG-PET <strong>in</strong> esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma.<br />
European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2004. 30(5): p. 544-50.<br />
264. Nakahara, T., et al., Comparison of barium swallow, CT and thallium-201 SPECT <strong>in</strong> evaluat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
responses of patients <strong>with</strong> esophageal squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma to preoperative chemoradiotherapy.<br />
Annals of Nuclear Medic<strong>in</strong>e, 2003. 17(7): p. 583-91.<br />
265. Stahl, M., et al., Chemoradiation <strong>with</strong> and <strong>with</strong>out surgery <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced squamous<br />
cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus.[see comment][erratum appears <strong>in</strong> J Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol. 2006 Jan<br />
20;24(3):531]. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2005. 23(10): p. 2310-7.
60 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
266. Bhat, M.A., et al., Use of pedicled omentum <strong>in</strong> esophagogastric anastomosis for prevention of<br />
anastomotic leak.[see comment]. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2006. 82(5): p. 1857-62.<br />
267. Hsu, H.-H., et al., Comparison of manual and mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after<br />
esophageal resection for squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma: a prospective randomized controlled trial.<br />
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 2004. 25(6): p. 1097-101.<br />
268. Walther, B., et al., Cervical or thoracic anastomosis after esophageal resection and gastric tube<br />
reconstruction: a prospective randomized trial compar<strong>in</strong>g sutured neck anastomosis <strong>with</strong> stapled<br />
<strong>in</strong>trathoracic anastomosis.[see comment]. Annals of Surgery, 2003. 238(6): p. 803-12; discussion<br />
812-4.<br />
269. Ajani, J., Review of capecitab<strong>in</strong>e as oral treatment of gastric, gastroesophageal, and esophageal<br />
cancers. Cancer, 2006. 107(2): p. 221-31.<br />
270. Sumpter, K., et al., <strong>Report</strong> of two protocol planned <strong>in</strong>terim analyses <strong>in</strong> a randomised multicentre<br />
phase III study compar<strong>in</strong>g capecitab<strong>in</strong>e <strong>with</strong> fluorouracil and oxaliplat<strong>in</strong> <strong>with</strong> cisplat<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong><br />
advanced oesophagogastric cancer receiv<strong>in</strong>g ECF. British Journal of Cancer, 2005. 92(11): p. 1976-<br />
83.<br />
271. Wenger, U., et al., An antireflux stent versus conventional stents for palliation of distal esophageal or<br />
cardia cancer: a randomized cl<strong>in</strong>ical study. Surgical Endoscopy, 2006. 20(11): p. 1675-80.<br />
272. Shim, C.S., et al., Management of malignant stricture of the esophagogastric junction <strong>with</strong> a newly<br />
designed self-expand<strong>in</strong>g metal stent <strong>with</strong> an antireflux mechanism. Endoscopy, 2005. 37(4): p. 335-<br />
9.<br />
273. Shenf<strong>in</strong>e, J., et al., A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of palliative<br />
therapies for patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>operable oesophageal cancer. Health Technology Assessment, 2005.<br />
9(5): p. iii, 1-121.<br />
274. Trumper, M., et al., Efficacy and tolerability of chemotherapy <strong>in</strong> elderly patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
oesophago-gastric cancer: A pooled analysis of three cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials. European Journal of Cancer,<br />
2006. 42(7): p. 827-34.<br />
275. Duffour, J., et al., Safety of cisplat<strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>with</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>uous 5-FU versus bolus 5-FU and leucovor<strong>in</strong>,<br />
<strong>in</strong> metastatic gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al cancer (FFCD 9404 randomised trial). Anticancer Research, 2006.<br />
26(5B): p. 3877-83.<br />
276. Moraca, R.J. and D.E. Low, Outcomes and health-related quality of life after esophagectomy for highgrade<br />
dysplasia and <strong>in</strong>tramucosal cancer. Arch Surg, 2006. 141(6): p. 545-9; discussion 549-51.<br />
277. Cense, H.A., et al., Effects of prolonged <strong>in</strong>tensive care unit stay on quality of life and long-term<br />
survival after transthoracic esophageal resection. Crit Care Med, 2006. 34(2): p. 354-62.<br />
278. Lagergren, P., et al., Health-related quality of life among patients cured by surgery for esophageal<br />
cancer. Cancer, 2007. 110(3): p. 686-93.<br />
279. Blazeby, J.M., et al., Health-related quality of life dur<strong>in</strong>g neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for<br />
localized esophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Cancer, 2005. 103(9): p. 1791-9.<br />
280. Homs, M.Y.V., et al., S<strong>in</strong>gle-dose brachytherapy versus metal stent placement for the palliation of<br />
dysphagia from oesophageal cancer: multicentre randomised trial. Lancet, 2004. 364(9444): p. 1497-<br />
504.<br />
281. Lobo, D.N., et al., Early postoperative jejunostomy feed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> an immune modulat<strong>in</strong>g diet <strong>in</strong><br />
patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g resectional surgery for upper gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al cancer: a prospective, randomized,<br />
controlled, double-bl<strong>in</strong>d study. Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Nutrition, 2006. 25(5): p. 716-26.<br />
282. Ryan, A.M., et al., Post-oesophagectomy early enteral nutrition via a needle catheter jejunostomy: 8year<br />
experience at a specialist unit. Cl<strong>in</strong> Nutr, 2006. 25(3): p. 386-93.<br />
283. Gabor, S., et al., Early enteral feed<strong>in</strong>g compared <strong>with</strong> parenteral nutrition after oesophageal or<br />
oesophagogastric resection and reconstruction. Br J Nutr, 2005. 93(4): p. 509-13.<br />
284. Lam, E.C., et al., In patients referred for <strong>in</strong>vestigation because computed tomography suggests<br />
thickened gastric folds, endoscopic ultrasound is superfluous if gastroscopy is normal. American<br />
Journal of Gastroenterology, 2007. 102(6): p. 1200-3.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 61<br />
285. Ichikawa, T., et al., Endoscopic ultrasonography <strong>with</strong> three m<strong>in</strong>iature probes of different frequency is<br />
an accurate diagnostic tool for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Hepato-Gastroenterology, 2007.<br />
54(73): p. 325-8.<br />
286. G<strong>in</strong>es, A., et al., Endoscopic ultrasonography <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> large gastric folds at endoscopy and<br />
biopsies negative for malignancy: predictors of malignant disease and cl<strong>in</strong>ical impact. American<br />
Journal of Gastroenterology, 2006. 101(1): p. 64-9.<br />
287. Matthes, K., et al., EUS stag<strong>in</strong>g of upper GI malignancies: results of a prospective randomized<br />
trial.[see comment]. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy, 2006. 64(4): p. 496-502.<br />
288. Chu, K.-M., et al., A prospective evaluation of catheter probe EUS for the detection of ascites <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy, 2004. 59(4): p. 471-4.<br />
289. Deogracias, M.L., et al., Absence of port-site metastases follow<strong>in</strong>g stag<strong>in</strong>g laparoscopy for gastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Revista Espanola de Enfermedades Digestivas, 2006. 98(10): p. 755-9.<br />
290. Lee, S.-H., et al., Cl<strong>in</strong>ical efficacy of EMR <strong>with</strong> submucosal <strong>in</strong>jection of a fibr<strong>in</strong>ogen mixture: a<br />
prospective randomized trial. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy, 2006. 64(5): p. 691-6.<br />
291. Ates, E., et al., Perioperative immunonutrition ameliorates the postoperative immune depression <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al system cancer (prospective cl<strong>in</strong>ical study <strong>in</strong> 42 patients). Acta<br />
Gastroenterologica Belgica, 2004. 67(3): p. 250-4.<br />
292. Romano, F., et al., Biological, histological, and cl<strong>in</strong>ical impact of preoperative IL-2 adm<strong>in</strong>istration <strong>in</strong><br />
radically operable gastric cancer patients. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2004. 88(4): p. 240-7.<br />
293. Enz<strong>in</strong>ger, P.C., et al., Impact of hospital volume on recurrence and survival after surgery for gastric<br />
cancer. Annals of Surgery, 2007. 245(3): p. 426-34.<br />
294. Inaba, T., et al., Prospective randomized study of two laparotomy <strong>in</strong>cisions for gastrectomy: midl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong>cision versus transverse <strong>in</strong>cision. Gastric Cancer, 2004. 7(3): p. 167-71.<br />
295. Lee, W.J., et al., Randomized cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial of Ligasure versus conventional surgery for extended gastric<br />
cancer resection. British Journal of Surgery, 2003. 90(12): p. 1493-6.<br />
296. Sasako, M., et al., Left thoracoabdom<strong>in</strong>al approach versus abdom<strong>in</strong>al-transhiatal approach for gastric<br />
cancer of the cardia or subcardia: a randomised controlled trial.[see comment]. Lancet Oncology,<br />
2006. 7(8): p. 644-51.<br />
297. Yu, W., G.S. Choi, and H.Y. Chung, Randomized cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial of splenectomy versus splenic<br />
preservation <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> proximal gastric cancer. British Journal of Surgery, 2006. 93(5): p. 559-<br />
63.<br />
298. Wu, C.-W., et al., Nodal dissection for patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer: a randomised controlled trial.[see<br />
comment]. Lancet Oncology, 2006. 7(4): p. 309-15.<br />
299. Adachi, S., et al., Subjective and functional results after total gastrectomy: prospective study for<br />
longterm comparison of reconstruction procedures. Gastric Cancer, 2003. 6(1): p. 24-9.<br />
300. Ishikawa, M., et al., Prospective randomized trial compar<strong>in</strong>g Billroth I and Roux-en-Y procedures after<br />
distal gastrectomy for gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma. World Journal of Surgery, 2005. 29(11): p. 1415-20;<br />
discussion 1421.<br />
301. Mochiki, E., et al., Postoperative functional evaluation of jejunal <strong>in</strong>terposition <strong>with</strong> or <strong>with</strong>out a pouch<br />
after a total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. American Journal of Surgery, 2004. 187(6): p. 728-35.<br />
302. Shibata, C., et al., Outcomes after pylorus-preserv<strong>in</strong>g gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: a<br />
prospective multicenter trial.[see comment]. World Journal of Surgery, 2004. 28(9): p. 857-61.<br />
303. Berardi, R., et al., Gastric cancer treatment: a systematic review. Oncology <strong>Report</strong>s, 2004. 11(4): p.<br />
911-6.<br />
304. Casc<strong>in</strong>u, S., et al., Adjuvant treatment of high-risk, radically resected gastric cancer patients <strong>with</strong> 5fluorouracil,<br />
leucovor<strong>in</strong>, cisplat<strong>in</strong>, and epidoxorubic<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> a randomized controlled trial.[see comment].<br />
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2007. 99(8): p. 601-7.<br />
305. Nishikawa, T. and S. Maetani, Evaluation of <strong>in</strong>tensive adjuvant chemotherapy <strong>in</strong> gastric cancer us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
life expectancy compared <strong>with</strong> log-rank test as a measure of survival benefit. Annals of Surgical<br />
Oncology, 2007. 14(2): p. 348-54.
62 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
306. Tentes, A.-A.K., et al., Intraarterial chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment <strong>in</strong> locally advanced<br />
gastric cancer. Langenbecks Archives of Surgery, 2006. 391(2): p. 124-9.<br />
307. Ueda, Y., et al., A randomized phase III trial of postoperative adjuvant therapy <strong>with</strong> S-1 alone versus<br />
S-1 plus PSK for stage II/IIIA gastric cancer: Hokuriku-K<strong>in</strong>ki Immunochemo-Therapy Study Group-<br />
Gastric Cancer (HKIT-GC). Japanese Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2006. 36(8): p. 519-22.<br />
308. Tsuburaya, A., et al., A randomized phase III trial of post-operative adjuvant oral fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e<br />
versus sequential paclitaxel/oral fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e; and UFT versus S1 for T3/T4 gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma: the<br />
Stomach Cancer Adjuvant Multi-<strong>in</strong>stitutional Trial Group (Samit) Trial. Japanese Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
Oncology, 2005. 35(11): p. 672-5.<br />
309. Yu, W., A review of adjuvant therapy for resected primary gastric cancer <strong>with</strong> an update on Taegu's<br />
phase III trial <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy. European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2006.<br />
32(6): p. 655-60.<br />
310. Chen, D.W., et al., Role of enteral immunonutrition <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
major surgery. Asian Journal of Surgery, 2005. 28(2): p. 121-4.<br />
311. Farreras, N., et al., Effect of early postoperative enteral immunonutrition on wound heal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> patients<br />
undergo<strong>in</strong>g surgery for gastric cancer. Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Nutrition, 2005. 24(1): p. 55-65.<br />
312. Sato, Y., et al., A randomized controlled study of immunochemotherapy <strong>with</strong> OK-432 after curative<br />
surgery for gastric cancer. Journal of Immunotherapy, 2004. 27(5): p. 394-7.<br />
313. Di Cosimo, S., et al., Docetaxel <strong>in</strong> advanced gastric cancer--review of the ma<strong>in</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials. Acta<br />
Oncologica, 2003. 42(7): p. 693-700.<br />
314. Wohrer, S.S., M. Raderer, and M. Hejna, Palliative chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer.<br />
Annals of Oncology, 2004. 15(11): p. 1585-95.<br />
315. Ajani, J.A., et al., Phase II multi-<strong>in</strong>stitutional randomized trial of docetaxel plus cisplat<strong>in</strong> <strong>with</strong> or <strong>with</strong>out<br />
fluorouracil <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> untreated, advanced gastric, or gastroesophageal adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma.[see<br />
comment]. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2005. 23(24): p. 5660-7.<br />
316. Bouche, O., et al., Randomized multicenter phase II trial of a biweekly regimen of fluorouracil and<br />
leucovor<strong>in</strong> (LV5FU2), LV5FU2 plus cisplat<strong>in</strong>, or LV5FU2 plus ir<strong>in</strong>otecan <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> previously<br />
untreated metastatic gastric cancer: a Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive Group Study-<br />
-FFCD 9803. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2004. 22(21): p. 4319-28.<br />
317. Cocconi, G., et al., Cisplat<strong>in</strong>, epirubic<strong>in</strong>, leucovor<strong>in</strong> and 5-fluorouracil (PELF) is more active than 5fluorouracil,<br />
doxorubic<strong>in</strong> and methotrexate (FAMTX) <strong>in</strong> advanced gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Annals of<br />
Oncology, 2003. 14(8): p. 1258-63.<br />
318. Koizumi, W., et al., Randomized phase II study compar<strong>in</strong>g mitomyc<strong>in</strong>, cisplat<strong>in</strong> plus doxiflurid<strong>in</strong>e <strong>with</strong><br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> plus doxiflurid<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> advanced unresectable gastric cancer. Anticancer Research, 2004.<br />
24(4): p. 2465-70.<br />
319. Lutz, M.P., et al., Weekly <strong>in</strong>fusional high-dose fluorouracil (HD-FU), HD-FU plus fol<strong>in</strong>ic acid (HD-<br />
FU/FA), or HD-FU/FA plus biweekly cisplat<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> advanced gastric cancer: randomized phase II trial<br />
40953 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Group<br />
and the Arbeitsgeme<strong>in</strong>schaft Internistische Onkologie. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2007. 25(18): p.<br />
2580-5.<br />
320. Moehler, M., et al., Randomised phase II evaluation of ir<strong>in</strong>otecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil and<br />
leucovor<strong>in</strong> (ILF) vs 5-fluorouracil, leucovor<strong>in</strong>, and etoposide (ELF) <strong>in</strong> untreated metastatic gastric cancer.<br />
British Journal of Cancer, 2005. 92(12): p. 2122-8.<br />
321. Ohtsu, A., et al., Randomized phase III trial of fluorouracil alone versus fluorouracil plus cisplat<strong>in</strong><br />
versus uracil and tegafur plus mitomyc<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> unresectable, advanced gastric cancer: The<br />
Japan Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology Group Study (JCOG9205). Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2003. 21(1): p. 54-<br />
9.<br />
322. Park, S.H., et al., Paclitaxel versus docetaxel for advanced gastric cancer: a randomized phase II trial<br />
<strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>fusional 5-fluorouracil. Anti-Cancer Drugs, 2006. 17(2): p. 225-9.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 63<br />
323. Pozzo, C., et al., Ir<strong>in</strong>otecan <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>with</strong> 5-fluorouracil and fol<strong>in</strong>ic acid or <strong>with</strong> cisplat<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> advanced gastric or esophageal-gastric junction adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma: results of a randomized<br />
phase II study. Annals of Oncology, 2004. 15(12): p. 1773-81.<br />
324. Sadighi, S., et al., Quality of life <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> advanced gastric cancer: a randomized trial<br />
compar<strong>in</strong>g docetaxel, cisplat<strong>in</strong>, 5-FU (TCF) <strong>with</strong> epirubic<strong>in</strong>, cisplat<strong>in</strong>, 5-FU (ECF). BMC Cancer, 2006.<br />
6: p. 274.<br />
325. Takahashi, Y., et al., A randomized phase II cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial of tailored CPT-11 + S-1 vs S-1 <strong>in</strong> patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> advanced or recurrent gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma as the first l<strong>in</strong>e chemotherapy. Japanese Journal of<br />
Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2004. 34(6): p. 342-5.<br />
326. Thuss-Patience, P.C., et al., Docetaxel and cont<strong>in</strong>uous-<strong>in</strong>fusion fluorouracil versus epirubic<strong>in</strong>, cisplat<strong>in</strong>,<br />
and fluorouracil for advanced gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma: a randomized phase II study. Journal of<br />
Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2005. 23(3): p. 494-501.<br />
327. Bonneta<strong>in</strong>, F., et al., Longitud<strong>in</strong>al quality of life study <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> metastatic gastric cancer.<br />
Analysis modalities and cl<strong>in</strong>ical applicability of QoL <strong>in</strong> randomized phase II trial <strong>in</strong> a digestive oncology.<br />
Gastroenterologie Cl<strong>in</strong>ique et Biologique, 2005. 29(11): p. 1113-24.<br />
328. Van Cutsem, E., et al., Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplat<strong>in</strong> plus fluorouracil compared <strong>with</strong><br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> and fluorouracil as first-l<strong>in</strong>e therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a report of the V325 Study<br />
Group. Journal of Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Oncology, 2006. 24(31): p. 4991-7.<br />
329. Dormann, A., et al., Self-expand<strong>in</strong>g metal stents for gastroduodenal malignancies: systematic review<br />
of their cl<strong>in</strong>ical effectiveness. Endoscopy, 2004. 36(6): p. 543-50.<br />
330. Fiori, E., et al., Palliative management of malignant antro-pyloric strictures. Gastroenterostomy vs.<br />
endoscopic stent<strong>in</strong>g. A randomized prospective trial. Anticancer Research, 2004. 24(1): p. 269-71.<br />
331. Mehta, S., et al., Prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy versus duodenal<br />
stent<strong>in</strong>g for malignant gastric outflow obstruction. Surgical Endoscopy, 2006. 20(2): p. 239-42.<br />
332. Weston, A.P., et al., Specificity of polymerase cha<strong>in</strong> reaction monoclonality for diagnosis of gastric<br />
mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma: direct comparison to Southern blot gene<br />
rearrangement. Dig Dis Sci, 1998. 43(2): p. 290-9.<br />
333. Palazzo, L., et al., Endoscopic ultrasonography <strong>in</strong> the local stag<strong>in</strong>g of primary gastric lymphoma.<br />
Endoscopy, 1993. 25(8): p. 502-8.<br />
334. Ferreri, A.J., et al., Low sensitivity of computed tomography <strong>in</strong> the stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric lymphomas of<br />
mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue: impact on prospective trials and ord<strong>in</strong>ary cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice. Am J<br />
Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol, 1998. 21(6): p. 614-6.<br />
335. Fusaroli, P., et al., Interobserver agreement <strong>in</strong> stag<strong>in</strong>g gastric malt lymphoma by EUS. Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<br />
Endosc, 2002. 55(6): p. 662-8.<br />
336. Kataoka, M., et al., The role of gallium 67 imag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> non-Hodgk<strong>in</strong>'s lymphoma of the gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
tract. European Journal of Nuclear Medic<strong>in</strong>e, 1990. 17(3-4): p. 142-7.<br />
337. Haim, N., et al., Intermediate and high-grade gastric non-Hodgk<strong>in</strong>'s lymphoma: a prospective study of<br />
non-surgical treatment <strong>with</strong> primary chemotherapy, <strong>with</strong> or <strong>with</strong>out radiotherapy. Leuk Lymphoma,<br />
1995. 17(3-4): p. 321-6.<br />
338. Takenaka, T., et al., A prospective study of surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for primary gastric<br />
lymphoma stage II. Br J Cancer, 1997. 76(11): p. 1484-8.<br />
339. Kochi, M., et al., Complete remission by chemotherapy <strong>in</strong> stage IE-IIE primary gastric lymphoma.<br />
Hepatogastroenterology, 2007. 54(76): p. 1285-8.<br />
340. Willich, N.A., et al., Operative and conservative management of primary gastric lymphoma: <strong>in</strong>terim<br />
results of a German multicenter study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2000. 46(4): p. 895-901.<br />
341. Chen, L.T., et al., Prospective study of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy <strong>in</strong> stage I(E) high-grade<br />
mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma of the stomach. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol, 2001. 19(22): p. 4245-<br />
51.
64 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
342. Koch, P., et al., Treatment results <strong>in</strong> localized primary gastric lymphoma: data of patients registered<br />
<strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> the German multicenter study (GIT NHL 02/96).[see comment]. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Oncol, 2005. 23(28):<br />
p. 7050-9.<br />
343. Ishikura, S., et al., Japanese multicenter phase II study of CHOP followed by radiotherapy <strong>in</strong> stage I-II,<br />
diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the stomach. Cancer Sci, 2005. 96(6): p. 349-52.<br />
344. Aviles, A., et al., Surgery and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as treatment of high-grade MALT<br />
gastric lymphoma. Medical Oncology, 2006. 23(2): p. 295-300.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 65<br />
8 APPENDICES<br />
APPENDIX 1<br />
GRADE SYSTEM<br />
Grade of Recommendation/ Benefit vs. Risk and Burdens Methodological Quality of<br />
Implications<br />
Description<br />
Support<strong>in</strong>g Evidence<br />
1A/ Strong recommendation, high Benefits clearly outweigh risk and RCTs <strong>with</strong>out important limitations or Strong recommendation, can apply to<br />
quality evidence<br />
burdens, or vice versa<br />
overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g evidence from<br />
most patients <strong>in</strong> most circumstances<br />
observational studies<br />
<strong>with</strong>out reservation<br />
1B/ Strong recommendation, moderate Benefits clearly outweigh risk and RCTs <strong>with</strong> important limitations Strong recommendation, can apply to<br />
quality evidence<br />
burdens, or vice versa<br />
(<strong>in</strong>consistent results, methodological most patients <strong>in</strong> most circumstances<br />
flaws, <strong>in</strong>direct, or imprecise) or<br />
exceptionally strong evidence from<br />
observational studies<br />
<strong>with</strong>out reservation<br />
1C/ Strong recommendation, low quality Benefits clearly outweigh risk and Observational studies or case series Strong recommendation, but may<br />
evidence<br />
burdens, or vice versa<br />
change when higher quality evidence<br />
becomes available<br />
2A/ Weak recommendation, high quality Benefits closely balanced <strong>with</strong> risks and RCTs <strong>with</strong>out important limitations or Weak recommendation, best action may<br />
evidence<br />
burden<br />
overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g evidence from<br />
differ depend<strong>in</strong>g on circumstances or<br />
observational studies<br />
patients’ or societal values<br />
2B/ Weak recommendation, moderate Benefits closely balanced <strong>with</strong> risks and RCTs <strong>with</strong> important limitations Weak recommendation, best action may<br />
quality evidence<br />
burden<br />
(<strong>in</strong>consistent results, methodological differ depend<strong>in</strong>g on circumstances or<br />
flaws, <strong>in</strong>direct, or imprecise) or<br />
exceptionally strong evidence from<br />
observational studies<br />
patients’ or societal values<br />
2C/ Weak recommendation, low quality Benefits closely balanced <strong>with</strong> risks and Observational studies or case series Very weak recommendation, other<br />
evidence<br />
burden<br />
alternatives may be equally reasonable
66 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
APPENDIX 2<br />
IDENTIFIED GUIDELINES AND THEIR QUALITY APPRAISAL<br />
Source Title Standardised Methodology Score F<strong>in</strong>al Appraisal<br />
American Gastroenterological American Gastroenterological Association Institute Technical Review on the Management 22% Not recommended<br />
Association [212]<br />
of Gastric Subepithelial Masses<br />
American Gastroenterological American Gastroenterological Association Technical Review on the Role of the<br />
31% Not recommended<br />
Association [48]<br />
Gastroenterologist <strong>in</strong> the Management of Esophageal Carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
American Society for<br />
Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy [226]<br />
The role of endoscopy <strong>in</strong> the assessment and treatment of esophageal cancer 33% Not recommended<br />
American Society for<br />
Gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al Endoscopy [64]<br />
Esophageal dilation 29% Not recommended<br />
National Comprehensive Cancer<br />
Network [227]<br />
Esophageal Cancer 57% Not recommended<br />
National Comprehensive Cancer<br />
Network [228]<br />
Gastric Cancer 57% Not recommended<br />
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidel<strong>in</strong>es<br />
Network [47]<br />
Management of oesophageal and gastric cancer 95% Recommended<br />
Kwaliteits<strong>in</strong>stituut voor de<br />
Gezondheidszorg [56]<br />
Diagnostiek en behandel<strong>in</strong>g oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom 93% Recommended <strong>with</strong> alterations<br />
Cancer Care Ontario [84] Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer. Practice Guidel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>Report</strong> #2-11.<br />
93% Recommended <strong>with</strong> alterations<br />
Cancer Care Ontario [108] Comb<strong>in</strong>ed Modality Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy <strong>in</strong> the Non-surgical Management of<br />
Localized Carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the Esophagus. Practice Guidel<strong>in</strong>e <strong>Report</strong> #2-12.<br />
93% Recommended <strong>with</strong> alterations<br />
Cancer Care Ontario [150] Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Gastric Cancer. Practice Guidel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>Report</strong> #2-14.<br />
93% Recommended <strong>with</strong> alterations<br />
Fédération Nationale des Centres Recommandations pour la pratique cl<strong>in</strong>ique: Standards, Options et Recommandations 2003 86% Recommended <strong>with</strong> alterations<br />
de Lutte Contre le Cancer [129] pour la prise en charge des patients atte<strong>in</strong>ts<br />
d’adénocarc<strong>in</strong>omes de l’estomac (cancers du cardia, autres types histologiques exclus)<br />
(rapport <strong>in</strong>tégral)<br />
Fédération Nationale des Centres Recommandations pour la pratique cl<strong>in</strong>ique: Standards, Options et Recommandations 2003 86% Recommended <strong>with</strong> alterations<br />
de Lutte Contre le Cancer [66] pourl’utilisation de la tomographie par émission de positons au [18F]-FDG (TEP-FDG) en<br />
cancérologie (rapport <strong>in</strong>tégral)<br />
European Society for Medical ESMO M<strong>in</strong>imum Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of 24% Not recommended<br />
Oncology [229]<br />
gastric cancer<br />
European Society for Medical ESMO M<strong>in</strong>imal Cl<strong>in</strong>ical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of 24% Not recommended<br />
Oncology [230]<br />
esophageal cancer<br />
American College of<br />
Gastroenterology [231]<br />
Updated Guidel<strong>in</strong>es for the Diagnosis, Surveillance, and Therapy of Barrett’s Esophagus 27% Not recommended<br />
Allum W et al. [232] Guidel<strong>in</strong>es for the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer 46% Not recommended
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 67<br />
APPENDIX 3<br />
OVERVIEW OF SCORES OF EXTERNAL EXPERTS
68 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 69
70 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 71
72 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 73
74 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 75
76 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 77<br />
APPENDIX 4<br />
EVIDENCE TABLES OF OESOPHAGEAL CANCER BY CLINICAL QUESTION<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Alarm symptoms<br />
Diagnosis of oesophageal cancer.<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients present<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> any of the follow<strong>in</strong>g alarm symptoms should be referred for early endoscopy:<br />
dysphagia, recurrent vomit<strong>in</strong>g, anorexia, weight loss, gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al blood loss.<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 Alarmsymptomen, zoals haematemesis en/of melaena, en maagklachten <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>atie met aanhoudend<br />
braken, passagestoornissen, ongewild gewichtsverlies of anemie, vormen een <strong>in</strong>dicatie voor een<br />
endoscopie.<br />
Bij het besluit om een endoscopie te laten verrichten speelt leeftijd een beperkte rol.<br />
Oesophagogastroscopy<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Flexible upper GI endoscopy is recommended as the diagnostic procedure of choice <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong><br />
suspected oesophageal cancer.<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>e use of chromoendoscopy dur<strong>in</strong>g upper GI endoscopy is not recommended, but may be of value<br />
<strong>in</strong> selected patients at high risk of oesophageal malignancy.<br />
Barium X-ray<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 No recommendation, only discussion<br />
Biopsy<br />
Me<strong>in</strong>eche-Schmidt V 2002<br />
Numans ME 2001<br />
Wallace MB 2001<br />
Kapoor N 2005<br />
Gillen D 1999<br />
Me<strong>in</strong>eche-Schmidt V 2002<br />
Numans ME 2001<br />
Wallace MB 2001<br />
Graham DY 1982<br />
Abbas SZ 2004<br />
Inone H 2001<br />
Ragunath K 2003<br />
Kiesslich R 2001<br />
Canto MI 2001<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 A m<strong>in</strong>imum of eight biopsies should be taken to achieve a diagnosis of oesophageal malignancy. Lal N 1992 Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
High
78 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Alarm symptoms<br />
Bowrey DJ 2006 [49] NA Patients referred for<br />
open-access gastroscopy<br />
Marmo R 2005 [233] NA Patients <strong>with</strong><br />
uncomplicated dyspepsia<br />
Oesophagogastroscopy<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Barium X-ray<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Biopsy<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Application of referral guidel<strong>in</strong>es<br />
us<strong>in</strong>g alarm symptoms<br />
Endoscopy<br />
Identification of risk factors<br />
Gastroscopy identified oesophagogastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> 123 (3%) of the 4,018 subjects. Of<br />
these 123 patients, 104 (85%) <strong>with</strong><br />
oesophagogastric cancer had<br />
‘‘alarm’’ symptoms (anemia, mass, dysphagia,<br />
weight loss, vomit<strong>in</strong>g) and would have satisfied<br />
the referral criteria. The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 15% would<br />
not have been referred for <strong>in</strong>itial endoscopic<br />
assessment because their symptoms were those<br />
of uncomplicated ‘‘benign’’ dyspepsia.<br />
The patients <strong>with</strong> ‘‘alarm’’ symptoms had a<br />
significantly more advanced tumor stage<br />
(metastatic disease <strong>in</strong> 47% vs 11%; p < 0.001),<br />
were less likely to undergo surgical resection<br />
(50% vs 95%; p
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 79<br />
CPG ID<br />
CT scan<br />
Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Stag<strong>in</strong>g of patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer.<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 In patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer, CT scan of the chest and abdomen <strong>with</strong> IV contrast and gastric<br />
distention <strong>with</strong> oral contrast or water should be performed rout<strong>in</strong>ely. The liver should be imaged <strong>in</strong> the<br />
portal venous phase.<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 CT van de thoraxapertuur tot en met de bovenbuik kan worden gebruikt om de aanwezigheid van<br />
mediast<strong>in</strong>ale en/of truncale lymfkliermetastasen, alsook mogelijke metastasen <strong>in</strong> longen, lever, bijnieren of<br />
skelet vast te stellen. Hierbij dient zowel ger<strong>in</strong>g oraal contrast ter marker<strong>in</strong>g van het oesofaguslumen als<br />
<strong>in</strong>traveneus contrast te worden toegepast. De coupedikte dient kle<strong>in</strong>er dan of gelijk aan 5 mm te zijn.<br />
Endoscopic<br />
ultrasonography<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal or oesophagogastric junction cancers who are candidates for any curative<br />
therapy should have their tumours staged <strong>with</strong> endoscopic US +/- f<strong>in</strong>e needle aspiration.<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 Endoscopische ultrasonografie is z<strong>in</strong>vol om de uitbreid<strong>in</strong>g van de laesie <strong>in</strong> de diepte en mogelijke <strong>in</strong>groei <strong>in</strong><br />
omgevende structuren (bijvoorbeeld aorta) (T-status) en de aanwezigheid van vergrote mediast<strong>in</strong>ale en/of<br />
truncale lymfklieren te bepalen (N- en M-status).<br />
Laparoscopy<br />
Kamel IR 2004 Low<br />
Romagnuolo J 2002<br />
Wakel<strong>in</strong> SJ 2002<br />
van Overhagen H 1993<br />
van den Hoed RD 1997<br />
Kelly S 2001 (SR)<br />
Vazquez-Sequeiros E 2003<br />
Weaver SR 2004<br />
Eloubeidi MA 2001<br />
Catalano MF 1995<br />
Vazquez-Sequeiros E 2003<br />
Heidemann J 2000<br />
Wiersema MJ 1997<br />
Williams DB 1999<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Laparoscopy should be considered <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal tumours <strong>with</strong> a gastric component. Clements DM 2004<br />
Molloy RG 1995<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 M<strong>in</strong>imaal <strong>in</strong>vasieve chirurgische stadiër<strong>in</strong>g met behulp van thoracoscopie en laparoscopie is geïndiceerd bij<br />
afwijk<strong>in</strong>gen <strong>in</strong> de oesofagus van onduidelijke aard, gevonden bij niet-<strong>in</strong>vasieve stadiër<strong>in</strong>g. Voorts kan<br />
laparoscopie worden overwogen bij carc<strong>in</strong>omen op de gastro-oesofageale overgang en cardiacarc<strong>in</strong>omen<br />
die als T3/T4 worden gestadieerd met een niet-<strong>in</strong>vasieve techniek.<br />
Suspecte cervicale, mediast<strong>in</strong>ale en truncale klieren dienen onder beeldvorm<strong>in</strong>g ((endoscopische)<br />
ultrasonografie) cytologisch te worden gepuncteerd <strong>in</strong>dien de status van de desbetreffende lymfklieren<br />
voor beleidsbepal<strong>in</strong>g relevant is.<br />
Magnetic resonance<br />
imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 MRI should be reserved for those patients who cannot undergo CT or used for additional <strong>in</strong>vestigation<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g CT/EUS.<br />
Wilkiemeyer MB 2004<br />
Krasna MJ 1995 & 2002<br />
Whyte RI 2001<br />
Wakel<strong>in</strong> SJ 2002<br />
Romijn MG 1998<br />
Bonvalot S 1996<br />
Natsugoe S 1999<br />
van Overhagen H 1993<br />
Sohn KM 2000<br />
Wu LF 2003<br />
Kersjes 1997<br />
Lauenste<strong>in</strong> TC 2004<br />
Wong R 2000<br />
Low<br />
Moderate<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low
80 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Bronchoscopy<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Bronchoscopy +/- bronchoscopic US +/- biopsy should be undertaken <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical or imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
features suspicious of tracheobronchial <strong>in</strong>vasion.<br />
Aggarwal AN 2003<br />
Nguyen NT 2001<br />
Nishimura Y 2002<br />
Riedel M 2001<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 Bronchoscopie, <strong>in</strong>clusief brush-cytologie, van suspecte gebieden is onderdeel van de stadiër<strong>in</strong>g van Baisi A 1999<br />
Low<br />
oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>omen op of craniaal van het niveau van de car<strong>in</strong>a.<br />
Choi TK 1984<br />
Thoracoscopy<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Thoracoscopy may be considered for patients where a tissue diagnosis of suspicious nodes (not possible<br />
by either EUS or CT guided techniques) is required to determ<strong>in</strong>e optimum management.<br />
Krasna MJ 2002 Low<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 M<strong>in</strong>imaal <strong>in</strong>vasieve chirurgische stadiër<strong>in</strong>g met behulp van thoracoscopie en laparoscopie is geïndiceerd bij Krasna MJ 1995 & 2002 Low<br />
afwijk<strong>in</strong>gen <strong>in</strong> de oesofagus van onduidelijke aard, gevonden bij niet-<strong>in</strong>vasieve stadiër<strong>in</strong>g. Voorts kan Whyte RI 2001<br />
laparoscopie worden overwogen bij carc<strong>in</strong>omen op de gastro-oesofageale overgang en cardiacarc<strong>in</strong>omen Wakel<strong>in</strong> SJ 2002<br />
die als T3/T4 worden gestadieerd met een niet-<strong>in</strong>vasieve techniek.<br />
Romijn MG 1998<br />
Suspecte cervicale, mediast<strong>in</strong>ale en truncale klieren dienen onder beeldvorm<strong>in</strong>g ((endoscopische) Bonvalot S 1996<br />
Low<br />
ultrasonografie) cytologisch te worden gepuncteerd <strong>in</strong>dien de status van de desbetreffende lymfklieren Natsugoe S 1999<br />
PET scan<br />
voor beleidsbepal<strong>in</strong>g relevant is.<br />
van Overhagen H 1993<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 PET is not rout<strong>in</strong>ely <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> the stag<strong>in</strong>g of oesophageal cancers. van Westreenen HL 2004 Low<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 FDG-PET bij T3-oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>omen kan worden overwogen om eventuele afstandsmetastasen vast te<br />
stellen.<br />
van Westreenen HL 2004 Low<br />
FNCLCC [66] October La TEP-FDG est <strong>in</strong>diquée, est complémentaire du scanner et de l’écho-endoscopie, pour l’évaluation K<strong>in</strong>kel 2002<br />
Low<br />
Neck imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
2002 préthérapeutique du statut ganglionnaire et métastatique des cancers de l’oesophage.<br />
Depotter 2002<br />
McAteer 1999<br />
Hoffmann 1999<br />
Couper 1998<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Neck imag<strong>in</strong>g either by US or CT is recommended as part of the stag<strong>in</strong>g of oesophageal cancer. Griffith JF 2000 Low<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 Echografie van de hals is nuttig om cervicale lymfkliermetastasen te bepalen. Bonvalot S 1996<br />
Natsugoe S 1999<br />
van Overhagen H 1993<br />
Low<br />
Suspecte cervicale, mediast<strong>in</strong>ale en truncale klieren dienen onder beeldvorm<strong>in</strong>g ((endoscopische) Bonvalot S 1996<br />
Low<br />
ultrasonografie) cytologisch te worden gepuncteerd <strong>in</strong>dien de status van de desbetreffende lymfklieren Natsugoe S 1999<br />
voor beleidsbepal<strong>in</strong>g relevant is.<br />
van Overhagen H 1993<br />
Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 81<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
CT scan<br />
Kim SH 2006 [234] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> suspected or<br />
known oesophageal<br />
neoplasms (n = 23)<br />
Umeoka S 2006 [235] NA 28 consecutive patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer<br />
histopathologically proved<br />
at endoscopic biopsy (31<br />
lesions)<br />
Panebioanco V 2006 [236] NA 39 patients <strong>with</strong><br />
oesophageal cancer<br />
proved by means of<br />
endoscopy<br />
Onbas O 2006 [237] NA 44 patients <strong>with</strong><br />
oesophageal cancer<br />
diagnosed by conventional<br />
endoscopy and biopsy<br />
specimens<br />
Lowe VJ 2005 [59] NA 69 patients <strong>with</strong> newly<br />
diagnosed oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
3D Multidetector CT and CT<br />
oesophagography (n = 23)<br />
Conventional barium study (n<br />
= 20)<br />
Conventional endoscopy (n =<br />
23)<br />
Histology (surgery: n = 12;<br />
endoscopic biopsy: n = 11)<br />
Triple-phase dynamic<br />
contrast-enhanced CT<br />
Standard: histopathology (23<br />
lesions) or EUS (8 lesions)<br />
Dynamic CT of the chest and<br />
abdomen <strong>with</strong> the aid of 3D<br />
render<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Standard: histopathology (26<br />
patients)<br />
Multidetector CT (n = 24)<br />
Virtual endoscopy (n = 27)<br />
Standard: histopathology (n =<br />
24)<br />
FDG-PET<br />
CT<br />
EUS<br />
Histology (endoscopic biopsy:<br />
n = 55; surgery n = 14)<br />
Sensitivity MDCT: 91%<br />
Overall accuracies for T and N stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
were 42.9% and 85.7% respectively<br />
One lesion not identifiable at CT<br />
Insufficient data to calculate accuracy<br />
T stag<strong>in</strong>g: sensitivity 92%, accuracy 88%<br />
N stag<strong>in</strong>g: sensitivity 85%, specificity<br />
58%, accuracy 69%<br />
MDCT: correct T stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 22/24<br />
patients, overstag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 1 pt and<br />
understag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 1 pt; correct N stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
20/24 patients, overstag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 2 pts and<br />
understag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 2 pts<br />
Correct T stag<strong>in</strong>g: 42% <strong>with</strong> PET and<br />
CT, 71% <strong>with</strong> EUS<br />
Sensitivity and specificity for nodal<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement: 84% and 67% for CT, 86%<br />
and 67% for EUS, 82% and 60% for PET<br />
Sensitivity and specificity for distant<br />
metastasis: 81% and 82% for CT, 73%<br />
and 86% for EUS, and 81% and 91% for<br />
PET<br />
Not very clear if<br />
prospective<br />
Same standard not<br />
applied to all patients<br />
Standard not applied to<br />
all patients<br />
Observationa<br />
l study<br />
Prospective<br />
observational<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
observational<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
observational<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
observational<br />
study<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Low
82 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Weaver SR 2004 [238] NA 60 consecutive patients Spiral CT<br />
Sensitivity for T and N stages was 58% Included <strong>in</strong> SIGN Prospective Low<br />
<strong>with</strong> histologically proven EUS<br />
and 79% for CT, and 72% and 91% for guidel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
observational<br />
cancer of the oesophagus, Standard: histology<br />
EUS. Specificity for T and N stages was<br />
study<br />
established by endoscopy<br />
80% and 84% for CT, and 85% and 68%<br />
and biopsy, that<br />
underwent surgery<br />
for EUS.<br />
Yoon YC 2003 [239] NA 81 patients <strong>with</strong> squamous CT and FDG-PET<br />
T stag<strong>in</strong>g: primary tumour was correctly Strong selection of 136 Prospective Very low<br />
cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the Standard: histopathology detected <strong>in</strong> 65 patients (80%) at CT and patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal observational<br />
oesophagus<br />
<strong>in</strong> 74 patients (91%) at FDG PET cancer<br />
study<br />
N stag<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
Included <strong>in</strong> SR of Van<br />
CT: sensitivity 11%, specificity 95%<br />
PET: sensitivity 30%, specificity 90%<br />
Westreenen et al.<br />
Endoscopic ultrasonography<br />
van Vliet EP 2007 [61] February<br />
2006<br />
Vazquez-Sequeiros E<br />
2006<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
[240] NA Patients (n = 144) <strong>with</strong><br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma or<br />
squamous-cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
of the oesophagus, M0<br />
(helical CT) and who<br />
were candidates for<br />
surgical resection; no<br />
neoadjuvant treatment<br />
May A 2004 [241] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> a suspicion<br />
of early oesophageal<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma (n = 81)<br />
or squamous cell<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (n = 19)<br />
Yanai H 2004 [242] NA Patients <strong>with</strong><br />
endoscopically staged<br />
EUS T stag<strong>in</strong>g: median accuracy 83% (53-<br />
94%)<br />
N stag<strong>in</strong>g: median accuracy 76% (54-<br />
94%), median sensitivity 77% (37-100%),<br />
median specificity 74% (50-90%)<br />
Helical CT<br />
EUS (standard vs. modified<br />
criteria)<br />
EUS-FNAC<br />
Standard: surgical pathology<br />
result (n = 47) or malignant<br />
cytology result (n = 97)<br />
High-resolution video<br />
endoscopy<br />
HR-EUS <strong>with</strong> a 20 MHz<br />
m<strong>in</strong>iprobe<br />
Standard: histological<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>ation of the<br />
endoscopically or surgically<br />
resected tumour<br />
20-MHz th<strong>in</strong> ultrasound probe<br />
EUS<br />
No evidence for publication bias<br />
Presence of all 7 modified criteria:<br />
specificity and PPV of 100%<br />
Presence of no modified criteria:<br />
sensitivity and NPV of 100%<br />
Accuracy of stag<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
HR-E 83.4% vs. HR-EUS 79.6%<br />
Mucosal tumours:<br />
Sensitivity HR-E 94.1% vs. HR-EUS<br />
91.2%<br />
Submucosal tumours:<br />
Sensitivity HR-E 56% vs. HR-EUS 48%<br />
Comb<strong>in</strong>ation of HR-E and HR-EUS: 60%<br />
Invasion depth correctly staged <strong>in</strong> 20/31<br />
pts (64.5%)<br />
54 articles <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e search only<br />
<strong>English</strong> only<br />
No quality appraisal<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>ded evaluation<br />
Standard not the same for<br />
all patients<br />
Systematic<br />
review<br />
Prospective<br />
observational<br />
study<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>ded evaluation Prospective<br />
observational<br />
study<br />
In calculation exclusion of<br />
2 dysplasia pts and 2 non-<br />
Prospective<br />
observational<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Very low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 83<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
superficial oesophageal Standard: histological<br />
resection cases study<br />
cancer (n = 31)<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>ation of the<br />
endoscopically or surgically<br />
resected tumour<br />
Chang KJ 2003 [243] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal CT<br />
T stag<strong>in</strong>g: accuracy EUS 83%<br />
Standard not applied to Prospective Very low<br />
cancer (n = 60)<br />
EUS<br />
all patients<br />
observational<br />
EUS-FNAC if positive FNAC N stag<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
2 pts lost-to-follow-up study<br />
would upstage the tumour Accuracy EUS 83%<br />
Standard: surgical pathology<br />
result<br />
Accuracy EUS-FNAC 89%, PPV 100%<br />
Mariette C 2003 [244] NA 150 patients who EUS<br />
Patient survival was significantly related Doubts about prospective Prospective Very low<br />
underwent EUS for stag<strong>in</strong>g Standard: surgical pathology to tumour (EUS T), node (EUS N) and design<br />
(?)<br />
of tumours of the result<br />
Union Internacional Contra la Cancrum Not enough data to observational<br />
oesophagus (out of 372<br />
classification (EUS UICC) stage calculate stag<strong>in</strong>g accuracy study<br />
patients who underwent<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to sonographic f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs (P =<br />
surgery <strong>with</strong> curative<br />
0·003, P = 0·009 and P = 0·004<br />
<strong>in</strong>tent)<br />
respectively), and the presence of<br />
stenosis determ<strong>in</strong>ed by EUS (P = 0·004).<br />
EUS T stage was a prognostic factor for<br />
survival (RR 1.7, 95%CI 1.1 to 3.0; P =<br />
0·046). Complete surgical resection (R0)<br />
was also significantly related to EUS T,<br />
N and UICC classification (P < 0·001).<br />
EUS UICC stage was a factor predictive<br />
of R0 resection (RR 2.6, 95%CI 1.4 to<br />
4.8; P = 0·003).<br />
Laparoscopy<br />
Mortensen MB 2006 [79] NA 411 patients <strong>with</strong> upper<br />
gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al tract<br />
cancer, of which 95 had<br />
biopsy-proven<br />
oesophageal cancer<br />
Comb<strong>in</strong>ed endoscopic<br />
ultrasonography (EUS) and<br />
laparoscopic ultrasonography<br />
(LUS)<br />
‘Standard’: treatment actually<br />
undertaken<br />
The comb<strong>in</strong>ation of EUS and LUS<br />
correctly predicted R0 resection <strong>in</strong><br />
90.6%, R1–R2 <strong>in</strong> 91% and irresectability<br />
<strong>in</strong> 91.4% of patients. Ten patients (2.4%)<br />
had explorative laparotomy only. There<br />
were no complications associated <strong>with</strong><br />
the EUS and LUS procedures.<br />
To avoid false-positive<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>with</strong> regard to<br />
local irresectability<br />
ultrasonographic criteria<br />
were adjusted so that<br />
only a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of<br />
several ultrasonographic<br />
criteria <strong>with</strong> a 100 per<br />
cent predictive value for<br />
local<br />
irresectability were used<br />
Standard is not identical<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Very low
84 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
for all patients<br />
Menon KV 2003 [245] NA 133 out of 320<br />
consecutive patients <strong>with</strong><br />
histologically proven<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the<br />
oesophagus or cardia,<br />
<strong>with</strong>out cl<strong>in</strong>ical or<br />
radiological evidence (CT)<br />
of metastases and deemed<br />
fit for potential excisional<br />
surgery<br />
Magnetic resonance imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Riddell AM 2006<br />
Bronchoscopy<br />
[246] NA 10 patients <strong>with</strong><br />
confirmed oesophageal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (7 <strong>with</strong><br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma, 2 <strong>with</strong><br />
squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma,<br />
and 1 <strong>with</strong> sp<strong>in</strong>dle-cell<br />
melanoma),<br />
who were deemed<br />
medically fit for surgery<br />
and shown to have<br />
resectable disease us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
endoscopic sonography<br />
and CT<br />
Wakamatsu T 2006 [77] NA 54 surgical patients <strong>with</strong><br />
suspected thyroid or<br />
oesophageal cancer (n =<br />
Multiport laparoscopy<br />
Standard: histology or<br />
subsequent surgery<br />
High-resolution MRI of<br />
primary tumour<br />
Standard: histology<br />
CT neck/upper mediast<strong>in</strong>um<br />
MRI neck/upper mediast<strong>in</strong>um<br />
Bronchoscopy <strong>with</strong> EBUS<br />
Laparoscopy detected <strong>in</strong>curable disease<br />
<strong>in</strong> 31 patients (24%), some of whom had<br />
more than one contra<strong>in</strong>dication to<br />
surgery, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g hepatic metastases (n<br />
= 10), peritoneal metastases (n = 12)<br />
and<br />
malignant small volume ascites (n = 5).<br />
Lymph node metastases were confirmed<br />
histologically by biopsy at laparoscopy <strong>in</strong><br />
26 patients (fixed nodes, n = 14; mobile<br />
nodes, n = 12). Sensitivity for the<br />
detection of liver and peritoneal<br />
metastases was 100%, and lymph node<br />
metastases were 83%. Specificity for<br />
detection of hepatic metastases was<br />
99%, 100% for peritoneal metastases<br />
and 82% for lymph node metastases.<br />
N<strong>in</strong>ety-n<strong>in</strong>e patients proceeded to<br />
def<strong>in</strong>itive surgery and only two were<br />
unresectable.<br />
50 MRI images (5 per patient)<br />
7 images underestimated, 20 images<br />
overestimated<br />
Tumor position was correctly diagnosed<br />
by MRI <strong>in</strong> 5 patients<br />
Extramural extension: 2 false negatives<br />
The sensitivity and specificity of CT, MRI<br />
and EBUS for <strong>in</strong>vasion were 59 and 56,<br />
75 and 73, and 92 and 83%, respectively.<br />
Standard is not identical<br />
for all patients<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Very small sample size Prospective<br />
study<br />
No separate numbers for<br />
oesophageal cancer<br />
patients<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Very low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 85<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
24) and a mass adjacent to Standard: histology and/or The accuracy of EBUS was significantly Standard not same for all<br />
the tracheobronchial wall cl<strong>in</strong>ical follow-up<br />
greater than that of CT <strong>in</strong> the present patients<br />
on chest or neck CT or<br />
study (p = 0.0011). The accuracy of<br />
MRI<br />
EBUS was significantly different from<br />
that of CT and MRI <strong>in</strong> the surgically<br />
treated patients (p = 0.005 and p =<br />
0.032, respectively).<br />
Osugi H 2003 [76] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced BUS<br />
BUS: sensitivity 91%, specificity 89%, Sensitivity and specificity Prospective Very low<br />
squamous cell carc<strong>in</strong>oma CT<br />
accuracy 90%<br />
calculated <strong>with</strong> 50 study (?)<br />
<strong>in</strong> contact <strong>with</strong> the 50 thoracotomies<br />
CT: sensitivity 69%, specificity 55%, thoracotomy patients<br />
Thoracoscopy<br />
trachea, the ma<strong>in</strong> bronchi,<br />
or both (n = 66)<br />
accuracy 62%<br />
No additional diagnostic studies found<br />
PET scan<br />
Meyers BF 2007 [247] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> resectable,<br />
biopsy-proven carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
of the thoracic<br />
oesophagus (n = 189)<br />
Ott K 2006 [72] NA 65 patients <strong>with</strong> biopsy<br />
proven adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
of the distal oesophagus<br />
or cardia (stage uT3)<br />
FDG-PET<br />
Chest and abdom<strong>in</strong>al CT<br />
Additional study or biopsy if<br />
positive PET f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
PET before preoperative<br />
chemotherapy and on day 14<br />
of first chemotherapy cycle<br />
The reasons for no resection <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
the follow<strong>in</strong>g: M1 disease found by PET<br />
and confirmed (9), M1 disease found by<br />
PET and not confirmed (2), M1 disease<br />
at exploration not found by PET (7),<br />
decl<strong>in</strong>e or death before surgery (10),<br />
patient refusal of surgery (7),<br />
unresectable local tumour at<br />
exploration (5), and extensive N1<br />
disease preclud<strong>in</strong>g operation (2). Eight<br />
(4.2%) patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g resection had<br />
a recurrence <strong>in</strong> the first 6 months.<br />
Metabolic responders showed a high<br />
histopathologic response rate (44%)<br />
<strong>with</strong> a 3-year survival rate of 70%. In<br />
contrast, prognosis was poor for<br />
metabolic nonresponders <strong>with</strong> a<br />
histopathologic response rate of 5% (P =<br />
0.001) and a 3-year survival rate of 35%<br />
(P = 0.01). A multivariate analysis<br />
(covariates: ypT-, ypN-category,<br />
histopathologic response) demonstrated<br />
that metabolic response was the only<br />
factor predict<strong>in</strong>g recurrence (P = 0.018)<br />
Standard not applied to<br />
all patients<br />
9 patients excluded from<br />
analysis (8 too low FDG<br />
uptake, 1 <strong>with</strong><br />
hyperglycemia)<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Very low<br />
Low
86 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
<strong>in</strong> the subgroup of completely resected<br />
Yuan S 2006 [75] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> a first<br />
diagnosis of biopsy-proven<br />
squamous cell cancer of<br />
the thoracic oesophagus,<br />
operable (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g M1a),<br />
not refus<strong>in</strong>g surgery, and<br />
will<strong>in</strong>g to pay at least 30%<br />
of the charge for PET/CT<br />
(n = 45)<br />
Van Baardwijk A<br />
2006<br />
[248] August 2005 Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
Leong T 2006 [70] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> histologically<br />
proven squamous or<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the<br />
oesophagus stages I–III<br />
and ECOG performance<br />
status 0–2, where the<br />
treatment <strong>in</strong>tent was<br />
radical chemoradiotherapy<br />
(radiation dose 50 Gy)<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g completion of all<br />
non-PET stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>vestigations that did not<br />
reveal evidence of<br />
metastatic disease (n =<br />
23)<br />
PET/CT<br />
Standard: histology<br />
PET for radiotherapy<br />
treatment plann<strong>in</strong>g<br />
PET/CT for radiotherapy<br />
plann<strong>in</strong>g vs. CT<br />
(R0) patients.<br />
The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy,<br />
positive predictive value, and negative<br />
predictive value of PET/CT were 93.90%<br />
(77/82 nodal groups), 92.06% (290/315),<br />
92.44% (367/397), 75.49% (77/102), and<br />
98.31% (290/295), respectively, whereas<br />
those of PET were 81.71% (67/82),<br />
87.30% (275/315), 86.15% (342/397),<br />
62.62% (67/107), and 94.83% (275/290),<br />
respectively. P values were 0.032, 0.067,<br />
0.006, 0.063, and 0.037, respectively.<br />
The differences <strong>in</strong> sensitivity, accuracy,<br />
and negative predictive value between<br />
PET and PET/CT were statistically<br />
significant.<br />
In oesophageal cancer, PET scan can be<br />
used to <strong>in</strong>clude PET positive lymph<br />
nodes <strong>in</strong> the target volume.<br />
The addition of PET <strong>in</strong>formation altered<br />
the cl<strong>in</strong>ical stage <strong>in</strong> 8 of 21 eligible<br />
patients enrolled on the study (38%); 4<br />
patients had distant metastatic disease<br />
and 4 had unsuspected regional nodal<br />
disease. Sixteen patients proceeded to<br />
the radiotherapy plann<strong>in</strong>g phase of the<br />
study and received def<strong>in</strong>itive<br />
chemoradiation planned <strong>with</strong> the<br />
PET/CT data set. The GTV based on CT<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation alone excluded PET-avid<br />
disease <strong>in</strong> 11 patients (69%), and <strong>in</strong> five<br />
patients (31%) this would have resulted<br />
<strong>in</strong> a geographic miss of gross tumour.<br />
The discordance between CT and<br />
PET/CT was due ma<strong>in</strong>ly to differences <strong>in</strong><br />
def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the longitud<strong>in</strong>al extent of<br />
disease <strong>in</strong> the oesophagus. The cranial<br />
extent of the primary tumour as def<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e only<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on study<br />
selection and quality<br />
appraisal<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> PET<br />
detected metastatic<br />
disease came off study<br />
<strong>with</strong> no further data<br />
collection, while patients<br />
who did not have<br />
metastatic disease on PET<br />
and were deemed suitable<br />
for radical treatment<br />
proceeded to the<br />
radiotherapy plann<strong>in</strong>g<br />
phase of the study.<br />
Two patients excluded<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Low<br />
SR Low<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 87<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
by CT vs. PET/CT differed <strong>in</strong> 75% of<br />
cases, while the caudal extent differed <strong>in</strong><br />
Lev<strong>in</strong>e EA 2006 [249] NA 64 consecutive<br />
patients, <strong>with</strong> potentially<br />
curable, locally advanced<br />
oesophageal cancer<br />
Kato H 2005 [250] NA 44 patients <strong>with</strong> thoracic<br />
oesophageal cancer<br />
Moureau-Zabotto L<br />
2005<br />
[71] NA Thirty-four oesophageal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma patients<br />
referred for concomitant<br />
radiotherapy and<br />
chemotherapy <strong>with</strong> radical<br />
<strong>in</strong>tent<br />
Song SY 2005 [74] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> locally<br />
advanced but resectable<br />
oesophageal cancer (n =<br />
32)<br />
PET pre- and postchemoradiation<br />
(of the 44<br />
patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
oesophagectomy follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
chemoradiation, 31 patients<br />
had both a prechemoradiation<br />
and postchemoradiation<br />
PET, while 13<br />
patients had a s<strong>in</strong>gle PET scan:<br />
10 patients of which<br />
had a pre-chemoradiation<br />
study and 3 of which had postchemoradiation<br />
imag<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
FDG-PET<br />
Bone sc<strong>in</strong>tigraphy<br />
PET-CT vs. CT for<br />
radiotherapy treatment<br />
plann<strong>in</strong>g<br />
PET before and after<br />
neoadjuvant chemoradiation<br />
81%.<br />
Response was as follows: pCR 27%,<br />
pathologic residual microscopic<br />
(pCRmicro) 14.5%, partial response<br />
19%, and stable or progressive disease<br />
39.5%. A pretreatment standardized<br />
uptake value<br />
(SUVmax1 hour) ≥15 was associated<br />
<strong>with</strong> an observed 77.8% significant<br />
response (pCR + pCRmicro) compared<br />
<strong>with</strong> 24.2% for patients <strong>with</strong> a<br />
pretreatment SUVmax1 hour
88 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
oesophagus and lymph nodes.<br />
Van Westreenen HL<br />
2005<br />
[251] NA Ten patients <strong>with</strong> biopsyproven<br />
cancer of the<br />
oesophagus or gastrooesophageal<br />
junction<br />
Vrieze O 2004 [252] NA 30 patients <strong>with</strong> an<br />
advanced oesophageal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (cT4 based on<br />
EUS and/or CT), M0<br />
Sihvo EI 2004 [73] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> histologically<br />
proves adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of<br />
the oesophagus (n = 20)<br />
or the EG junction (n =<br />
Choi JY 2004 [68] NA Eighty-n<strong>in</strong>e consecutive<br />
patients hav<strong>in</strong>g newly<br />
diagnosed oesophageal<br />
cancer, undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
curative surgery<br />
35)<br />
18F-FLT PET vs.<br />
18F-FDG PET<br />
Standard: histology<br />
PET before neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiation therapy (25<br />
patients treated <strong>with</strong> surgery)<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>e stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong><br />
endoscopy, CT and EUS<br />
FDG-PET<br />
Histopathology<br />
18F-FDG PET was able to detect all<br />
oesophageal cancers, whereas 18FFLT<br />
PET visualized the tumor <strong>in</strong> 8 of 10<br />
patients. Both 18F-FDG PET and 18F-<br />
FLT PET detected lymph node<br />
metastases <strong>in</strong> 2 of 8 patients. 18F-FDG<br />
PET detected 1 cervical lymph node that<br />
was missed on 18F-FLT PET, whereas<br />
18F-FDG PET showed uptake <strong>in</strong> benign<br />
lesions <strong>in</strong> 2 patients.<br />
In 14 of the 30 patients (47%)<br />
discordances were found <strong>in</strong> detection of<br />
the pathological lymph nodes between<br />
CT/EUS and FDGPET. In 8 patients, 9<br />
lymph node regions were found <strong>with</strong><br />
pathologic nodes on conventional<br />
imag<strong>in</strong>g only. In three of these patients<br />
the <strong>in</strong>fluence of FDG-PET f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs would<br />
have led to a decrease of the irradiated<br />
volume. In 6 patients, 8 lymph node<br />
regions were found <strong>with</strong> a normal<br />
CT/EUS and pathologic nodes on FDG-<br />
PET. In three of these patients (10%) the<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluence of the FDG-PET would have<br />
led to enlargement of the irradiated<br />
volume.<br />
Accuracy N stag<strong>in</strong>g: PET 60%, EUS 72%,<br />
CT 58%<br />
Accuracy M stag<strong>in</strong>g: PET 76%, CT 75%<br />
PET preoperatively There were 130 malignant nodal groups<br />
of 554 dissected nodal groups <strong>in</strong> 43 of<br />
69 patients on pathologic exam<strong>in</strong>ation.<br />
N<strong>in</strong>ety-six positive lymph nodes <strong>in</strong> 43<br />
patients were evident on 18F-FDG PET.<br />
Only 30 lymph nodes were positive <strong>in</strong><br />
24 patients on CT. EUS revealed lymph<br />
Small sample size Prospective<br />
study<br />
Included <strong>in</strong> SR of Van<br />
Baardwijk et al.<br />
One centre analysis of<br />
prospective study of 36<br />
patients<br />
No comparison <strong>with</strong><br />
histology<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Low<br />
Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 89<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
node metastases <strong>in</strong> 27 patients.<br />
Kneist W 2004 [69] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> biopsyproved<br />
oesophageal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (n = 81)<br />
Neck imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
No additional diagnostic studies found<br />
PET and computer<br />
tomography<br />
(CT) of the chest and<br />
abdomen (and of the neck <strong>in</strong><br />
45 patients) <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> 45 days.<br />
The f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of the<br />
histopathological exam<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
for 31 suspicious lesions from<br />
28 patients served as the basis<br />
for the diagnosis of distant<br />
metastasis.<br />
The PET f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs had a higher specificity<br />
(89% vs 11%) but a lower sensitivity<br />
(38% vs 63%) than CT f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> the<br />
detection of metastatic sites. The CT<br />
results showed greater agreement <strong>with</strong><br />
histopathological f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs than did PET<br />
results. In 8 patients (10%), PET<br />
detected distant metastases that were<br />
not identified <strong>with</strong> CT. In 4 patients<br />
(5%), PET detected bone metastases<br />
only, but <strong>in</strong> all of these patients<br />
metastases <strong>in</strong> other locations were<br />
detected by CT. Although PET led to<br />
upstag<strong>in</strong>g (M1) <strong>in</strong> 2 patients (2%), it did<br />
not enable the exclusion of oesophageal<br />
resection.<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Low
90 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Diagnosis and treatment of early lesions.<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Reduction of risk of progression to adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma is not an <strong>in</strong>dication for anti-reflux surgery <strong>in</strong> patients Spechler SJ 2001<br />
High<br />
<strong>with</strong> Barrett’s oesophagus.<br />
Corey KE 2003<br />
Parrilla P 2003<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>e use of chromoendoscopy dur<strong>in</strong>g upper GI endoscopy is not recommended, but may be of value Inone H 2001<br />
Moderate<br />
<strong>in</strong> selected patients at high risk of oesophageal malignancy.<br />
Ragunath K 2003<br />
Kiesslich R 2001<br />
Canto MI 2001<br />
Mitooka H 1995<br />
In patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett’s oesophagus there should be a structured biopsy protocol <strong>with</strong> quadrantic Garside R 2006<br />
Low<br />
biopsies every two centimetres and biopsy of any visible lesion.<br />
Fitzgerald RC 2001<br />
Conio M 2003<br />
Macdonald CE 2000<br />
Pathologists should follow the revised Vienna classification for report<strong>in</strong>g dysplasia. Montgomery E 2001a<br />
Schlemper RJ 2000<br />
Low<br />
Where radical <strong>in</strong>tervention is contemplated on the basis of high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma Montgomery E 2001a Low<br />
the diagnosis should be validated by a second pathologist experienced <strong>in</strong> this area and further biopsies Baak JP 2002<br />
should be taken if there is uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty.<br />
Montgomery E 2001b<br />
Evaluation of suspected high-grade dysplasia <strong>in</strong> Barrett’s oesophagus biopsies should be undertaken <strong>with</strong> Baak JP 2002<br />
Low<br />
knowledge of the cl<strong>in</strong>ical and endoscopic background and biopsies should be reviewed at a<br />
multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> access to the cl<strong>in</strong>ical <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
Montgomery E 2001b<br />
Patients diagnosed <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should have careful assessment (CT, EUS, rigorous biopsy Schnell TG 2001<br />
Low<br />
protocol +/- EMR) to exclude coexist<strong>in</strong>g cancer.<br />
Lev<strong>in</strong>e DS 1993<br />
May A 2002<br />
In the absence of <strong>in</strong>vasive cancer, patients <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should be offered endoscopic May A 2002<br />
Low<br />
treatment.<br />
Ell C 2000<br />
Pacifico RJ 2003<br />
The assessment and management of patients <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should be centralised to units <strong>with</strong><br />
the appropriate endoscopic facilities and expertise.<br />
Ell C 2000 Low<br />
Superficial oesophageal cancer limited to the mucosa should be treated <strong>with</strong> EMR. Fujita H 2001<br />
Inoue H 1991<br />
Takekoshi T 1994<br />
Low<br />
Mucosal ablative techniques, such as PDT, APC, or laser should be reserved for the management of May A 2002<br />
Low<br />
residual disease after EMR and not for <strong>in</strong>itial management if <strong>in</strong>vasive disease is present <strong>in</strong> patients fit for Ell C 2000<br />
surgery.<br />
Pacifico RJ 2003<br />
Attwood SE 2003<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 Ondanks de relatief lage <strong>in</strong>terobserveerdersvariatie verdient het aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g dat de histopathologische Schlemper 2000a<br />
Low<br />
diagnose van hooggradige dysplasie (carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> situ) en vroegcarc<strong>in</strong>oom <strong>in</strong> de oesofagus door een Schlemper 2000b<br />
patholoog met ervar<strong>in</strong>g op dit gebied wordt gesteld.<br />
Montgomery 2001
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 91<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence<br />
Skacel 2000<br />
Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Chromoscopie met lugolkleur<strong>in</strong>g is geïndiceerd bij patiënten met een neoplastische afwijk<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> het Dawsey 1998 Low<br />
plaveiselepitheel van de oesofagus waarbij endoscopische therapie wordt overwogen.<br />
Bij patiënten met een neoplastische afwijk<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> een Barrett-oesofagus gelden de volgende aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen <strong>in</strong><br />
de endoscopische work-up voor eventuele endoscopische therapie:<br />
- Endoscopische <strong>in</strong>spectie geschiedt bij voorkeur <strong>in</strong> een centrum met endoscopische expertise <strong>in</strong><br />
de detectie van vroege afwijk<strong>in</strong>gen <strong>in</strong> Barrett-oesofagus.<br />
- Hierbij wordt bij voorkeur gebruikgemaakt van hoge-resolutie-endoscopie, eventueel aangevuld<br />
met chromoscopie.<br />
- Geadviseerd wordt om biopten te nemen uit alle zichtbare mucosale onregelmatigheden en at<br />
random uit vier kwadranten voor elke centimeter Barrett-oesofagus, te beg<strong>in</strong>nen 1 cm boven de<br />
bovenrand van de maagplooien en doorlopend tot aan de overgang van cil<strong>in</strong>drisch naar<br />
plaveiselepitheel.<br />
Bij alle patiënten met een neoplastische afwijk<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> de oesofagus bij wie endoscopische therapie wordt<br />
overwogen, dient een endoscopische ultrasonografie te worden verricht om diepte-<strong>in</strong>filtratie van de<br />
afwijk<strong>in</strong>g en verdachte lokale lymfklieren uit te sluiten.<br />
Dave U 2001<br />
Endo T 2002<br />
Guelrud M 2001<br />
Sharma P 2003<br />
Reid BJ 2000<br />
Scot<strong>in</strong>iotis IA 2001<br />
Hasegawa N 1996<br />
Natsugoe S 1996<br />
Aanvullende stadiër<strong>in</strong>g met CT-scan is optioneel. Bergman JJ 1999<br />
Scot<strong>in</strong>iotis IA 2001<br />
Low<br />
Voor patiënten met hooggradige dysplasie en/of vroegcarc<strong>in</strong>oom <strong>in</strong> plaveiselepitheel van de oesofagus Shimizu Y 2002<br />
Low<br />
heeft endoscopische behandel<strong>in</strong>g de voorkeur. Hierbij zijn de volgende voorwaarden van belang: Fujita H 2001<br />
- Voorafgaande aan de behandel<strong>in</strong>g worden een endoscopische beoordel<strong>in</strong>g en stadiër<strong>in</strong>g verricht. Narahara H 2000<br />
- Het betreft een solitaire, vlakke afwijk<strong>in</strong>g met een maximale diameter van 2-3 cm.<br />
Nijhawan PK 2000<br />
Als endoscopische resectietechniek verdient de endoscopische mucosale resectie-cap-techniek de<br />
voorkeur, zodat histologisch onderzoek van de verwijderde afwijk<strong>in</strong>g mogelijk is.<br />
Het besluit om de endoscopische behandel<strong>in</strong>g als curatief te beschouwen, kan pas worden genomen nadat<br />
het endoscopische mucosale resectiepreparaat histologisch is beoordeeld.<br />
Bij patiënten met evidente submucosale <strong>in</strong>groei en/of positieve resectieranden van het endoscopische<br />
mucosale resectiepreparaat dient <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>cipe een chirurgische resectie te worden verricht.<br />
Inoue H 1991 Low<br />
Er v<strong>in</strong>dt <strong>in</strong>itieel een endoscopisch onderzoek plaats dat specifiek dient om <strong>in</strong> de Barrett-oesofagus een<br />
eventueel <strong>in</strong>vasief carc<strong>in</strong>oom te detecteren:<br />
- Hierbij geniet hoge-resolutie-endoscopie, eventueel aangevuld met chromoscopie, de voorkeur.<br />
- Er worden biopten genomen uit alle zichtbare mucosale onregelmatigheden en random uit vier<br />
kwadranten voor elke centimeter Barrett-oesofagus, te beg<strong>in</strong>nen 1 cm boven de bovenrand van de<br />
maagplooien en doorlopend tot aan de overgang tussen cil<strong>in</strong>der- en plaveiselepitheel.<br />
Cfr supra<br />
Na de work-up wordt de endoscopische surveillance als volgt verricht:<br />
- Frequentie surveillance: <strong>in</strong> het eerste jaar elke drie maanden, <strong>in</strong> het tweede jaar elke zes maanden en<br />
daarna tenm<strong>in</strong>ste jaarlijks.<br />
- Indien er tijdens surveillance sprake is van nieuwe afwijk<strong>in</strong>gen zoals erosies of een onregelmatig<br />
oppervlak, dienen opnieuw biopten te worden genomen en/of dient dit te worden uitgebreid met een<br />
No evidence<br />
Low<br />
Low
92 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Recommendation<br />
diagnostische endoscopische mucosale resectie.<br />
Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Endoscopische surveillance (ten m<strong>in</strong>ste gedurende het eerste jaar) wordt bij voorkeur verricht <strong>in</strong> een Cfr supra<br />
centrum met ervar<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Voor geselecteerde patiënten met hooggradige dysplasie en/of vroegcarc<strong>in</strong>oom <strong>in</strong> een Barrett-oesofagus<br />
heeft endoscopische behandel<strong>in</strong>g de voorkeur. Hierbij gelden de volgende voorwaarden:<br />
- Voorafgaande aan de behandel<strong>in</strong>g zijn endoscopische beoordel<strong>in</strong>g en stadiër<strong>in</strong>g verricht.<br />
- Het betreft een solitaire verheven en/of vlakke afwijk<strong>in</strong>g met een maximale grootte van 2 cm.<br />
De endoscopische behandel<strong>in</strong>g omvat als primaire behandel<strong>in</strong>g een endoscopische resectietechniek (bij<br />
voorkeur de endoscopische mucosale resectie-cap-techniek), waardoor histologisch onderzoek van de<br />
verwijderde afwijk<strong>in</strong>g mogelijk is.<br />
Buttar NS 2001<br />
May A 2002<br />
Buttar NS 2001<br />
May A 2002<br />
Het besluit om endoscopische behandel<strong>in</strong>g als <strong>in</strong> opzet curatieve behandel<strong>in</strong>g te beschouwen, kan pas<br />
worden genomen nadat het endoscopische mucosale resectiepreparaat is beoordeeld.<br />
Bij geselecteerde patiënten kan aanvullende ablatietherapie na voorafgaande endoscopische mucosale<br />
resectie worden overwogen.<br />
Bij afwijk<strong>in</strong>gen groter dan 2 cm en/of de helft van de circumferentie is ‘piece-meal-resectie vereist. Ell C 2000 Low<br />
De histopathologische beoordel<strong>in</strong>g van de endoscopische mucosale resectiepreparaten dient door een<br />
patholoog met ervar<strong>in</strong>g op dit gebied te geschieden. Referentiepanels voor een ‘second op<strong>in</strong>ion’ zijn <strong>in</strong><br />
Nederland aanwezig.<br />
Bij submucosale <strong>in</strong>groei van een vroegcarc<strong>in</strong>oom <strong>in</strong> plaveiselcelepitheel dient alsnog een chirurgische<br />
resectie te worden overwogen gezien de hoge kans (26-47%) op lokale lymfkliermetastasen.<br />
Bij submucosale <strong>in</strong>groei van een vroegcarc<strong>in</strong>oom <strong>in</strong> een Barrett-oesofagus dient alsnog een chirurgische<br />
resectie te worden overwogen gezien de hoge kans (tot 50%) op lokale lymfkliermetastasen.<br />
Na endoscopische behandel<strong>in</strong>g van hooggradige dysplasie/vroegcarc<strong>in</strong>oom <strong>in</strong> de oesofagus gelden de<br />
aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen voor de endoscopische follow-up conform de aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen voor endoscopische<br />
surveillance van Barrett-oesofagus.<br />
Schlemper 2000a<br />
Schlemper 2000b<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Multiple studies Low<br />
Multiple studies Low<br />
May A 2002 Low<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Diagnosis<br />
Pohl J 2007 [253] NA Patients <strong>with</strong>Barrett’s<br />
oesophagus and possible<br />
high-grade <strong>in</strong>traepithelial<br />
neoplasia or early cancer,<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g discrete mucosal<br />
alterations or<br />
macroscopically occult<br />
lesions (n = 57)<br />
Conventional<br />
chromoendoscopy <strong>with</strong> acetic<br />
acid vs. computed virtual<br />
chromoendoscopy<br />
At each exam<strong>in</strong>ation targeted<br />
biopsies from all detected<br />
lesions, followed by random<br />
four-quadrant biopsies<br />
In 24/57 patients, 30 lesions <strong>with</strong><br />
HGIN/early cancer were detected. The<br />
sensitivity of targeted biopsies for<br />
HGIN/early cancer on a 'per lesion'<br />
basis was 87 % (26/30) for both CAA<br />
and CVC. The positive predictive value<br />
was 39 % (26/66) for CAA and 37 %<br />
(26/70) for CVC. In the 'per patient'<br />
analysis, sensitivity was 83 % (20/24) and<br />
Cross-over design<br />
Randomization <strong>with</strong><br />
sealed envelopes<br />
(bl<strong>in</strong>ded??)<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>ded assessors<br />
RCT Moderate
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 93<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
92 % (22/24) for CAA and CVC,<br />
respectively ( P = 0.617). Stepwise<br />
random four-quadrant biopsies identified<br />
only one patient <strong>with</strong> HGIN/early<br />
cancer that was missed by both, CAA<br />
Borovicka J 2006 [52] NA Patients <strong>with</strong><br />
endoscopically<br />
documented Barrett’s<br />
oesophagus (n = 187)<br />
Lim CH 2006 [53] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> a diagnosis<br />
of dysplasia identified <strong>in</strong><br />
Barrett's oesophagus (n =<br />
35)<br />
Phase 1: Autofluorescence<br />
endoscopy <strong>with</strong> targeted<br />
biopsy followed by fourquadrant<br />
biopsies vs.<br />
conventional endoscopic<br />
surveillance, also <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
four-quadrant biopsies.<br />
Phase 2: After exclusion of<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> early cancer or<br />
high-grade dysplasia, who<br />
underwent endoscopic or<br />
surgical treatment, as well as<br />
those who decl<strong>in</strong>ed to<br />
participate <strong>in</strong> phase 2 of the<br />
study, 130 patients rema<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />
These patients were exam<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>with</strong> the alternative<br />
method after a mean of 10<br />
weeks, us<strong>in</strong>g the same<br />
methods described.<br />
4 random quadrant biopsies<br />
taken every 2 cm through the<br />
length of the Barrett's<br />
esophagus (n = 18) vs.<br />
methylene blue (MB)<br />
chromoendoscopy directed<br />
biopsies from unsta<strong>in</strong>ed or<br />
heterogenously sta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
mucosa (n = 17)<br />
and CVC.<br />
In study phase 1, the AFE and<br />
conventional approaches yielded<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma/HGD rates of 12% and<br />
5.3%, respectively, on a per-patient<br />
basis. With AFE, four previously<br />
unrecognized adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma/HGD<br />
lesions were identified (4.3% of the<br />
patients); <strong>with</strong> the conventional<br />
approach, one new lesion (1.1%) was<br />
identified. Of the 19<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma/HGD lesions detected<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g AFE endoscopy <strong>in</strong> study phase 1,<br />
eight were visualized, while 11 were<br />
only detected us<strong>in</strong>g untargeted fourquadrant<br />
biopsies (sensitivity 42%). Of<br />
the 766 biopsies classified at histology as<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g non-neoplastic, 58 appeared<br />
suspicious (specificity 92%, positive<br />
predictive value 12%, negative predictive<br />
value 98.5%). In study phase 2, AFE<br />
detected two further lesions <strong>in</strong> addition<br />
to the <strong>in</strong>itial alternative approach <strong>in</strong><br />
3.2% of cases, <strong>in</strong> comparison <strong>with</strong> one<br />
lesion <strong>with</strong> conventional endoscopy<br />
(1.7%).<br />
Overall, dysplasia was identified <strong>in</strong> 17 of<br />
18 patients by RB and <strong>in</strong> 9 of 18 by<br />
MBDB (McNemar test, p = 0.02).<br />
Cross-over design<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>ded assessors<br />
Computer-generated<br />
randomization list <strong>with</strong><br />
block randomization<br />
Cross-over design<br />
No ITT<br />
RCT High<br />
RCT Moderate
94 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Kara MA 2005 [54] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett’s High-resolution endoscopy Fourteen patients were diagnosed <strong>with</strong> Cross-over design RCT Moderate<br />
oesophagus and recently <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>digo carm<strong>in</strong>e<br />
HGD/EC. The sensitivity for HGD/EC Randomization <strong>with</strong><br />
diagnosed but<br />
chromoendoscopy or narrow- was 93 % and 86 % for HRE-ICC and sealed opaque envelopes<br />
endoscopically<br />
band imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
HRE-NBI, respectively. Targeted (bl<strong>in</strong>ded??)<br />
<strong>in</strong>conspicuous high-grade<br />
biopsies had a sensitivity of 79 % <strong>with</strong> Bl<strong>in</strong>ded assessors<br />
dysplasia or early cancer<br />
HRE alone. HGD was diagnosed from<br />
(n = 28)<br />
random biopsies alone <strong>in</strong> only one<br />
patient. ICC and NBI detected a limited<br />
number of additional lesions occult to<br />
HRE, but these lesions did not alter the<br />
sensitivity for identify<strong>in</strong>g patients <strong>with</strong><br />
HGD/EC.<br />
Ragunath K [254] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett's Methylene blue-directed Analysis of the results by per-biopsy Cross-over design RCT High<br />
2003<br />
oesophagus segments 3 biopsies vs. random biopsy (4 protocol showed that the MBDB Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
cm or more <strong>in</strong> length random quadrant biopsies technique diagnosed significantly more<br />
<strong>with</strong>out macroscopic taken every 2 cm)<br />
specialized <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia (75 %)<br />
evidence of dysplasia or<br />
compared to the random biopsy<br />
cancer (n = 75)<br />
technique (68 %; P = 0.032). The<br />
sensitivity and specificity rates of MBDB<br />
for diagnos<strong>in</strong>g specialized <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
metaplasia were 91 % (95 % CI, 88 - 93<br />
%) and 43 % (95 % CI, 36 - 51 %),<br />
respectively. The sensitivity and<br />
specificity rates of MBDB for diagnos<strong>in</strong>g<br />
dysplasia or carc<strong>in</strong>oma were 49 % (95 %<br />
CI, 38 - 61 %) and 85 % (95 % CI, 82 -<br />
88 %), respectively. There were no<br />
significant differences <strong>in</strong> the diagnosis of<br />
dysplasia and carc<strong>in</strong>oma - MBDB 12 %,<br />
random biopsy 10 %. The methylene<br />
blue sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g pattern appeared to have<br />
an <strong>in</strong>fluence on the detection of<br />
specialized <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia and<br />
dysplasia/carc<strong>in</strong>oma. Dark blue sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
was associated <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased detection<br />
of specialized <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al metaplasia (P <<br />
0.0001), and heterogeneous sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g (P =<br />
0.137) or no sta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g (P = 0.005) were<br />
associated <strong>with</strong> dysplasia and/or<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma detection. The MBDB
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 95<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
technique prolonged the endoscopy<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>ation by an average of 6 m<strong>in</strong>.<br />
Stag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Pech O 2006 [255] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> suspected<br />
early cancer <strong>in</strong> Barrett’s<br />
oesophagus referred for<br />
endoscopic treatment (n<br />
= 100)<br />
Larghi A 2005 [256] NA Patients (n = 48) <strong>with</strong><br />
Barrett’s oesophagus and<br />
biopsy specimen proven<br />
high-grade dysplasia and<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> focal<br />
nodular lesions or <strong>in</strong><br />
endoscopically unapparent<br />
flat lesions <strong>in</strong> shortsegment<br />
Barrett’s<br />
oesophagus<br />
Waxman I 2006<br />
Treatment<br />
[257] NA 9 consecutive patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> Barrett’s oesophagus<br />
and high-grade dysplasia (n<br />
= 7) or <strong>in</strong>tra-mucosal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (n = 2)<br />
Overholt BF<br />
2005<br />
[83] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> Barrett’s<br />
oesophagus and highgrade<br />
dysplasia<br />
EUS<br />
Helical CT of chest and upper<br />
abdom<strong>in</strong>al organs<br />
Abdom<strong>in</strong>al US exam<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
Histology (n = 62)<br />
EUS<br />
Standard: surgical pathology<br />
result (n = 8) or EMR<br />
pathology result<br />
High-frequency (20 MHz)<br />
probe ultrasonography<br />
(HFPUS)<br />
Standard: histology<br />
Photodynamic therapy <strong>with</strong><br />
porfimer sodium +<br />
omeprazole (n = 138) vs.<br />
omeprazole only (n = 70)<br />
For stag<strong>in</strong>g of T1 tumours, the<br />
sensitivity of CT was 100%, but its<br />
specificity was 0%; PPV 89%, NPV 0%.<br />
Differentiation between T1 and>T1<br />
us<strong>in</strong>g EUS was possible <strong>in</strong> all 62 patients.<br />
Sensitivity of CT for N stag<strong>in</strong>g was not<br />
acceptable compared <strong>with</strong> EUS (38% vs.<br />
75%). No extranodal metastases were<br />
found on CT.<br />
Accurate stag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 41/48 patients (85%)<br />
Overstag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 1 pt, understag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 6<br />
pts<br />
Sensitivity 60%<br />
Specificity 75%<br />
Of the 3 true-positives: 1 overstaged<br />
and 1 understaged<br />
There was a significant difference<br />
(p=0.0001) <strong>in</strong> favour of PORPDT<br />
(106/138 [77%]) compared <strong>with</strong> OM<br />
(27/70 [39%]) <strong>in</strong> complete ablation of<br />
HGD at any time dur<strong>in</strong>g the study<br />
period. The occurrence of<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> the PORPDT group<br />
(13%) (n=18) was significantly lower<br />
(p=0.006) compared <strong>with</strong> the OM group<br />
(20%) (n=20). The safety profile showed<br />
94% of patients <strong>in</strong> the PORPDT group<br />
Histology not available <strong>in</strong><br />
all patients<br />
Prospective<br />
observational<br />
study<br />
S<strong>in</strong>gle-center study Prospective<br />
observational<br />
study<br />
Small sample size Prospective<br />
case series<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
randomization procedure<br />
Only partially bl<strong>in</strong>ded<br />
(pathology)<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Very low<br />
RCT Moderate
96 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
and 13% of patients <strong>in</strong> the OM group<br />
May A 2003 [258] NA 72 patients <strong>with</strong> early<br />
stage oesophageal cancer<br />
Endoscopic resection <strong>with</strong><br />
"suck-and-ligate" device<br />
<strong>with</strong>out prior submucosa<br />
<strong>in</strong>jection (n = 50) vs. cap<br />
technique <strong>with</strong> prior<br />
submucosa <strong>in</strong>jection of a dilute<br />
sal<strong>in</strong>e solution of ep<strong>in</strong>ephr<strong>in</strong>e<br />
(n = 50)<br />
had treatment-related adverse effects.<br />
No significant differences were observed<br />
between the two groups <strong>with</strong> regard to<br />
the maximum diameters and calculated<br />
area of the resected specimens (ligation<br />
group: 16.4 [4.0] x 11 [3.1] mm/185 [84]<br />
mm(2) vs. cap group: 15.5 [4.1] x 10.7<br />
[2.7] mm/168 [83] mm(2)), or the<br />
maximum diameters and calculated area<br />
of the endoscopic resection ulcers after<br />
24 hours (ligation group: 20.6 [4.8] x<br />
14.3 [4.5] mm/314 [160] mm(2) vs. cap<br />
group: 18.9 [5.1] x 12.9 [3.8] mm/260<br />
[145] mm(2)). There was only a slight<br />
advantage (greater diameter of resection<br />
specimens) for the ligation group <strong>in</strong><br />
patients who had prior endoscopic<br />
treatment. There was one m<strong>in</strong>or<br />
episode of bleed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> each group; there<br />
was no severe complication. In 41 of 72<br />
patients (57%), further endoscopic<br />
therapy after endoscopic resection was<br />
necessary because of residual neoplasia<br />
at the first follow-up endoscopy after<br />
resection (61 of 100 resection<br />
specimens [61%] had lateral marg<strong>in</strong>s that<br />
could not be evaluated because of<br />
coagulation artifact or conta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
malignancy but <strong>with</strong> the base of the<br />
lesion free of tumor).<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>ded randomization<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>ded evaluation?<br />
RCT Moderate
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 97<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
CCO [84] January<br />
2005<br />
Neoadjuvant treatment.<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
(In adult patients <strong>with</strong> resectable and potentially curable thoracic (lower two-thirds of oesophagus)<br />
oesophageal cancer) if surgery is considered appropriate, then surgery alone (i.e., <strong>with</strong>out neoadjuvant or<br />
adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice for resectable thoracic oesophageal cancer.<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients <strong>with</strong> operable oesophageal cancer, who are treated surgically, should be considered for two<br />
cycles of preoperative chemotherapy <strong>with</strong> cisplat<strong>in</strong> and 5-fluorouracil or offered entry <strong>in</strong>to a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 Patiënten met een potentieel resectabel oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom dienen alleen <strong>in</strong> onderzoeksverband<br />
voorafgaande aan een operatie chemotherapie te krijgen.<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
CCO [84] January<br />
2005<br />
(In adult patients <strong>with</strong> resectable and potentially curable thoracic (lower two-thirds of oesophagus)<br />
oesophageal cancer) if surgery is considered appropriate, then surgery alone (i.e., <strong>with</strong>out neoadjuvant or<br />
adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice for resectable thoracic oesophageal cancer.<br />
Numerous RCTs and SRs High<br />
Malthaner 2003 High<br />
Malthaner 2003 High<br />
Arnott SJ 2000<br />
Fok 1994<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Preoperative radiotherapy is not recommended for patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer. Arnott SJ 2000 High<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 De werkgroep raadt af om patiënten met een potentieel resectabel oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom voorafgaand aan<br />
de operatie te bestralen.<br />
Arnott SJ 2000 High<br />
Chemoradiotherapy<br />
CCO [84] January<br />
2005<br />
(In adult patients <strong>with</strong> resectable and potentially curable thoracic (lower two-thirds of oesophagus)<br />
oesophageal cancer) if surgery is considered appropriate, then surgery alone (i.e., <strong>with</strong>out neoadjuvant or<br />
adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice for resectable thoracic oesophageal cancer.<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer is not recommended outside<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials.<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 De werkgroep adviseert om patiënten met een potentieel resectabel oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom voorafgaand<br />
aan een operatie uitsluitend <strong>in</strong> onderzoeksverband chemoradiotherapie te geven.<br />
High<br />
Numerous RCTs and SRs High<br />
Urschel 2003 High<br />
Walsh TN 1996 (RCT)<br />
Urba SG 2001 (RCT)<br />
High
98 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Graham AH<br />
2007<br />
[88] October<br />
2004<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study<br />
type<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> locally<br />
advanced oesophageal<br />
cancer (T2-3N0M0 or T1-<br />
3N1M0)<br />
Gebski V 2007 [86] 2006 Patients <strong>with</strong> local<br />
operable oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
Malthaner RA<br />
2006<br />
[87] 2006 Patients <strong>with</strong> localized<br />
potentially resectable<br />
thoracic oesophageal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>omas<br />
Surgery vs.<br />
chemoradiotherapy followed<br />
by surgery vs. chemotherapy<br />
followed by surgery vs.<br />
surgery followed by<br />
chemoradiotherapy<br />
Neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy or<br />
neoadjuvant<br />
chemotherapy followed by<br />
surgery vs. surgery alone<br />
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy<br />
followed by surgery vs.<br />
surgery alone<br />
For the first year, the relative risk (95%<br />
confidence <strong>in</strong>terval) of death for treatments<br />
compared <strong>with</strong> surgery were 0.87 (0.75 to<br />
1.02) for chemoradiotherapy followed by<br />
surgery, 0.94 (0.82 to 1.08) for chemotherapy<br />
followed by surgery, and 1.33 (0.93 to 1.93)<br />
for surgery <strong>with</strong> adjuvant chemoradiotherapy.<br />
The QALYs ga<strong>in</strong>ed for surgery alone,<br />
chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery,<br />
chemotherapy followed by surgery, and<br />
surgery <strong>with</strong> adjuvant chemoradiotherapy<br />
strategies were 2.07, 2.18, 2.14, and 1.99,<br />
respectively. If the reduction <strong>in</strong> utility for<br />
multimodality treatment was <strong>in</strong>creased to 21%,<br />
the QALYs ga<strong>in</strong>ed for surgery alone,<br />
chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery,<br />
chemotherapy followed by surgery, and<br />
surgery <strong>with</strong> adjuvant chemoradiotherapy<br />
were 2.07, 2.03, 1.99, and 1.85, respectively.<br />
The hazard ratio for neoadjuvant<br />
chemotherapy was 0.90 (0.81-1.00; p=0.05),<br />
which <strong>in</strong>dicates a 2-year absolute survival<br />
benefit of 7%. There was no significant effect<br />
on all-cause mortality of chemotherapy for<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> SCC (hazard ratio 0.88 [0.75-<br />
1.03]; p=0.12), although there was a significant<br />
benefit for those <strong>with</strong> adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma (0.78<br />
[0.64-0.95]; p=0.014).<br />
There was some evidence to suggest that<br />
preoperative chemotherapy improves survival,<br />
but this was <strong>in</strong>conclusive (HR 0.88; 95% CI<br />
0.75 to 1.04).<br />
There was no evidence to suggest that the<br />
14 RCTs <strong>in</strong>cluded, of<br />
which 6 RCTs on<br />
neoadjuvant<br />
chemotherapy<br />
NO NEW EVIDENCE<br />
SINCE CCO<br />
GUIDELINE!<br />
Only <strong>in</strong>clusion of RCTs<br />
<strong>with</strong> ITT analysis<br />
No results of quality<br />
appraisal reported<br />
8 RCTs on neoadjuvant<br />
chemotherapy<br />
2 RCTs <strong>in</strong> addition to<br />
Graham et al. (Roth<br />
1998 and Schlag 1992)<br />
NO NEW EVIDENCE<br />
SINCE CCO<br />
GUIDELINE!<br />
11 RCTs <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
NO NEW EVIDENCE<br />
SINCE CCO<br />
GUIDELINE!<br />
SR High<br />
SR High<br />
Level of<br />
evidence<br />
SR High
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 99<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Cunn<strong>in</strong>gham D<br />
2006<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
Arnott SJ 2005 [85] June<br />
2006<br />
Chemoradiotherapy<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study Level of<br />
overall rate of resections (RR 0.96, 95% CI<br />
0.92 to 1.01) or the rate of complete<br />
resections (R0) (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.15)<br />
differ between the preoperative chemotherapy<br />
arm and surgery alone. There is no evidence<br />
that tumour recurrence (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54<br />
to 1.22) or non-fatal complication rates (RR<br />
0.90; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06) differ for<br />
preoperative chemotherapy compared to<br />
surgery alone. Trials reported risks of toxicity<br />
<strong>with</strong> chemotherapy that ranged from 11% to<br />
90%.<br />
type evidence<br />
[148] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> histologically Perioperative chemotherapy As compared <strong>with</strong> the surgery group, the Randomization RCT Moderate<br />
proven adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma and surgery (n = 250) vs. perioperative-chemotherapy group had a procedure?<br />
of the stomach or lower surgery alone (n = 253) higher likelihood of overall survival (HR for No <strong>in</strong>formation of<br />
third of the oesophagus<br />
death, 0.75; 95%CI 0.60 to 0.93; P=0.009; five- bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that was considered to be<br />
year survival rate, 36 percent vs. 23 percent)<br />
stage II (through the<br />
and of progression-free survival (HR for<br />
submucosa) or higher,<br />
progression, 0.66; 95%CI 0.53 to 0.81;<br />
<strong>with</strong> no evidence of<br />
P
Graham AH<br />
2007<br />
100 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
[88] October<br />
2004<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> locally<br />
advanced oesophageal<br />
cancer (T2-3N0M0 or T1-<br />
3N1M0)<br />
Gebski V 2007 [86] 2006 Patients <strong>with</strong> local<br />
operable oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
Geh JI 2006 [259] 2000 Patients <strong>with</strong> local<br />
operable oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
Hao D 2006 [109] January<br />
2005<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> local<br />
operable oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
Surgery vs.<br />
chemoradiotherapy followed<br />
by surgery vs. chemotherapy<br />
followed by surgery vs.<br />
surgery followed by<br />
chemoradiotherapy<br />
Neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy or<br />
neoadjuvant<br />
chemotherapy followed by<br />
surgery vs. surgery alone<br />
Neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy followed<br />
by surgery vs. surgery alone<br />
Plat<strong>in</strong>um-based neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy<br />
See above 14 RCTs <strong>in</strong>cluded, of<br />
which 6 RCTs on<br />
neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy<br />
NO NEW EVIDENCE<br />
SINCE CCO<br />
The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality <strong>with</strong><br />
neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus<br />
surgery alone was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.93;<br />
p=0.002), correspond<strong>in</strong>g to a 13% absolute<br />
difference <strong>in</strong> survival at 2 years, <strong>with</strong> similar<br />
results for different histological tumour types:<br />
0.84 (0.71-0.99; p=0.04) for squamous-cell<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (SCC), and 0.75 (0.59-0.95; p=0.02)<br />
for adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma.<br />
The probability of pCR improved <strong>with</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g dose of radiotherapy (P=0.006), 5FU<br />
(P=0.003) and cisplat<strong>in</strong> (P=0.018). Increas<strong>in</strong>g<br />
radiotherapy treatment time (P=0.035) and<br />
<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g median age (P=0.019) reduced the<br />
probability of pCR. The estimated alpha/beta<br />
ratio of oesophageal cancer was 4.9 Gy (95%<br />
confidence <strong>in</strong>terval (CI) 1.5-17 Gy) and the<br />
estimated radiotherapy dose lost per day was<br />
0.59 Gy (95% CI 0.18-0.99 Gy). One gram per<br />
square metre of 5FU was estimated to be<br />
equivalent to 1.9 Gy (95% CI 0.8-5.2 Gy) of<br />
radiation and 100mg/m2 of cisplat<strong>in</strong> was<br />
estimated to be equivalent to 7.2 Gy (95% CI<br />
2.1-28 Gy). Mitomyc<strong>in</strong> C dose did not appear<br />
to <strong>in</strong>fluence pCR rates (P=0.60).<br />
The addition of surgery to CT/RT appeared to<br />
improve local tumour control but not overall<br />
survival <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced<br />
oesophageal SCC<br />
GUIDELINE!<br />
Only <strong>in</strong>clusion of RCTs<br />
<strong>with</strong> ITT analysis<br />
No results of quality<br />
appraisal reported<br />
10 RCTs on neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy<br />
3 RCTs <strong>in</strong> addition to<br />
Graham et al. (Tepper<br />
2006, Burmeister 2005,<br />
Lee 2004)<br />
Tepper 2006 also not<br />
<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> CCO<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>e, but published<br />
as an abstract<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e and meet<strong>in</strong>g<br />
abstracts<br />
Quality appraisal??<br />
26 RCTs + non-RCTs<br />
Same search as for CCO<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
SR High<br />
SR High<br />
SR Moderate<br />
SR High
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 101<br />
Greer SE 2005 [260] January<br />
2003<br />
Patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
surgery for oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
Natsugoe S 2006 [89] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> local<br />
operable squamous cell<br />
oesophageal cancer<br />
Burmeister BH<br />
2005<br />
[261] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> histologically<br />
confirmed <strong>in</strong>vasive<br />
cancer of the thoracic<br />
oesophagus<br />
Restag<strong>in</strong>g after neoadjuvant treatment.<br />
Neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy followed<br />
by surgery vs. surgery alone<br />
Neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy (40 Gy,<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> + 5FU) (n = 22) vs.<br />
surgery alone (n = 23)<br />
Neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy (35 Gy,<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> + 5FU) (n = 128) vs.<br />
surgery alone (n = 128)<br />
Small, non-statistically significant trend toward<br />
improved long-term survival <strong>in</strong> the NCRT<br />
followed by surgery group (relative risk of<br />
death <strong>in</strong> the NCRT group 0.86; 95%CI 0.74 to<br />
1.01; P = .07).<br />
Surgical treatment was performed <strong>in</strong> 20<br />
patients <strong>in</strong> the CRT group except for two<br />
patients <strong>with</strong> bone metastasis after CRT.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to histological effects of primary<br />
tumors, the number of patient <strong>with</strong> Grades 1,<br />
2 and 3 was 11, 7 and 3, respectively.<br />
Frequency of lymphatic and venous <strong>in</strong>vasion<br />
was significantly lower <strong>in</strong> the CRT group than<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Surgery group. The 5-year survival rate<br />
was 57% <strong>in</strong> the CRT group and 41% <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Surgery group (P = 0.58). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the<br />
histological effect <strong>in</strong> the CRT group, 5-year<br />
survival was 30% for Grade 1, 83% for Grade 2<br />
and 100% for Grade 3 (P = 0.0069).<br />
Neither progression-free survival nor overall<br />
survival differed between groups (HR 0.82<br />
[95%CI 0.61-1.10] and 0.89 [0.67-1.19],<br />
respectively). The chemoradiotherapy-andsurgery<br />
group had more complete resections<br />
<strong>with</strong> clear marg<strong>in</strong>s than did the surgery-alone<br />
group (103 of 128 [80%] vs 76 of 128 [59%],<br />
p=0.0002), and had fewer positive lymph<br />
nodes (44 of 103 [43%] vs 69 of 103 [67%],<br />
p=0.003).<br />
6 RCTs (same as<br />
Graham 2007)<br />
Quality appraisal??<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Included <strong>in</strong> CCO<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>e as an abstract<br />
No bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of patients<br />
and cl<strong>in</strong>icians<br />
SR Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
FNCLCC [66] La place de la TEP-FDG dans l’évaluation de la réponse au traitement reste à déterm<strong>in</strong>er par des études<br />
prospectives.<br />
Flamen 2002 Low<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced disease hav<strong>in</strong>g chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy should have their<br />
response assessed for an impact on the potential to operate ; follow<strong>in</strong>g a good response the patient<br />
should be restaged and the role restaged and the role of surgery re-evaluated by the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary<br />
team.<br />
Ross P 1996 Low
102 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Duong CP 2006 [262] NA 53 patients <strong>with</strong><br />
FDG-PET<br />
High PET impact (change <strong>in</strong> treatment <strong>in</strong>tent or Standard not Prospective Very low<br />
oesophageal cancer Histology (n = 22) or serial imag<strong>in</strong>g modality) was observed <strong>in</strong><br />
the same for study<br />
referred for PET and cl<strong>in</strong>ical follow up (n = 26) 19 patients (36%). When PET f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs could be all patients<br />
evaluation of tumour<br />
verified, they were confirmed to be correct <strong>in</strong> 79%<br />
response to CRT<br />
(38 of 48 cases).<br />
Cerfolio RJ 2005 [91] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> suspected or Chest, abdomen, pelvis CT The accuracy of each test for dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g pathologic<br />
Prospective Low<br />
biopsy-proved<br />
EUS-FNA<br />
T4 from T1 to T3 disease is 76%, 80%, and 80% for<br />
study<br />
oesophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma FDG-PET/CT<br />
CT scan, EUS-FNA and FDG-PET/CT, respectively.<br />
treated <strong>with</strong> neoadjuvant 41 patients underwent surgery The accuracy for nodal disease was 78%, 78%, and<br />
chemotherapy (n = 48)<br />
93% for CT scan, EUS-FNA and FDG-PET/CT,<br />
respectively (p=0.04). FDGPET/<br />
CT correctly identified M1b disease <strong>in</strong> 4 patients,<br />
falsely suggested it <strong>in</strong> 4 patients, and missed it <strong>in</strong> 2<br />
patients, whereas for CT, it was 3, 3, and 3 patients.<br />
Fifteen (31%) patients were complete responders, and<br />
FDG-PET/CT accurately predicted complete response<br />
<strong>in</strong> 89% compared <strong>with</strong> 67% for EUS-FNA (p=0.045)<br />
and 71% for CT (p=0.05).<br />
Song SY 2005 [74] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> locally FDG-PET<br />
Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV),<br />
Prospective Low<br />
advanced but resectable Histology<br />
and negative predictive value (NPV) <strong>in</strong> the primary<br />
study<br />
oesophageal cancer<br />
tumours of the preoperative FDG-PET were 27%,<br />
treated <strong>with</strong> neoadjuvant<br />
95%, 75%, and 71%, respectively. In regional lymph<br />
chemoradiotherapy (n =<br />
nodes, these values were 16%, 98%, 36%, and 93%,<br />
32)<br />
respectively.<br />
Br<strong>in</strong>k I 2004 [263] NA 20 patients <strong>with</strong><br />
FDG-PET<br />
Not enough <strong>in</strong>formation to calculate accuracy Prospective Very low<br />
oesophageal cancer CT<br />
study<br />
treated <strong>with</strong> neoadjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy<br />
Histology<br />
Nakahara T [264] NA 28 patients <strong>with</strong> squamous Tl-201 SPECT<br />
Although thallium-201 SPECT cannot be used to<br />
Prospective Low<br />
2003<br />
oesophageal cancer Barium exam<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
evaluate the therapeutic effect <strong>with</strong> acceptable<br />
study<br />
CT<br />
accuracy, SPECT may be of additional value to barium<br />
Ga-67 SPECT<br />
swallow and CT <strong>in</strong> assess<strong>in</strong>g the response of AESCC<br />
All studies before and after<br />
preoperative chemoradiotherapy<br />
All patients underwent<br />
oesophagectomy (bl<strong>in</strong>ded<br />
pathologist)<br />
to preoperative chemoradiotherapy.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 103<br />
Surgical treatment.<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Oesophageal resectional surgery should be carried out <strong>in</strong> high volume specialist surgical units by frequent van Lanschot JJ 2001 Low<br />
operators.<br />
Bachmann MO 2002<br />
Surgery for oesophageal cancer should be aimed at achiev<strong>in</strong>g an R0 resection. Hulscher JB 2002 High<br />
Follow<strong>in</strong>g oesopagectomy, the route of reconstruction and potential use of pyloric dra<strong>in</strong>age procedure Urschel JD 2001a High<br />
should be determ<strong>in</strong>ed by the surgeon based on their <strong>in</strong>dividual experience.<br />
Urschel JD 2001b<br />
Urschel JD 2002<br />
Walther B 2003<br />
Two-field lymphadenectomy should be considered dur<strong>in</strong>g oesophagectomy to improve stag<strong>in</strong>g and local<br />
disease control.<br />
Dresner SM 2000 Low<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>e extension of lymphadenectomy <strong>in</strong>to the superior mediast<strong>in</strong>um or neck should not be carried out. Nishihira T 1998 High<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 Totdat vergelijkende data tussen chirurgie en andere behandel<strong>in</strong>gsmodaliteiten of data van grote series<br />
van een andere modaliteit dan chirurgie beschikbaar zijn, kan chirurgische resectie als de<br />
standaardbehandel<strong>in</strong>g voor het <strong>in</strong> opzet curatief resectabele oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom worden beschouwd.<br />
Hulscher JB 2001 High<br />
Bij grote tumoren zonder metastasen moet worden gestreefd naar een radicale resectie van het<br />
Hulscher JB 2002<br />
High<br />
oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom. Een palliatieve resectie is <strong>in</strong> het algemeen gecontra<strong>in</strong>diceerd.<br />
van Lanschot JJ 2001<br />
- Tumoren van de proximale oesofagus (gelegen boven de car<strong>in</strong>a) kunnen uitsluitend via een<br />
thoracotomie worden gereseceerd.<br />
Sagar PM 1993<br />
- Voor type-I-tumoren, die gelegen zijn distaal van de car<strong>in</strong>a, heeft een radicale transthoracale<br />
benader<strong>in</strong>g de voorkeur, mits hiermee voldoende ervar<strong>in</strong>g bestaat en de algemene conditie van<br />
de patiënt dit toelaat.<br />
- Gastro-oesofageale type-II-tumoren worden bij voorkeur transhiataal verwijderd.<br />
- Voor een proximaal maagcarc<strong>in</strong>oom type III dat m<strong>in</strong>der dan 1 cm de distale oesofagus <strong>in</strong>groeit,<br />
kan een totale maagresectie worden verricht.<br />
Na subtotale en macroscopisch radicale oesofagusresectie gevolgd door reconstructie met een buismaag Urschel JD 2001<br />
High<br />
en cervicale anastomose heeft positioner<strong>in</strong>g van de buismaag <strong>in</strong> het achterste mediast<strong>in</strong>um de voorkeur. In van Lanschot JJ 1994<br />
geval van macroscopische irradicaliteit heeft reconstructie via het voorste mediast<strong>in</strong>um de voorkeur.<br />
Voor tumoren van de cardia of van de cardio-oesofageale overgang is transhiatale resectie met<br />
Hulscher JB 2002<br />
High<br />
medenemen van de peri-oesofageale en -cardiale klieren voldoende. Bij carc<strong>in</strong>omen van de distale Nishihira T 1998<br />
oesofagus bestaat een lichte voorkeur voor een gecomb<strong>in</strong>eerde abdom<strong>in</strong>ale en transthoracale resectie Matsubara T 1998<br />
met tweevelds-lymfklierdissectie van de abdom<strong>in</strong>ale en thoracale lymfklierstations.<br />
Oesofagustumoren boven car<strong>in</strong>aniveau worden door middel van een gecomb<strong>in</strong>eerde abdom<strong>in</strong>ale en<br />
transthoracale benader<strong>in</strong>g gereseceerd.<br />
Altorki N 2002<br />
Na subtotale oesofagus- (en cardia)resectie heeft de maag als <strong>in</strong>terponaat de voorkeur. Het colon is Urschel JD 2001<br />
High/low<br />
tweede keuze. Slechts <strong>in</strong> uitzonder<strong>in</strong>gsgevallen kan eventueel van het jejunum gebruik worden gemaakt.<br />
Het is op grond van literatuurgegevens niet mogelijk een keuze te maken tussen een totale maag of een<br />
buismaag als <strong>in</strong>terponaat. Om oncologische redenen kan bij een cardia- of distale oesofagustumor slechts<br />
een buismaag worden gebruikt.<br />
Collard JM 1995
104 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Er is geen duidelijke voorkeur uit te spreken voor een cervicale of thoracale anastomose na<br />
Hulscher JB 2001<br />
High<br />
oesofagusresectie en buismaagreconstructie.<br />
Chasseray VM 1989<br />
- Bij de meeste patiënten is de cervicale anastomose de meest aangewezen procedure. Met name Ribet M 1992<br />
is dit het geval bij patiënten bij wie de chirurg, <strong>in</strong> geval van een tumor onder het car<strong>in</strong>aniveau, Goldm<strong>in</strong>c M 1993<br />
kiest voor een transhiatale resectie en halsexploratie voor het verrichten van de<br />
oesofagusresectie. Er is dan geen reden om tot thoracotomie over te gaan voor het leggen van<br />
een <strong>in</strong>trathoracale anastomose. Wanneer de chirurg bij dit soort tumoren de voorkeur geeft<br />
aan een thoracotomie voor de dissectiefase, kan de anastomose <strong>in</strong>trathoracaal worden<br />
aangelegd en kan de halsfase achterwege worden gelaten.<br />
Chu KM 1997<br />
- Wanneer bij tumoren boven het car<strong>in</strong>aniveau wordt gekozen voor een thoracotomie, is het om<br />
oncologische redenen ter verkrijg<strong>in</strong>g van voldoende proximale marge verstandig ook <strong>in</strong> dat geval<br />
voor een subtotale oesofagusresectie met cervicale anastomose te kiezen.<br />
Zowel handgelegde als mechanische (gestapelde) anastomosen kunnen worden verricht na subtotale Urschel JD 2001<br />
High<br />
oesofagectomie, maag<strong>in</strong>terponaat en oesofagogastrische anastomose.<br />
Craig SR 1996<br />
Valverde A 1996<br />
Law S 1997<br />
Bij een handgelegde oesofagogastrische anastomose na een subtotale oesofagusresectie met<br />
Bard<strong>in</strong>i R 1994a<br />
High<br />
buismaagreconstructie verdient een enkelrijige doorlopende hechttechniek de voorkeur.<br />
Zieren HU 1993<br />
Bard<strong>in</strong>i R 1994b<br />
Muller JM 1990<br />
Na oesofagusresectie gevolgd door buismaag<strong>in</strong>terponaat en oesofagogastrische anastomose is een<br />
pyloroplastiek niet geïndiceerd.<br />
Zieren HU 1995 High<br />
CCO [84] January If surgery is considered appropriate, then surgery alone (i.e., <strong>with</strong>out neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is<br />
2005 recommended as the standard practice for resectable thoracic oesophageal cancer.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 105<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Graham AH [88] October Patients <strong>with</strong> locally Surgery vs.<br />
For the first year, the relative risk (95% 14 RCTs <strong>in</strong>cluded SR High<br />
2007<br />
2004 advanced oesophageal chemoradiotherapy followed confidence <strong>in</strong>terval) of death for The 1 RCT on adjuvant<br />
cancer (T2-3N0M0 or T1- by surgery vs. chemotherapy treatments compared <strong>with</strong> surgery were CRT vs. surgery alone<br />
3N1M0)<br />
followed by surgery vs. 0.87 (0.75 to 1.02) for<br />
<strong>in</strong>cluded patients <strong>with</strong><br />
surgery followed by<br />
chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, gastric cancer or cancer<br />
chemoradiotherapy<br />
0.94 (0.82 to 1.08) for chemotherapy<br />
followed by surgery, and 1.33 (0.93 to<br />
1.93) for surgery <strong>with</strong> adjuvant<br />
chemoradiotherapy. The QALYs ga<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
for surgery alone, chemoradiotherapy<br />
followed by surgery, chemotherapy<br />
followed by surgery, and surgery <strong>with</strong><br />
adjuvant chemoradiotherapy strategies<br />
were 2.07, 2.18, 2.14, and 1.99,<br />
respectively. If the reduction <strong>in</strong> utility<br />
for multimodality treatment was<br />
<strong>in</strong>creased to 21%, the QALYs ga<strong>in</strong>ed for<br />
surgery alone, chemoradiotherapy<br />
followed by surgery, chemotherapy<br />
followed by surgery, and surgery <strong>with</strong><br />
adjuvant chemoradiotherapy were 2.07,<br />
2.03, 1.99, and 1.85, respectively.<br />
of the GEJ<br />
Bedenne L 2007 [93] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> operable Arm A: Surgery (n = 129) Two-year survival rate: 34% <strong>in</strong> arm A Two types of<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
Bonneta<strong>in</strong> F<br />
T3N0-1M0 thoracic Arm B: Cont<strong>in</strong>uation of versus 40% <strong>in</strong> arm B (HR for arm B vs. radiotherapy<br />
2006<br />
oesophageal cancer, and chemoradiation (three cycles arm A = 0.90; adjusted P = .44). Not clear if bl<strong>in</strong>ded<br />
<strong>with</strong> response to of FU/cisplat<strong>in</strong> and either Median survival time: 17.7 months <strong>in</strong> randomization<br />
chemoradiation (two conventional [20 Gy] or split- arm A, 19.3 months <strong>in</strong> arm B.<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
cycles of FU/cisplat<strong>in</strong> and course [15 Gy] radiotherapy) Two-year local control rate: 66.4% <strong>in</strong> bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of patients,<br />
either conventional (46 (n = 130)<br />
arm A, 57.0% <strong>in</strong> arm B<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>icians and assessors<br />
Gy <strong>in</strong> 4.5 weeks) or split- vs.<br />
Stents were less required <strong>in</strong> the surgery<br />
course (15 Gy, days 1 to 5<br />
arm (5% <strong>in</strong> arm A vs. 32% <strong>in</strong> arm B; P <<br />
and 22 to 26) concomitant<br />
.001).<br />
radiotherapy) and no<br />
3-month mortality rate: 9.3% <strong>in</strong> arm A,<br />
contra<strong>in</strong>dication to either<br />
0.8% <strong>in</strong> arm B (P = .002).<br />
treatment (n = 444, of<br />
Cumulative hospital stay: 68 days <strong>in</strong> arm<br />
which 259 were randomly<br />
assigned)<br />
A, 52 days <strong>in</strong> arm B (P = .02).
106 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Stahl M 2005 [265] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> locally Induction chemotherapy Overall survival was equivalent between Unbl<strong>in</strong>ded study RCT Moderate<br />
advanced squamous cell followed by<br />
the two treatment groups (log-rank test<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the chemoradiotherapy (40 Gy) for equivalence, P < .05). Local<br />
oesophagus<br />
followed by surgery (n = 86), progression-free survival was better <strong>in</strong><br />
or the same <strong>in</strong>duction the surgery group (2-year progression-<br />
chemotherapy followed by free survival, 64.3%; 95%CI 52.1% to<br />
chemoradiotherapy (at least 76.5%) than <strong>in</strong> the chemoradiotherapy<br />
65 Gy) <strong>with</strong>out surgery (n = group (2-year progression-free survival,<br />
86).<br />
40.7%; 95%CI 28.9% to 52.5%; hazard<br />
ratio [HR] for arm B v arm A, 2.1; 95%<br />
CI, 1.3 to 3.5; P = .003). Treatmentrelated<br />
mortality was significantly<br />
<strong>in</strong>creased <strong>in</strong> the surgery group than <strong>in</strong><br />
the chemoradiotherapy group (12.8% v<br />
3.5%, respectively; P = .03).<br />
Chiu PWY 2005 [94] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> potentially Oesophagectomy (n = 44) vs. No difference <strong>in</strong> the early cumulative No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
(CURE)<br />
resectable squamous cell chemoradiotherapy<br />
survival (RR = 0.89; 95%CI 0.37-2.17; randomization procedure<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the mid or (cont<strong>in</strong>uous 5-FU (200 log-rank test P = 0.45).<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
lower thoracic<br />
mg/m2/day) from day 1 to 42 No difference <strong>in</strong> the disease-free bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of patients,<br />
oesophagus<br />
and cisplat<strong>in</strong> (60 mg/m2) on<br />
days 1 and 22; tumour and<br />
regional lymphatics were<br />
concomitantly irradiated to a<br />
total of 50-60 Gy) (n = 36)<br />
survival.<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>icians and assessors<br />
Bhat MA 2006 [266] NA 238 patients treated for Oesophagogastrectomy <strong>with</strong> Anastomotic leaks occurred <strong>in</strong> 3 group No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
oesophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma wrapp<strong>in</strong>g of the pedicled A patients (3.09%) and <strong>in</strong> 14 (14.43%) bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of assessors<br />
(44 excluded because omentum around the group B patients. The difference <strong>in</strong> the<br />
<strong>in</strong>operable)<br />
esophagogastric anastomosis <strong>in</strong>cidence of leakage was statistically<br />
(n = 97) vs.<br />
significant (p = 0.005). There was no<br />
oesophagogastrectomy complication related to the omental<br />
<strong>with</strong>out us<strong>in</strong>g the omental graft technique nor was there a<br />
graft (n = 97)<br />
significant difference <strong>in</strong> the mortality<br />
between the two groups.<br />
Hsu HH 2004 [267] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> curatively Hand-sewn (n = 32) or The mean operat<strong>in</strong>g time was longer Randomization<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
resectable squamous cell circular stapled (n = 31) when the hand-sewn method was used procedure??<br />
cancer of the thoracic cervical oesophagogastric (524 vs. 447 m<strong>in</strong>, P < 0.001).<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g??<br />
oesophagus (T1-3 N0-1) anastomosis<br />
Anastomotic leakage was noted <strong>in</strong> seven<br />
patients (22%) <strong>in</strong> the hand-sewn group<br />
and eight patients (26%) <strong>in</strong> the stapler<br />
group (P = NS). Hospital mortality
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 107<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Walther B 2003 [268] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> benign or<br />
malignant oesophageal<br />
disease for which a tube<br />
gastroplasty <strong>with</strong><br />
anastomotic site <strong>in</strong> the<br />
proximal chest or <strong>in</strong> the<br />
neck was deemed suitable<br />
(n = 83, of which 74 had<br />
malignant disease)<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
occurred <strong>in</strong> four patients (13%) of the<br />
hand-sewn group and <strong>in</strong> three patients<br />
(10%) of the stapler group (P = NS).<br />
After the operation, four patients (14%)<br />
<strong>in</strong> the hand-sewn group and five patients<br />
(18%) <strong>in</strong> the stapler group developed a<br />
benign oesophageal stricture (P = NS).<br />
The mean follow-up time was 24<br />
months, and the rates of freedom from<br />
benign stricture and survival were<br />
Manually sutured<br />
oesophagogastric anastomosis<br />
<strong>in</strong> the neck or an anastomosis<br />
stapled <strong>in</strong> the right chest<br />
comparable <strong>in</strong> each group.<br />
The genu<strong>in</strong>e 5-year survival rate was<br />
29% for chest anastomoses and 30% for<br />
neck anastomoses. The overall leakage<br />
rate was 1.8% (2 cases of 112) <strong>with</strong> no<br />
relation to mortality or anastomotic<br />
method. All patients <strong>in</strong> the randomized<br />
group had tumor-free proximal and<br />
distal resection l<strong>in</strong>es, but 1 patient <strong>in</strong> the<br />
nonrandomized group had tumor<br />
<strong>in</strong>filtrates <strong>in</strong> the proximal resection<br />
marg<strong>in</strong>. At 3, 6, and 12 months after<br />
operation, there was no difference <strong>in</strong><br />
anastomotic diameter between the<br />
esophagogastric anastomosis <strong>in</strong> the neck<br />
and <strong>in</strong> the thorax (P = 0.771), and both<br />
<strong>in</strong>creased <strong>with</strong> time (P = 0.004, ANOVA<br />
repeated measures). Body weight<br />
development was the same <strong>in</strong> the two<br />
groups. With similar results <strong>in</strong><br />
randomized and nonrandomized<br />
patients, study bias was elim<strong>in</strong>ated.<br />
Randomization <strong>with</strong><br />
sealed envelopes<br />
Also 29 non-randomized<br />
patients <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong><br />
results<br />
RCT Moderate
108 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Adjuvant treatment.<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer. Lehnert T 1999 High<br />
CBO [56] July Patiënten met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom komen niet <strong>in</strong> aanmerk<strong>in</strong>g voor postoperatieve chemotherapie. Ando N 1997<br />
High<br />
2003<br />
Pouliquen X 1996<br />
CCO [84] January If surgery is considered appropriate, then surgery alone (i.e., <strong>with</strong>out neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is Ando N 1997<br />
High<br />
2005 recommended as the standard practice for resectable thoracic oesophageal cancer.<br />
Pouliquen X 1996<br />
Ando N 2003<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 No recommendation, only discussion<br />
CBO [56] July<br />
2003<br />
CCO [84] January<br />
2005<br />
Chemoradiotherapy<br />
Patiënten met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom komen niet <strong>in</strong> aanmerk<strong>in</strong>g voor postoperatieve radiotherapie. Fok M 1993<br />
Teniere P 1991<br />
Zieren HU 1995<br />
If surgery is considered appropriate, then surgery alone (i.e., <strong>with</strong>out neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is<br />
recommended as the standard practice for resectable thoracic oesophageal cancer.<br />
Xiao ZF 2003<br />
Fok M 1993<br />
Fok M 1994<br />
Teniere P 1991<br />
Zieren HU 1995<br />
Xiao ZF 2003<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is not recommended for patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer. No evidence<br />
CCO [84] January If surgery is considered appropriate, then surgery alone (i.e., <strong>with</strong>out neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is No evidence<br />
2005 recommended as the standard practice for resectable thoracic oesophageal cancer.<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of evidence<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Ajani J 2006 [269] October<br />
2005<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Chemoradiotherapy<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Patients oesophageal<br />
cancer<br />
Oral capecitab<strong>in</strong>e 4 trials identified that <strong>in</strong>cluded patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer<br />
No conclusions to be drawn<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e search only<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
selection, quality<br />
appraisal, etc<br />
High<br />
High<br />
SR Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 109<br />
Non-surgical treatment <strong>with</strong> curative <strong>in</strong>tent.<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Chemoradiotherapy should be considered <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> esophageal cancer who have locally Wong R '03<br />
High<br />
advanced disease, those unfit for surgery or those who decl<strong>in</strong>e surgery.<br />
Cooper JS '99<br />
CCO [108] February (In adult patients <strong>with</strong> localized (T1-3, small volume N1, M0) carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the esophagus and good Wong R ‘06 High<br />
2005 performance status who are consider<strong>in</strong>g a non-surgical approach and for whom comb<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
radiotherapy and chemotherapy can be tolerated <strong>in</strong> the judgment of the treat<strong>in</strong>g oncologist)<br />
concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is recommended over radiotherapy alone. Based on<br />
considerations of the current cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice pattern and the currently available research evidence, a<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong>-based chemotherapy regimen is a reasonable chemotherapy regimen to use when<br />
concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is used.<br />
Patients should be made aware of the <strong>in</strong>creased acute toxicity associated <strong>with</strong> this approach. The<br />
decision to use concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy should only be made after careful<br />
consideration of the potential risks, benefits, and the patient’s general condition.<br />
Wong R ‘06 High<br />
Sequential radiotherapy and chemotherapy is not recommended as standard practice. Wong R ‘06 High<br />
Future cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials to better def<strong>in</strong>e the optimal chemoradiotherapy comb<strong>in</strong>ation that would improve<br />
outcomes while limit<strong>in</strong>g toxicities are strongly encouraged.<br />
Wong R ‘06 High<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 De werkgroep adviseert om patiënten met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom die niet voor een resectie <strong>in</strong> Wong R '03<br />
High<br />
aanmerk<strong>in</strong>g komen, <strong>in</strong>dien hun conditie dit toelaat, te behandelen met concomitante<br />
chemoradiotherapie, zo mogelijk <strong>in</strong> onderzoeksverband.<br />
Cooper JS '99
110 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Bedenne L 2007 [93] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> operable Arm B: Cont<strong>in</strong>uation of Two-year survival rate: 34% <strong>in</strong> arm A Two types of<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
T3N0-1M0 thoracic chemoradiation (three cycles versus 40% <strong>in</strong> arm B (HR for arm B vs. radiotherapy<br />
oesophageal cancer, and of FU/cisplat<strong>in</strong> and either arm A = 0.90; adjusted P = .44). Not clear of bl<strong>in</strong>ded<br />
<strong>with</strong> response to conventional [20 Gy] or split- Median survival time: 17.7 months <strong>in</strong> randomization<br />
chemoradiation (two course [15 Gy] radiotherapy) arm A, 19.3 months <strong>in</strong> arm B.<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
cycles of FU/cisplat<strong>in</strong> and (n = 130)<br />
Two-year local control rate: 66.4% <strong>in</strong> bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of patients,<br />
either conventional (46 vs.<br />
arm A, 57.0% <strong>in</strong> arm B<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>icians and assessors<br />
Gy <strong>in</strong> 4.5 weeks) or split- Arm A: surgery (n = 129) Stents were less required <strong>in</strong> the surgery<br />
course (15 Gy, days 1 to 5<br />
arm (5% <strong>in</strong> arm A vs. 32% <strong>in</strong> arm B; P <<br />
and 22 to 26) concomitant<br />
.001).<br />
radiotherapy) and no<br />
3-month mortality rate: 9.3% <strong>in</strong> arm A,<br />
contra<strong>in</strong>dication to either<br />
0.8% <strong>in</strong> arm B (P = .002).<br />
treatment (n = 444, of<br />
Cumulative hospital stay: 68 days <strong>in</strong> arm<br />
which 259 were randomly<br />
assigned)<br />
A, 52 days <strong>in</strong> arm B (P = .02).<br />
Hao D 2006 [109] January Patients <strong>with</strong> local Plat<strong>in</strong>um-based<br />
To date, no randomized trials have Same search as for CCO SR High<br />
2005 operable oesophageal chemoradiotherapy<br />
directly compared CT/RT <strong>with</strong> guidel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
cancer<br />
oesophagectomy as primary<br />
locoregional treatment of oesophageal<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma.<br />
Chiu PW 2005 [94] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> potentially Oesophagectomy (n = 44) vs. No difference <strong>in</strong> the early cumulative No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
(CURE)<br />
resectable squamous cell chemoradiotherapy<br />
survival (RR = 0.89; 95%CI 0.37-2.17; randomization procedure<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the mid or (cont<strong>in</strong>uous 5-FU (200 log-rank test P = 0.45).<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
lower thoracic<br />
mg/m2/day) from day 1 to 42 No difference <strong>in</strong> the disease-free bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of patients,<br />
oesophagus<br />
and cisplat<strong>in</strong> (60 mg/m2) on<br />
days 1 and 22; tumour and<br />
regional lymphatics were<br />
concomitantly irradiated to a<br />
total of 50-60 Gy) <strong>with</strong> salvage<br />
surgery (n = 36)<br />
survival.<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>icians and assessors<br />
Zhao KL 2005 [110] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> confirmed LCAF-RT (n = 57) vs. LCAF- Median survival: 23.9 months (95%CI No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
SCC of the oesophagus RT + chemotherapy (four 20.1-27.7) for the LCAF arm and 30.8 bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of patients,<br />
<strong>with</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical stage T1-4, cycles of cisplat<strong>in</strong> 25 mg/m(2) months (95%CI 17.6-44.1) for the cl<strong>in</strong>icians and assessors<br />
N0-1, M0 (n = 111) daily and fluorouracil (5-FU) LCAF+CT arm.<br />
600 mg/m(2) daily on Days 1-3 Survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years of the<br />
every 4 weeks start<strong>in</strong>g on the LCAF arm were 77%, 39%, and 28%,<br />
same day that LCAF was respectively, while those of the<br />
delivered) (n = 54)<br />
LCAF+CT arm were 67%, 44%, and
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 111<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Sumpter K 2005 [270] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>operable,<br />
histologically verified<br />
locally advanced or<br />
metastatic<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma,<br />
squamous cell or<br />
undifferentiated<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the<br />
oespohagus,<br />
oesophagogastric junction<br />
(OGJ) or stomach<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
40%, respectively (p = 0.310).<br />
Grades 3 and 4 acute toxicities<br />
occurred <strong>in</strong> 46% and 25% of the patients<br />
<strong>in</strong> the LCAF arm and the LCAF+CT<br />
arm, respectively; 6% of the patients <strong>in</strong><br />
the comb<strong>in</strong>ed arm had Grade 5 acute<br />
toxicities, whereas none was noted <strong>in</strong><br />
ECF (n = 53)<br />
ECX (n = 48)<br />
EOF (n = 55)<br />
EOX (n = 48)<br />
(E = epirubuc<strong>in</strong>, C = cisplat<strong>in</strong>,<br />
F = 5FU, O = oxaliplat<strong>in</strong>, X =<br />
capecitab<strong>in</strong>)<br />
the LCAF alone arm.<br />
First <strong>in</strong>terim analysis was performed<br />
when 80 pts had been randomised.<br />
Doselimit<strong>in</strong>g fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e toxicities<br />
were stomatitis, palmar plantar<br />
erythema (PPE) and diarrhoea; 5.1% of<br />
X-treated pts experienced grade 3/4<br />
toxicity. Protocol planned dose<br />
escalation of X to 625 mg/m² b.i.d. was<br />
<strong>in</strong>stituted and a second <strong>in</strong>terim analysis<br />
has been performed. A total of 204 pts<br />
were randomised at the time of the<br />
protocol planned 2nd <strong>in</strong>terim analysis.<br />
Grade 3/4 fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e-related<br />
toxicity was seen <strong>in</strong> 13.7% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
F, 8.4% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g X 500 mg/m² b.i.d.<br />
and 14.7% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g X 625 mg/m²<br />
b.i.d. Comb<strong>in</strong>ed complete and partial<br />
response rates were ECF 31% (95% CI<br />
18.7–46.3), EOF 39% (95% CI 25.9–<br />
53.1), ECX 35% (95% CI 21.4–50.3),<br />
EOX 48% (95% CI 33.3–62.8). Grade<br />
3/4 fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e toxicity affected<br />
14.7% of pts treated <strong>with</strong> X 625 mg/m²<br />
b.i.d., which is similar to that observed<br />
<strong>with</strong> F, confirm<strong>in</strong>g this to be the optimal<br />
dose. The replacement of C by O and F<br />
by X does not appear to impair efficacy.<br />
The trial cont<strong>in</strong>ues to total accrual of<br />
1000 pts.<br />
Interim analysis<br />
6 orig<strong>in</strong>ally randomized<br />
pts not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> results<br />
Non<strong>in</strong>feriority study<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of randomization<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of patients,<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>icians and assessors<br />
RCT Moderate
112 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
CPG<br />
ID<br />
General<br />
Palliative treatment.<br />
Ref Search<br />
date<br />
CBO [56] July<br />
2003<br />
Endoscopic ablation<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Afhankelijk van de patiëntkarakteristieken en de tumoruitbreid<strong>in</strong>g zal bij patiënten met een T4oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom<br />
bij voorkeur worden gekozen voor een korte palliatieve behandel<strong>in</strong>g of een<br />
behandel<strong>in</strong>g gericht op palliatie op de langere termijn, zoals (chemo)radiotherapie. Patiënten met een<br />
fistel komen, afhankelijk van de plaats en de grootte van de fistel, <strong>in</strong> aanmerk<strong>in</strong>g voor stentplaats<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Laser or photodynamic therapy should be used for <strong>in</strong>itial control of obstructive symptoms caused by<br />
exophytic tumours <strong>in</strong> the oesophagus <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g tumours near the upper oesophageal sph<strong>in</strong>cter.<br />
Stent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Laser or photodynamic therapy should be considered for control of tumour overgrowth <strong>in</strong> stented<br />
patients.<br />
CBO [56] July Indien de levensverwacht<strong>in</strong>g korter is dan zes weken, kan allereerst stentplaats<strong>in</strong>g worden overwogen,<br />
2003 gezien het snelle effect op de verbeter<strong>in</strong>g van passageklachten.<br />
Bij patiënten met een fistel tussen de oesofagus en de luchtwegen, patiënten met een <strong>in</strong>operabel<br />
oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom nabij de bovenste oesofagussf<strong>in</strong>cter en patiënten met een recidief na eerdere<br />
oesofagusresectie <strong>in</strong> verband met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom heeft stentplaats<strong>in</strong>g de voorkeur.<br />
Het verdient aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g om, na stentplaats<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> verband met passageklachten ten gevolge van een<br />
<strong>in</strong>operabel oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom, rustig te eten, goed te kauwen en veel te dr<strong>in</strong>ken om verstopp<strong>in</strong>g van<br />
de stent te voorkomen. Bij verstopp<strong>in</strong>g van de stent kan deze snel worden gere<strong>in</strong>igd door middel van<br />
een endoscopie.<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Partially covered self-expand<strong>in</strong>g metal stents are the <strong>in</strong>tubation of choice for patients <strong>with</strong> obstructive<br />
oesophageal symptoms.<br />
Dilatation<br />
Partially covered self-expand<strong>in</strong>g metal stents should be used to control obstructive oesophageal<br />
symptoms either follow<strong>in</strong>g or <strong>in</strong>stead of laser therapy, depend<strong>in</strong>g on the availability of local expertise.<br />
Allum WH 2002<br />
O’Donnell CA 2002<br />
Dallal HJ 2001<br />
Lightdale CJ 1995<br />
Carazzone A 1999<br />
Heier SK 1995<br />
Moghissi K 2000<br />
Litle VR 2003<br />
Homs MY 2004<br />
May A 1998<br />
Dumonceau JM 1999<br />
Siersema PD 2001<br />
Homs MY 2004a<br />
Sabharwal T 2003<br />
Vakil N 2001<br />
Bethge N 1996<br />
Homs MY 2004b<br />
Low<br />
High<br />
Low<br />
High<br />
Moderate<br />
Moderate<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 The use of oesophageal dilatation alone should be avoided. Allum WH 2002 Very low<br />
Surgery<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Oesophagectomy (transthoracic or transhiatal) should not be performed <strong>with</strong> palliative <strong>in</strong>tent <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer.<br />
Blazeby JM 2000 Low<br />
Substernal bypass for oesophageal cancer should not be performed <strong>with</strong> palliative <strong>in</strong>tent. Whooley BP 2002<br />
Alcantara PS 1997<br />
Low<br />
Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 113<br />
CPG Ref Search<br />
ID<br />
date<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
CBO [56] July<br />
2003<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Chemotherapie is geen standaardbehandel<strong>in</strong>g voor het irresectabele of gemetastaseerde<br />
oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom.<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 In patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced or metastatic cancer of the oesophagus <strong>with</strong> good performance status<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ation chemotherapy <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g cisplat<strong>in</strong> and <strong>in</strong>fusional 5FU (such as ECF or MCF) should be<br />
considered.<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
CBO [56] July<br />
2003<br />
Bij oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oompatiënten met een matige algemene conditie en/of met metastasen op afstand<br />
bestaat een voorkeur voor brachytherapie, eventueel gevolgd door een stentplaats<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dien<br />
brachytherapie onvoldoende effect heeft.<br />
Bij <strong>in</strong>operabele patiënten met een levensverwacht<strong>in</strong>g langer dan drie maanden kan uitwendige<br />
radiotherapie <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>atie met brachytherapie worden overwogen.<br />
Schmid EU 1993<br />
Moderate<br />
Levard H 1998<br />
Mannell A 1986<br />
Webb A 1997<br />
Ross P 2002<br />
Bleiberg H 1997<br />
Janunger KG 2002 High<br />
Homs MY 2004 High<br />
Flores AD 1989<br />
Low<br />
Hishikawa Y 1991<br />
Taal BG 1996<br />
Allum WH 2002 Very low<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Palliative external-beam radiotherapy is an appropriate option for the treatment of mild dysphagia <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer.<br />
Endolum<strong>in</strong>al brachytherapy is an option for patients <strong>with</strong> dysphagia from oesophageal cancer. Brewster AE 1995<br />
Homs MYV 2003<br />
Supportive care<br />
CBO [56] July<br />
2003<br />
De werkgroep is van men<strong>in</strong>g dat de verpleegkundige zorg voor patiënten met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom<br />
het beste door een verpleegkundige met specifieke kennis en ervar<strong>in</strong>g kan worden verricht.<br />
Dieetmaatregelen bij patiënten met een <strong>in</strong>operabel oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom kunnen het beste zijn gericht<br />
op het welbev<strong>in</strong>den van de patiënt, dat wil zeggen dat de kwaliteit van leven belangrijker is dan de<br />
effecten van voed<strong>in</strong>g op lange termijn.<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer should have access to a specialist palliative care team. Smeenk FW 1998<br />
Micc<strong>in</strong>esi G 2003<br />
Costant<strong>in</strong>i M 2003<br />
Costant<strong>in</strong>i M 1993<br />
Low<br />
Doornik N 2000 Very low<br />
Low
114 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Endoscopic ablation<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Stent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Wenger U 2006 [271] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>curable<br />
cancer of the distal<br />
oesophagus or gastric<br />
cardia (n = 41)<br />
Wenger U 2005<br />
Bergquist H<br />
2005<br />
[112] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>curable<br />
cancer of the oesophagus<br />
or gastro-oesophageal<br />
junction<br />
Antireflux stent (n = 19) vs.<br />
standard stent (n = 22)<br />
Self-expandable metallic stent<br />
(n = 30) or 3 x 7 Gy<br />
brachytherapy (n = 30)<br />
Fewer patients <strong>with</strong> complications were<br />
observed <strong>in</strong> the antireflux stent group (n<br />
= 3) than <strong>in</strong> the standard group (n = 8),<br />
but no statistically significant difference<br />
was shown (p = 0.14). The survival rates<br />
were similar <strong>in</strong> the two groups (p =<br />
0.99; hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence<br />
<strong>in</strong>terval, 0.5-2.0). The groups did not<br />
differ significantly <strong>in</strong> terms of studied<br />
oesophageal or respiratory symptoms<br />
or quality of life. Cl<strong>in</strong>ically relevant<br />
improvement <strong>in</strong> dysphagia occurred <strong>in</strong><br />
both groups. Dyspnea decreased after<br />
antireflux stent <strong>in</strong>sertion (mean score<br />
change, -11), and <strong>in</strong>creased after<br />
<strong>in</strong>sertion of standard stent (mean score<br />
change, +21).<br />
The group of patients treated <strong>with</strong> stent<br />
reported significantly better HRQL<br />
scores for dysphagia (P < 0.05) at the 1month<br />
follow-up, but most other HRQL<br />
scores, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g function<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
symptom scales, deteriorated.<br />
There was no difference <strong>in</strong> survival or<br />
complication rates between the two<br />
treatment strategies. There was a<br />
significant difference <strong>in</strong> the change of<br />
dysphagia scores between the time of<br />
<strong>in</strong>clusion and the 1-month follow-up<br />
visit, <strong>in</strong> favour of the stented group (P =<br />
0.03). This difference had disappeared at<br />
3 months.<br />
Median total lifetime costs were 17,690<br />
for the stented group compared <strong>with</strong><br />
Interim report<br />
Central randomization,<br />
but no <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
procedure<br />
Patients were bl<strong>in</strong>ded, but<br />
no <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of cl<strong>in</strong>icians<br />
Orig<strong>in</strong>ally 65 randomized,<br />
but 5 <strong>with</strong>drew consent<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT<br />
Cost study<br />
Moderate
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 115<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
33,171 for the brachytherapy group (P =<br />
0.005). This difference was due to higher<br />
costs for the <strong>in</strong>itial treatment (4,615<br />
versus 23,857, P < 0.0001). Sensitivity<br />
analyses showed that the charges for a<br />
brachytherapy session had to be<br />
reduced from 6,092 to 4,222 (31%) to<br />
make this therapeutic concept cost-<br />
Shim CS 2005 [272] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> cancer at the<br />
oesophagogastric junction<br />
(n = 36)<br />
Shenf<strong>in</strong>e J 2005 [273] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal<br />
cancer deemed unsuitable<br />
for surgery (n = 217)<br />
Newly designed antireflux<br />
stent (n = 12), a Dostent (n =<br />
12), or a standard open stent<br />
(n = 12)<br />
SEMS 18 mm (n = 54)<br />
SEMS 24 mm (n = 54)<br />
Rigid <strong>in</strong>tubation (n = 57)<br />
All other non-SEMS<br />
treatments (n = 52)<br />
competitive.<br />
After 1 week, dysphagia had improved <strong>in</strong><br />
all patient groups (P < 0.05), but the<br />
degree of improvement did not differ<br />
between the three groups. The<br />
DeMeester score was significantly lower<br />
<strong>in</strong> the group <strong>with</strong> the newly designed<br />
antireflux stent than <strong>in</strong> the other groups.<br />
The fraction of the total record<strong>in</strong>g time<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g which oesophageal pH was below<br />
4 was 3.14 +/- 5.78 % us<strong>in</strong>g the newly<br />
designed antireflux stent, <strong>in</strong> comparison<br />
<strong>with</strong> 29.25 +/- 15.41 % <strong>in</strong> the Dostent<br />
group and 15.01 +/- 11.72 % <strong>in</strong> the<br />
standard open stent group (P < 0.001).<br />
Fewer reflux episodes occurred <strong>with</strong> the<br />
newly designed antireflux stent than<br />
<strong>with</strong> the Dostent or standard open<br />
stent. There were no complications <strong>with</strong><br />
any of the three stents.<br />
There was no difference <strong>in</strong> cost or<br />
effectiveness between SEMS and non-<br />
SEMS therapies, and 18-mm SEMS had<br />
equal effectiveness to, but less<br />
associated pa<strong>in</strong> than, 24-mm SEMS. Rigid<br />
<strong>in</strong>tubation was associated <strong>with</strong> a worse<br />
quality of swallow<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>creased late<br />
morbidity. Bipolar electrocoagulation<br />
and ethanol tumour necrosis were poor<br />
<strong>in</strong> primary palliation. A survival<br />
advantage was found for non-stent<br />
therapies, but there was a significant<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
randomization procedure<br />
or bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Secondary randomization<br />
possible after treatment<br />
failure follow<strong>in</strong>g non-<br />
SEMS treatment<br />
Correct randomization<br />
protocol<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT<br />
Cost study<br />
High
116 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
delay to treatment. The length of stay<br />
accounts for the majority of the cost to<br />
the NHS. Patients were found to have<br />
Pol<strong>in</strong>der S 2004<br />
(SIREC trial)<br />
Dilatation<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Surgery<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Homs MY 2006 [114] February<br />
2006<br />
[113] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>operable<br />
oesophagogastric cancer<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> metastatic<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the<br />
oesophagus or GEjunction<br />
Siewert type I<br />
Ultraflex stent (n=108) or<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle-dose brachytherapy (12<br />
Gy, n=101)<br />
RCTs compar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
chemotherapy <strong>with</strong> best<br />
supportive care for patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> metastatic carc<strong>in</strong>oma of<br />
the oesophagus and GEjunction,<br />
as well as RCTs<br />
compar<strong>in</strong>g different<br />
chemotherapeutic therapies.<br />
Treatments <strong>with</strong> s<strong>in</strong>gle<br />
chemotherapeutic agents as<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>ct <strong>in</strong>dividual treatment preferences.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>itial costs of stent placement were<br />
higher than the costs of brachytherapy<br />
(1500 euro vs 570 euro; P0.20). Total hospital stay<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g follow-up was 11.5 days after<br />
stent placement vs 12.4 days after<br />
brachytherapy, which was responsible<br />
for the high <strong>in</strong>tramural costs <strong>in</strong> both<br />
treatment groups (stent 6512 euro vs<br />
brachytherapy 7982 euro, P>0.20).<br />
Costs for medical procedures dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
follow-up were higher after stent<br />
placement (stent 249 euro vs<br />
brachytherapy 168 euro, P=0.002), while<br />
the costs of extramural care were<br />
similar (1278 euro vs 1046 euro,<br />
P>0.20).<br />
Only two RCTs <strong>with</strong> a total of 42<br />
participants compared chemotherapy<br />
<strong>with</strong> best supportive care for metastatic<br />
oesophageal cancer. No survival benefit<br />
was shown for chemotherapy treatment<br />
<strong>in</strong> these RCTs. Five RCTs <strong>with</strong> a total of<br />
1242 participants compared different<br />
chemotherapy regimes. Due to variation<br />
<strong>in</strong> patient population and chemotherapy<br />
regimes, it was not possible to perform<br />
See also Homs MY 2004,<br />
Lancet<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
RCT<br />
Cost study<br />
Moderate<br />
7 RCTs <strong>in</strong>cluded SR High
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 117<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
well as comb<strong>in</strong>ation regimes <strong>in</strong> a formal pooled analysis. There was no<br />
all doses and schedules were consistent benefit of any specific<br />
<strong>in</strong>cluded. Studies <strong>in</strong> which<br />
patients received additional<br />
treatment for dysphagia such<br />
as stent placement or<br />
brachytherapy were not<br />
excluded.<br />
chemotherapy regimen.<br />
Ajani J 2006 [269] October Patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal Oral capecitab<strong>in</strong>e 4 trials identified that <strong>in</strong>cluded patients Medl<strong>in</strong>e search only SR Low<br />
2005 cancer<br />
<strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
selection, quality<br />
appraisal, etc<br />
Trumper M [274] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> gastro- Plat<strong>in</strong>um-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g regimen There were no significant differences <strong>in</strong> Pooled analysis of 3 RCTs MA Low<br />
2006<br />
oesophageal cancer, older (ECF, MCF), PVI 5-FU the <strong>in</strong>cidence of grades 3/4 toxicity (retrospective<br />
than 70 years (n = 257) (protracted venous <strong>in</strong>fusion of between the two cohorts. Objective and subanalysis): which trials??<br />
5-fluorouracil) ± mitomyc<strong>in</strong> C symptomatic response rates, failure-free<br />
(MMC), or FAMTX<br />
and overall survival were not<br />
significantly different. In a multivariate<br />
analysis, <strong>in</strong>dependent prognostic factors<br />
for survival were performance status<br />
and locally advanced disease, not age.<br />
Patients >70 years <strong>with</strong> OGC obta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
similar benefits from palliative<br />
chemotherapy <strong>with</strong> respect to<br />
symptomatic response, tumour<br />
regression and survival, <strong>with</strong>out<br />
<strong>in</strong>creased toxicities.<br />
Duffour J 2006 [275] NA 232 patients <strong>with</strong> Cisplat<strong>in</strong> <strong>with</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>uous 5FU All tumours:<br />
Mixed patient population RCT Moderate<br />
histologically proven (n = 19) vs. bolus 5FU and Safety rema<strong>in</strong>ed acceptable and Bl<strong>in</strong>ded assessors?<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the Leucovor<strong>in</strong> (n = 19)<br />
comparable <strong>in</strong> the two arms except for<br />
oesophagus (n = 38),<br />
the severe grade 3-4 mucositis, which<br />
stomach or pancreas, and<br />
was lower <strong>in</strong> arm B (4.5 vs. 16.4%, p <<br />
metastatic disease<br />
0.009). Efficacy <strong>in</strong> terms of tumour<br />
response and survival was similar <strong>in</strong> the<br />
two arms, show<strong>in</strong>g an objective<br />
response rate (after external review) of<br />
18.6% (95% confidence <strong>in</strong>terval (CI)<br />
11.4-25.8%) <strong>in</strong> arm A vs. 15% (95% CI<br />
8.5-21.6%) <strong>in</strong> arm B, an overall median<br />
survival of 24 weeks <strong>in</strong> arm A vs. 24.7 <strong>in</strong>
118 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
arm B (p = 0.83) and a progression-free<br />
median survival of 12.4 weeks vs. 12.1 <strong>in</strong><br />
Sumpter K 2005 [270] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>operable,<br />
histologically verified<br />
locally advanced or<br />
metastatic<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma,<br />
squamous cell or<br />
undifferentiated carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
of the oespohagus,<br />
oesophagogastric junction<br />
(OGJ) or stomach<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
Wenger U 2005<br />
Bergquist H<br />
2005<br />
[112] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>curable<br />
cancer of the oesophagus<br />
or gastro-oesophageal<br />
junction<br />
ECF (n = 53)<br />
ECX (n = 48)<br />
EOF (n = 55)<br />
EOX (n = 48)<br />
(E = epirubuc<strong>in</strong>, C = cisplat<strong>in</strong>,<br />
F = 5FU, O = oxaliplat<strong>in</strong>, X =<br />
capecitab<strong>in</strong>)<br />
Self-expandable metallic stent<br />
(n = 30) or 3 x 7 Gy<br />
brachytherapy (n = 30)<br />
arms A and B, respectively (p = 0.91).<br />
First <strong>in</strong>terim analysis was performed<br />
when 80 pts had been randomised.<br />
Doselimit<strong>in</strong>g fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e toxicities<br />
were stomatitis, palmar plantar<br />
erythema (PPE) and diarrhoea; 5.1% of<br />
X-treated pts experienced grade 3/4<br />
toxicity. Protocol planned dose<br />
escalation of X to 625 mg/m² b.i.d. was<br />
<strong>in</strong>stituted and a second <strong>in</strong>terim analysis<br />
has been performed. A total of 204 pts<br />
were randomised at the time of the<br />
protocol planned 2nd <strong>in</strong>terim analysis.<br />
Grade 3/4 fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e-related<br />
toxicity was seen <strong>in</strong> 13.7% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
F, 8.4% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g X 500 mg/m² b.i.d.<br />
and 14.7% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g X 625 mg/m²<br />
b.i.d. Comb<strong>in</strong>ed complete and partial<br />
response rates were ECF 31% (95% CI<br />
18.7–46.3), EOF 39% (95% CI 25.9–<br />
53.1), ECX 35% (95% CI 21.4–50.3),<br />
EOX 48% (95% CI 33.3–62.8). Grade<br />
3/4 fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e toxicity affected<br />
14.7% of pts treated <strong>with</strong> X 625<br />
mgm 2 b.i.d. 1, which is similar to<br />
that observed <strong>with</strong> F, confirm<strong>in</strong>g this to<br />
be the optimal dose. The replacement of<br />
C by O and F by X does not appear to<br />
impair efficacy. The trial cont<strong>in</strong>ues to<br />
total accrual of 1000 pts.<br />
The group of patients treated <strong>with</strong> stent<br />
reported significantly better HRQL<br />
scores for dysphagia (P < 0.05) at the 1month<br />
follow-up, but most other HRQL<br />
scores, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g function<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
symptom scales, deteriorated.<br />
Interim analysis<br />
6 orig<strong>in</strong>ally randomized<br />
pts not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> results<br />
Non<strong>in</strong>feriority study<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of randomization<br />
Orig<strong>in</strong>ally 65 randomized,<br />
but 5 <strong>with</strong>drew consent<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT<br />
Cost study<br />
Moderate
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 119<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
There was no difference <strong>in</strong> survival or<br />
complication rates between the two<br />
treatment strategies. There was a<br />
significant difference <strong>in</strong> the change of<br />
dysphagia scores between the time of<br />
<strong>in</strong>clusion and the 1-month follow-up<br />
visit, <strong>in</strong> favour of the stented group (P =<br />
0.03). This difference had disappeared at<br />
3 months. Median total lifetime costs<br />
were 17,690 for the stented group<br />
compared <strong>with</strong> 33 171 for the<br />
brachytherapy group (P = 0.005). This<br />
difference was due to higher costs for<br />
the <strong>in</strong>itial treatment (4615 versus 23<br />
857, P < 0.0001). Sensitivity analyses<br />
showed that the charges for a<br />
brachytherapy session had to be<br />
reduced from 6092 to 4222 (31%) to<br />
make this therapeutic concept cost-<br />
Pol<strong>in</strong>der S 2004<br />
(SIREC trial)<br />
[113] NA Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>operable<br />
oesophagogastric cancer<br />
Ultraflex stent (n=108) or<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle-dose brachytherapy (12<br />
Gy, n=101)<br />
competitive.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>itial costs of stent placement were<br />
higher than the costs of brachytherapy<br />
(1500 euro vs 570 euro; P0.20). Total hospital stay<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g follow-up was 11.5 days after<br />
stent placement vs 12.4 days after<br />
brachytherapy, which was responsible<br />
for the high <strong>in</strong>tramural costs <strong>in</strong> both<br />
treatment groups (stent 6512 euro vs<br />
brachytherapy 7982 euro, P>0.20).<br />
Costs for medical procedures dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
follow-up were higher after stent<br />
placement (stent 249 euro vs<br />
brachytherapy 168 euro, P=0.002), while<br />
the costs of extramural care were<br />
similar (1278 euro vs 1046 euro,<br />
P>0.20).<br />
See also Homs MY 2004,<br />
Lancet<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
RCT<br />
Cost study<br />
Moderate
120 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Follow up.<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 In het eerste jaar kan bij patiënten na behandel<strong>in</strong>g van een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom worden gekozen voor Virgo KS 1999<br />
Very low<br />
frequente follow-up<strong>in</strong>tervals (drie en eventueel zes weken en daarna driemaandelijks), waarna <strong>in</strong> de Goodnight J 1996<br />
daarop volgende jaren deze frequentie teruggaat naar elke zes maanden <strong>in</strong> het tweede jaar en daarna Johnson FE 1997<br />
jaarlijks. Na vijf jaar is er geen <strong>in</strong>dicatie meer voor rout<strong>in</strong>ematige follow-up. Er is slechts plaats voor<br />
aanvullend<br />
onderzoek op geleide van klachten.<br />
Marsh JC 1997<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Follow up of patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal cancer should monitor symptoms, signs and nutritional status. Allum WH 2002 Very low<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Quality of life<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 The possibility of reduction <strong>in</strong> quality of life after surgery should be considered when discuss<strong>in</strong>g treatment<br />
options, particularly when preoperative stag<strong>in</strong>g suggests that surgery would be unlikely to be curative.<br />
Blazeby 2000 Low<br />
Study ID<br />
Early lesions<br />
Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Moraca R 2006 [276] 36 patients <strong>with</strong> highgrade<br />
dysplasia (HGD) or<br />
<strong>in</strong>tramucosal cancer (IMC)<br />
Surgery<br />
Cense HA 2006 [277] 109 patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
transthoracic resection<br />
Lagergren<br />
2007<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
[278] 90 patients who<br />
underwent surgery for<br />
oesophageal cancer.<br />
52% survivors >/=3 years.<br />
Esophagectomy 28 survivors, significant differences <strong>in</strong><br />
postesophagectomy gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
symptoms (decrease on heartburn and<br />
slower speed of eat<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
Esophagectomy For survivors, no difference <strong>in</strong> long-term<br />
(at 2 years) quality of life or survival<br />
between those submitted to the<br />
<strong>in</strong>tensive care unit for a short period vs.<br />
a long period.<br />
Esophagectomy Recovery except that scores for physical<br />
function, breathlessness, diarrhea, and<br />
reflux significantly worse than at basel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
(P < .01)<br />
Not specific scale :<br />
Medical Outcomes Study<br />
36-Item Short-Form<br />
Health Survey<br />
Scale : Medical Outcome<br />
Studies Short Form-20<br />
and the Rotterdam<br />
Symptom Check List<br />
It’s necessary to <strong>in</strong>form<br />
patients of the long-term<br />
consequences of surgery<br />
Prospective<br />
cohort study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 121<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Neoadjuvant treatment<br />
Blazeby 2005 [279] 34 patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
chemoradiotherapy +<br />
surgery<br />
28 patiens undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
chemotherapy + surgery<br />
34 patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
surgery alone<br />
Palliative treatment<br />
Homs 2004 [280] Patients <strong>with</strong> dysphagia<br />
from <strong>in</strong>operable<br />
oesophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
Psychological support<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Quality of life assessment <strong>with</strong><br />
QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES24<br />
(dysphagia scale from the<br />
EORTC)<br />
Ultraflex stent (n = 108) or<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle dose (12 Gy)<br />
brachytherapy (n = 101).<br />
After neoadjuvant treatment, but before<br />
surgery, HRQL returned to basel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
levels. Recovery of HRQL was not<br />
hampered by preoperative treatment,<br />
and fewer problems <strong>with</strong> postoperative<br />
nausea, emesis, and dysphagia were<br />
reported by patients who had<br />
undergone neoadjuvant treatment<br />
compared <strong>with</strong> patients who had<br />
undergone surgery alone.<br />
Significant difference <strong>in</strong> favour of<br />
brachytherapy on four out of five<br />
functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-<br />
C30 (role, emotional, cognitive and<br />
social) (P < 0.05).<br />
Major improvements were seen on the<br />
dysphagia and eat<strong>in</strong>g scales of the<br />
EORTC OES-23.<br />
Recovery of HRQL after<br />
esophagectomy was not<br />
impaired by neoadjuvant<br />
treatment<br />
The effects of s<strong>in</strong>gle dose<br />
brachytherapy on HRQoL<br />
compared favourably to<br />
those of stent placement<br />
for the palliation of<br />
oesophageal cancer.<br />
Inlcuded <strong>in</strong> SIGN<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Low<br />
RCT High<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Kuchler T [115] Patients (N = 271) <strong>with</strong> a Standard care as provided on Kaplan-Meier survival curves<br />
Not specifically for RCT Moderate<br />
prelim<strong>in</strong>ary diagnosis of the surgical wards vs. formal demonstrated better survival for the oesophageal cancer.<br />
cancer of the oesophagus psychotherapeutic support <strong>in</strong> experimental group than the control<br />
(n = 31), stomach, addition to rout<strong>in</strong>e care dur<strong>in</strong>g group. The unadjusted significance level<br />
liver/gallbladder, pancreas, the hospital stay<br />
for group differences was P = .0006 for<br />
or colon/rectum<br />
survival to 10 years. Cox regression<br />
models that took TNM stag<strong>in</strong>g or the<br />
residual tumor classification and tumor<br />
site <strong>in</strong>to account also found significant<br />
differences at 10 years. Secondary<br />
analyses found that differences <strong>in</strong> favor<br />
of the experimental group occurred <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> stomach, pancreatic,<br />
primary liver, or colorectal cancer.
122 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
CPG ID Ref Searc<br />
h<br />
Nutritional support<br />
date<br />
CBO [56] July<br />
2003<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Het verdient aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g gedurende de behandel<strong>in</strong>g met gecomb<strong>in</strong>eerde chemoradiotherapie bij een<br />
patiënt met oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom de voedsel<strong>in</strong>name te evalueren en zo nodig te starten met<br />
dieetmaatregelen.<br />
Het verdient aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g om reeds <strong>in</strong> een vroeg stadium bij patiënten met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom het<br />
lichaamsgewicht te controleren, de voedsel<strong>in</strong>name te evalueren en zo nodig te starten met<br />
voed<strong>in</strong>gs<strong>in</strong>terventie.<br />
Het verdient aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g bij electieve gastro-<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>ale chirurgie terughoudend te zijn met het stimuleren<br />
van orale dr<strong>in</strong>kvoed<strong>in</strong>g gezien het gebrek aan aangetoonde effectiviteit.<br />
Op grond van de beschikbare literatuur is er mogelijk plaats voor het gebruik van immunonutritie <strong>in</strong> de<br />
perioperatieve fase bij stabiele patiënten met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom.<br />
Bij ernstig zieke patiënten is terughoudendheid geboden met arg<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>erijke immunonutritie.<br />
In de postoperatieve fase kan men overwegen om gedurende metabole stress te streven naar een <strong>in</strong>name<br />
van 1,5-1,7 gram eiwitten per kilogram actueel lichaamsgewicht per dag en 25-30 kcal voor mannen en 20-<br />
25 kcal voor vrouwen per kilogram actueel lichaamsgewicht per dag. Hyperalimentatie dient te worden<br />
voorkomen, omdat dit samen kan gaan met metabole ontregel<strong>in</strong>gen.<br />
Het verdient aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> de postoperatieve fase langdurig het lichaamsgewicht, de voedsel<strong>in</strong>name en de<br />
aanwezigheid van aan voed<strong>in</strong>g gerelateerde klachten te evalueren. Bij gewichtsverlies, onvoldoende <strong>in</strong>name<br />
en bij klachten, kan door middel van dieetadviezen zo nodig met orale dr<strong>in</strong>kvoed<strong>in</strong>g dan wel (nachtelijke)<br />
enterale voed<strong>in</strong>g worden geprobeerd gewichtsverlies te voorkomen en de voed<strong>in</strong>gstoestand<br />
te verbeteren.<br />
Het verdient aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g na een oesofagusresectie gebruik te maken van enterale voed<strong>in</strong>g (sondevoed<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
wanneer orale voed<strong>in</strong>g onvoldoende mogelijk is.<br />
Het verdient aanbevel<strong>in</strong>g om <strong>in</strong> de perioperatieve fase bij patiënten met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom slechts<br />
gebruik te maken van parenterale voed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dien enterale voed<strong>in</strong>g niet mogelijk is.<br />
Dieetmaatregelen bij patiënten met een <strong>in</strong>operabel oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom kunnen het beste zijn gericht op<br />
het welbev<strong>in</strong>den van de patiënt, dat wil zeggen dat de kwaliteit van leven belangrijker is dan de effecten<br />
van voed<strong>in</strong>g op lange termijn.<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g surgery for oesophageal cancer who are identified as be<strong>in</strong>g at high nutritional risk<br />
should be considered for preoperative nutritional support.<br />
All patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g surgery for oesophageal cancer should be considered for early postoperative<br />
nutritional support preferably by the enteral route.<br />
Corticosteroids or megestrol acetate should be considered for patients <strong>with</strong> advanced oesophageal<br />
cancer who are anorexic.<br />
Jeremic B 1998<br />
Safran H 2001<br />
Sikora SS 1998<br />
Low<br />
Gianotti L 2002<br />
High<br />
Bozzetti F 2000<br />
Braga M 1999 & 2002<br />
Several RCTs High<br />
Observational studies Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 123<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Lobo DN 2006 [281] 120 patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g Jejunostomy feed<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> an Feed delivery, although less than targeted, was 12 excluded from RCT High<br />
resection for cancers of immune modulat<strong>in</strong>g diet similar <strong>in</strong> both groups. There were 6 (11%) analysis (3 protocol<br />
the pancreas, oesophagus (Group A, n = 60) or an deaths <strong>in</strong> each group. Median (IQR)<br />
violoations, 9<br />
and stomach<br />
isonitrogenous, isocaloric feed postoperative hospital stay was 14.5 (12-23) unresectable<br />
(Group B, n = 60) for 10-15 days <strong>in</strong> Group A and 17.5 (13-23) days <strong>in</strong> disease)<br />
days<br />
Group B (P=0.48). A total of 24 (44%) patients<br />
<strong>in</strong> each group had <strong>in</strong>fective complications<br />
(P=1.0). A total of 21 (39%) patients <strong>in</strong> Group<br />
A and 28 (52%) <strong>in</strong> Group B had non-<strong>in</strong>fective<br />
complications (P=0.18). Jejunostomy-related<br />
complications occurred <strong>in</strong> 26 (48%) patients <strong>in</strong><br />
Group A and 30 (56%) <strong>in</strong> Group B (P=0.3).<br />
Ryan AM 2006 [282] 205 consecutive patients Early enteral nutrition via a N<strong>in</strong>ety-two per cent of patients were<br />
Prospective Low<br />
who underwent<br />
needle catheter jejunostomy successfully fed exclusively by NCJ post-<br />
study<br />
oesophagectomy for<br />
oesophagectomy, and 94% of patients were<br />
malignancy<br />
tolerat<strong>in</strong>g a ma<strong>in</strong>tenance regimen of 2000 ml<br />
feed over 20 h by day 2 post-operatively.<br />
Patients spent a median of 15 days on<br />
jejunostomy feed<strong>in</strong>g post-surgery (range 2-112<br />
days); however, 26% required prolonged<br />
jejunostomy feed<strong>in</strong>g (>20 days). M<strong>in</strong>or<br />
gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al complications were effectively<br />
managed by slow<strong>in</strong>g the rate of <strong>in</strong>fusion, or<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>ister<strong>in</strong>g medication. Three (1.4%) serious<br />
complications of jejunostomy feed<strong>in</strong>g occurred,<br />
all requir<strong>in</strong>g re-laparotomy, one result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
death. NCJ feed<strong>in</strong>g was extremely effective <strong>in</strong><br />
prevent<strong>in</strong>g severe post-operative weight loss <strong>in</strong><br />
the majority of oesophagectomy patients postop.<br />
However, oral <strong>in</strong>take was generally poor at<br />
discharge <strong>with</strong> only 65% of requirements be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
met orally. Sixteen patients (8%) patients<br />
required home jejunostomy feed<strong>in</strong>g. By the<br />
first post-operative month, a further 6% (12)<br />
patients were recommenced on jejunostomy<br />
feed<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Gabor S 2005 [283] 44 consecutive patients Early enteral feed<strong>in</strong>g<br />
There was a significant difference <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Observationa Low<br />
(38 males and 6 females; compared <strong>with</strong> parenteral <strong>in</strong>terval until the first bowel movements. No<br />
l study<br />
mean age 62, range 30-82) nutrition<br />
difference <strong>in</strong> overall 30 d mortality was<br />
<strong>with</strong> oesophageal<br />
identified. A poor nutritional status was a
124 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search date Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma (stages I-III),<br />
significant prognostic factor for an <strong>in</strong>creased<br />
who had undergone<br />
mortality. Early enteral feed<strong>in</strong>g significantly<br />
radical resection and<br />
reduces the duration of ICU treatment and<br />
reconstruction.<br />
total hospital stay <strong>in</strong> patients who undergo<br />
Historical control of 44<br />
oesophagectomy or oesophagogastrectomy for<br />
patients<br />
oesophageal carc<strong>in</strong>oma. The mortality rate is<br />
not affected.<br />
Treatment of recurrent disease<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
CBO [56] July 2003 Bij patiënten met … een recidief na eerdere oesofagusresectie <strong>in</strong> verband met een oesofaguscarc<strong>in</strong>oom heeft<br />
stentplaats<strong>in</strong>g de voorkeur.<br />
Only observational studies were found, but no prospective trials.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 125<br />
APPENDIX 5<br />
EVIDENCE TABLES OF GASTRIC CANCER BY CLINICAL QUESTION<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Alarm symptoms<br />
Diagnosis of gastric cancer.<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients present<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> any of the follow<strong>in</strong>g alarm symptoms should be referred for early endoscopy:<br />
dysphagia, recurrent vomit<strong>in</strong>g, anorexia, weight loss, gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al blood loss.<br />
FNCLCC [129] January<br />
2002<br />
Oesophagogastroscopy<br />
Le bilan diagnostique repose sur la recherche des signes cl<strong>in</strong>iques d’appel (douleur abdom<strong>in</strong>ale,<br />
amaigrissement, dyspepsie), … (standard).<br />
Me<strong>in</strong>eche-Schmidt V 2002<br />
Numans ME 2001<br />
Wallace MB 2001<br />
Kapoor N 2005<br />
Potet 1993<br />
Faivre 1997<br />
Low<br />
Very low<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Flexible upper GI endoscopy is recommended as the diagnostic procedure of choice <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> Graham DY 1982 Low<br />
suspected gastric cancer.<br />
Abbas SZ 2004<br />
Rout<strong>in</strong>e use of chromoendoscopy dur<strong>in</strong>g upper GI endoscopy is not recommended, but may be of value<br />
<strong>in</strong> selected patients at high risk of gastric malignancy.<br />
Mitooka H 1995 Very low<br />
FNCLCC [129]<br />
Barium X-ray<br />
January<br />
2002<br />
Le bilan diagnostique repose sur … la gastroscopie … (standard). No evidence provided<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 No recommendation, only discussion<br />
Biopsy<br />
FNCLCC [129] January<br />
2002<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Alarm symptoms<br />
Bowrey DJ 2006 [49] NA Patients referred for<br />
open-access gastroscopy<br />
Le bilan diagnostique … doit être confirmé par des biopsies multiples. Ces biopsies (nombre m<strong>in</strong>imum 5<br />
à 8) doivent être réalisées sur toutes les anomalies du relief muqueux permettant un examen d’anatomie<br />
et cytologie pathologique (standard).<br />
No evidence provided<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Application of referral<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>es us<strong>in</strong>g alarm<br />
symptoms<br />
Gastroscopy identified oesophagogastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> 123 (3%) of the 4,018<br />
subjects. Of these 123 patients, 104<br />
(85%) <strong>with</strong> oesophagogastric cancer had<br />
‘‘alarm’’ symptoms (anemia, mass,<br />
dysphagia, weight loss, vomit<strong>in</strong>g) and<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Low
126 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Marmo R 2005 [233] NA Patients <strong>with</strong><br />
uncomplicated dyspepsia<br />
Oesophagogastroscopy<br />
Lam EC 2007 [284] Patients <strong>with</strong> thicken<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
the gastric wall on CT (n<br />
= 71)<br />
Barium X-ray<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Biopsy<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
would have satisfied the referral criteria.<br />
The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 15% would not have been<br />
referred for <strong>in</strong>itial endoscopic<br />
assessment because their symptoms<br />
were those of uncomplicated ‘‘benign’’<br />
dyspepsia.<br />
The patients <strong>with</strong> ‘‘alarm’’ symptoms<br />
had a significantly more advanced tumor<br />
stage (metastatic disease <strong>in</strong> 47% vs 11%;<br />
p < 0.001), were less likely to undergo<br />
surgical resection (50% vs 95%;<br />
p
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 127<br />
Stag<strong>in</strong>g of patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer.<br />
CPG ID<br />
CT scan<br />
Ref Search date Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 In patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer, CT scan of the chest and abdomen <strong>with</strong> IV contrast and gastric distention <strong>with</strong><br />
oral contrast or water should be performed rout<strong>in</strong>ely. The liver should be imaged <strong>in</strong> the portal venous phase.<br />
FNCLCC [129] January 2002 Le bilan d’extension doit <strong>in</strong>clure au m<strong>in</strong>imum un scanner abdom<strong>in</strong>opelvien et une radiographie du thorax<br />
(standard).<br />
Endoscopic ultrasonography<br />
Le scanner thoracique peut être proposé pour le bilan d’extension (option).<br />
FNCLCC [129] January 2002 Une écho-endoscopie peut être proposée pour aff<strong>in</strong>er le diagnostic en cas d’hypertrophie des plis gastriques<br />
sans histologie, et pour le diagnostic des tumeurs classées T4 et pour mieux apprécier l’envahissement pariétal<br />
et ganglionnaire si un traitement néoadjuvant est envisagé (option).<br />
Laparoscopy<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Laparoscopy should be considered <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> oesophageal tumours <strong>with</strong> a gastric component, and <strong>in</strong><br />
patients <strong>with</strong> gastric tumours be<strong>in</strong>g considered for surgery where full thickness gastric wall <strong>in</strong>volvement is<br />
suspected.<br />
FNCLCC [129] January 2002 Une laparoscopie peut être proposée pour améliorer l’établissement du stade préthérapeutique dans le cas où<br />
un risque d’extension péritonéale existe, notamment dans les tumeurs suspectées comme T3 et T4 (option).<br />
Magnetic resonance imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 MRI should be reserved for those patients who cannot undergo CT or used for additional <strong>in</strong>vestigation<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g CT/EUS.<br />
PET scan<br />
Kamel IR 2004 Low<br />
Lee 2001<br />
Delia 2000<br />
Mani 2001<br />
Dux 1999<br />
Davies 1997<br />
Kelly 2001<br />
Manc<strong>in</strong>o 2000<br />
Willis 2000<br />
Tseng 2000<br />
Matsumoto 2000<br />
Fujimara T 2002<br />
Clements DM 2004<br />
Molloy RG 1995<br />
Wilkiemeyer MB 2004<br />
Numerous<br />
observational studies<br />
Sohn KM 2000<br />
Wu LF 2003<br />
Kersjes 1997<br />
Lauenste<strong>in</strong> TC 2004<br />
Wong R 2000<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 PET is not rout<strong>in</strong>ely <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> the stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric cancers. Mochiki E 2004<br />
Yeung HW 1998<br />
FNCLCC [66] October L’impact de la TEP-FDG sur la prise en charge thérapeutique des patients atte<strong>in</strong>ts d’un cancer de l’estomac McAteer 1999<br />
2002 reste à déterm<strong>in</strong>er par des études prospectives (recommendation).<br />
Hoffmann 1999<br />
Couper 1998<br />
Depotter 2002<br />
K<strong>in</strong>kel 2002<br />
Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low
128 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID<br />
CT scan<br />
Ref Searc<br />
h date<br />
Kwee RM 2007 [130] August<br />
2006<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>with</strong>out<br />
neoadjuvant treatment<br />
Chen CY 2007 [131] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer (M0) (n = 69)<br />
Kikuchi S 2006 Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma (n = 74)<br />
Endoscopic ultrasonography<br />
Kwee RM 2007 [130] August<br />
2006<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>with</strong>out<br />
neoadjuvant treatment<br />
Ichikawa T 2007 [285] Patients <strong>with</strong> early gastric<br />
cancer scheduled for<br />
endoscopic submucosal<br />
dissection<br />
G<strong>in</strong>es A 2006 [286] Patients <strong>with</strong> large gastric<br />
folds at endoscopy and<br />
biopsies negative for<br />
malignancy (n = 61)<br />
MDCT<br />
Pathologic exam<strong>in</strong>ation after<br />
surgery as standard<br />
MDCT<br />
Pathologic exam<strong>in</strong>ation after<br />
surgery as standard (n = 55)<br />
MDCT<br />
Standard: histopathological<br />
diagnosis (n = 70); endoscopic<br />
biopsies and cl<strong>in</strong>ical results (n<br />
= 4)<br />
EUS<br />
Pathologic exam<strong>in</strong>ation after<br />
surgery as standard<br />
EUS, three different m<strong>in</strong>iature<br />
probes<br />
EUS<br />
Standard: histology or cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
follow-up of at least 2 years<br />
6 studies on MDCT identified<br />
Diagnostic accuracy of overall T stag<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
77% - 89%<br />
Sensitivity for assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement: 83% - 100%<br />
Specificity for assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement: 80% - 97%<br />
Overall accuracy of T stag<strong>in</strong>g: 89% (<strong>with</strong><br />
MPR images), or 49/55 correctly staged<br />
Overall accuracy of N stag<strong>in</strong>g: 78% (<strong>with</strong><br />
MPR images), or 43/55 correctly staged<br />
Tumor detected <strong>in</strong> only 47% of patients.<br />
Insufficient data to calculate diagnostic<br />
measures.<br />
23 studies on EUS identified<br />
Diagnostic accuracy of overall T stag<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
65% - 92%<br />
Sensitivity for assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement: 78% - 100%<br />
Specificity for assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement: 68% - 100%<br />
30-MHz probes most accurate of<br />
<strong>in</strong>vasion depth (92%)<br />
Enlargement of deep layers was only<br />
<strong>in</strong>dependent predictive factor for<br />
malignancy.<br />
<strong>English</strong> articles only<br />
Also retrospective studies<br />
<strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
Overall moderate quality<br />
of <strong>in</strong>cluded studies<br />
Standard not identical for<br />
all patients<br />
<strong>English</strong> articles only<br />
Also retrospective studies<br />
<strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
Overall moderate quality<br />
of <strong>in</strong>cluded studies<br />
Matthes K 2006 [287] TA-EUS vs. L-EUS Excluded: only 4 patients<br />
<strong>with</strong> gastric cancer<br />
SR Low<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Low<br />
SR Low<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
RCT<br />
Very low<br />
Low<br />
Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 129<br />
Study ID Ref Searc Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
h date<br />
evidence<br />
Chu KM 2004 [288] Patients <strong>with</strong><br />
EUS for detection of ascites Sensitivity 61%, specificity 99% Prospective Low<br />
Laparoscopy<br />
histopathologically<br />
confirmed<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the<br />
stomach<br />
Standard: stag<strong>in</strong>g laparoscopy<br />
study<br />
Mortensen MB 2006 [79] 411 patients <strong>with</strong> upper<br />
gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al tract<br />
cancer, of which 134 had<br />
biopsy-proven gastric<br />
cancer<br />
Deogracias ML 2006 [289] Patients operated on for<br />
gastric carc<strong>in</strong>oma (n = 41)<br />
Magnetic resonance imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Kwee RM 2007 [130] August<br />
2006<br />
PET scan<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Sent<strong>in</strong>el lymph node mapp<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>with</strong>out<br />
neoadjuvant treatment<br />
Comb<strong>in</strong>ed endoscopic<br />
ultrasonography (EUS) and<br />
laparoscopic ultrasonography<br />
(LUS)<br />
‘Standard’: treatment actually<br />
undertaken<br />
Stag<strong>in</strong>g laparoscopy<br />
Open gastrectomy <strong>in</strong> 33 cases<br />
MRI<br />
Pathologic exam<strong>in</strong>ation after<br />
surgery as standard<br />
The comb<strong>in</strong>ation of EUS and LUS<br />
correctly predicted R0 resection <strong>in</strong><br />
90.6%, R1–R2 <strong>in</strong> 91% and irresectability<br />
<strong>in</strong> 91.4% of patients. Ten patients (2.4%)<br />
had explorative laparotomy only. There<br />
were no complications associated <strong>with</strong><br />
the EUS and LUS procedures.<br />
No port-site metastases or port-site<br />
recurrence<br />
3 studies on MRI identified<br />
Diagnostic accuracy of overall T stag<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
71% - 83%<br />
Sensitivity for assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement: 90% - 93%<br />
Specificity for assess<strong>in</strong>g serosal<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement: 91% - 100%<br />
To avoid false-positive<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>with</strong> regard to<br />
local irresectability<br />
ultrasonographic criteria<br />
were adjusted so that<br />
only a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of<br />
several ultrasonographic<br />
criteria <strong>with</strong> a 100 per<br />
cent predictive value for<br />
local<br />
irresectability were used<br />
Standard is not identical<br />
for all patients<br />
Selection bias: study<br />
sample is taken from a<br />
prospective database of<br />
surgically treated patients<br />
<strong>English</strong> articles only<br />
Also retrospective studies<br />
<strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
Overall moderate quality<br />
of <strong>in</strong>cluded studies<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
SR Low<br />
Lee JH 2006 [136] Patients <strong>with</strong> cT1N0 Dye and isotope double Overall sensitivity 71%; pT1 subset: 88% Prospective Low<br />
gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma (T tracers to improve SLNB<br />
study<br />
< 5 cm) (n = 64) Histology as standard<br />
Mochiki E 2006 [138] Patients <strong>with</strong> cN0M0 SLN mapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> Tc-99m Overall sensitivity 83% and specificity Prospective Low<br />
Very low<br />
Very low
130 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Searc Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
h date<br />
evidence<br />
gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma (n colloidal rhenium sulphide 100%; pT1 subset 100% sensitivity study<br />
= 59)<br />
Histology as standard<br />
Gretschel S 2005 [135] Patients <strong>with</strong> stage I-IV SLN mapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> 99mTc- Difficult to <strong>in</strong>terpret Only 33 patients <strong>in</strong>cluded Prospective Very low<br />
gastric cancer<br />
colloid (n = 15) or dye (n =<br />
19)<br />
Maruyama computer model<br />
Histology as standard<br />
<strong>in</strong> calculation of accuracy study<br />
Miwa K 2003 [137] Patients <strong>with</strong> early gastric Sent<strong>in</strong>el node biopsy after The assay was successful <strong>in</strong> mapp<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
Prospective Low<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma treated <strong>with</strong> mapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> vital dye lymphatic bas<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> 203 (96%) of 211<br />
study<br />
surgery (n = 211)<br />
patients. The dye sta<strong>in</strong>ed one or more<br />
metastatic nodes <strong>in</strong> 31 patients, but<br />
failed to <strong>in</strong>dicate a metastatic node <strong>in</strong><br />
four patients <strong>with</strong> a large <strong>in</strong>volved node.<br />
Meticulous postoperative exam<strong>in</strong>ation of<br />
all resected nodes <strong>in</strong> the standard<br />
paraff<strong>in</strong> slices revealed no new<br />
metastases.<br />
Sensitivity 89%, specificity 100%.<br />
Simsa J 2003 [139] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric Sent<strong>in</strong>el node biopsy after Success rate of sent<strong>in</strong>el node detection<br />
Prospective Very low<br />
cancer treated <strong>with</strong> mapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>with</strong> vital dye <strong>with</strong> a good relation between metastatic<br />
study<br />
surgery (D2<br />
<strong>in</strong>volvement of the sent<strong>in</strong>el node and<br />
lymphadenectomy) (n =<br />
other nodes was 56% (13 out of 22<br />
22)<br />
patients).<br />
Two false-negatives.<br />
Insufficient data to calculate diagnostic<br />
measures.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 131<br />
Diagnosis and treatment of early lesions.<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Rout<strong>in</strong>e use of chromoendoscopy dur<strong>in</strong>g upper GI endoscopy is not recommended, but may be of value <strong>in</strong><br />
selected patients at high risk of gastric malignancy.<br />
Mitooka H 1995 Very low<br />
Pathologists should follow the revised Vienna classification for report<strong>in</strong>g dysplasia.<br />
Where radical <strong>in</strong>tervention is contemplated on the basis of high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma the<br />
diagnosis should be validated by a second pathologist experienced <strong>in</strong> this area and further biopsies should be<br />
taken if there is uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty.<br />
Patients diagnosed <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should have careful assessment (CT, EUS, rigorous biopsy<br />
protocol +/- EMR) to exclude coexist<strong>in</strong>g cancer.<br />
Schlemper RJ 2000<br />
In the absence of <strong>in</strong>vasive cancer, patients <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should be offered endoscopic treatment.<br />
The assessment and management of patients <strong>with</strong> high-grade dysplasia should be centralised to units <strong>with</strong> the<br />
appropriate endoscopic facilities and expertise.<br />
Takekoshi T 1994 Very Low<br />
Early gastric cancer limited to the superficial submucosa should be treated by EMR. Wang YP 2006 Low<br />
Mucosal ablative techniques, such as PDT, APC, or laser should be reserved for the management of residual No evidence<br />
disease after EMR and not for <strong>in</strong>itial management if <strong>in</strong>vasive disease is present <strong>in</strong> patients fit for surgery. provide for gastric<br />
cancer<br />
FNCLCC [129] January<br />
2002<br />
La mucosectomie n’est pas une attitude standard (standard).<br />
La mucosectomie endoscopique peut être proposée pour les patients à risques opératoires présentant une<br />
lésion usT1N0 limitée à la muqueuse sans envahissement de la muscularis mucosae (option).<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Lee SH 2006 [290] Patients <strong>with</strong> early gastric EMR <strong>with</strong> submucosal No differences <strong>in</strong> hard outcomes. Randomization <strong>with</strong> RCT Moderate<br />
cancer (n = 72)<br />
<strong>in</strong>jection of normal sal<strong>in</strong>e Shorter mean procedure time <strong>in</strong> FM sealed, opaque envelopes<br />
solution (n = 36) vs. fibr<strong>in</strong>ogen group.<br />
Not clear if bl<strong>in</strong>ded<br />
mixture solution (n = 36)<br />
assessors
132 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Neoadjuvant treatment.<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 The neoadjuvant use of either chemotherapy or radiotherapy for patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer is not<br />
recommended outside cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials.<br />
CCO [150] April There is <strong>in</strong>sufficient evidence from randomized trials to recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy outside<br />
2003 of a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.<br />
FNCLCC [129] January<br />
2002<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
La chimiothérapie néoadjuvante n’est pas <strong>in</strong>diquée dans les cancers de l’estomac résécables en dehors<br />
d’essais thérapeutiques.<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 The neoadjuvant use of either chemotherapy or radiotherapy for patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer is not<br />
recommended outside cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials.<br />
CCO [150] April There is <strong>in</strong>sufficient evidence from randomized trials to recommend neoadjuvant radiation therapy<br />
2003 outside of a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.<br />
FNCLCC [129] January<br />
2002<br />
Immunotherapy<br />
CCO [150] April<br />
2003<br />
Study ID<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Wu AN 2007 [147] June<br />
2005<br />
No recommendations, only discussion<br />
There is <strong>in</strong>sufficient evidence from randomized trials to recommend neoadjuvant immunotherapy outside<br />
of a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.<br />
Janunger KG 2002<br />
Earle CC 2003<br />
Songun I 1999<br />
Fujii M 1999 (abstract)<br />
Kang YK 1999 (abstract)<br />
Songun I 1999<br />
Fujii M 1999 (abstract)<br />
Kang YK 1999 (abstract)<br />
Janunger KG 2002<br />
Earle CC 2003<br />
Zang ZX 1998<br />
Skoropad V 1999a<br />
Skoropad V 1999b<br />
Skoropad V 2002<br />
Gouchi A 1997<br />
Peters KM 1990<br />
Terashima M 1998<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> resectable<br />
gastric cancer<br />
Neoadjuvant<br />
chemotherapy followed by<br />
surgery vs. surgery alone<br />
Of the four cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials enrolled, there were 250<br />
and 332 cases <strong>in</strong> total, <strong>with</strong> 106 and 126 deaths at<br />
the end of follow-up <strong>in</strong> the NAC and control group,<br />
respectively. The OR (odds ratio) was 1.05 (95%CI:<br />
0.73-1.50), which was not statistically significant. Of<br />
the evaluable 129 patients receiv<strong>in</strong>g NAC, 28.7%<br />
demonstrated either a complete or a partial<br />
response. Two studies of NAC <strong>in</strong> resectable gastric<br />
cancer had resection rate data available for analysis<br />
The R0 resection rate <strong>in</strong> the NAC group was<br />
High<br />
High<br />
High<br />
High<br />
High<br />
High<br />
SR High
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 133<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Cunn<strong>in</strong>gham D<br />
2006<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Immunotherapy<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
comparable to that <strong>in</strong> the control (OR: 0.96 (95%CI:<br />
0.51-1.83)). The morbidity and mortality of NAC<br />
varied <strong>with</strong> the regimens used preoperatively. Of<br />
the 129 patients <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the analyzed studies,<br />
[148] Patients <strong>with</strong> histologically<br />
proven adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of<br />
the stomach or lower third of<br />
the oesophagus that was<br />
considered to be stage II<br />
(through the submucosa) or<br />
higher, <strong>with</strong> no evidence of<br />
distant metastases, or locally<br />
advanced <strong>in</strong>operable disease,<br />
as evaluated by computed<br />
tomography, chest<br />
radiography, ultrasonography,<br />
or laparoscopy.<br />
Perioperative<br />
chemotherapy and surgery<br />
(n = 250) vs. surgery alone<br />
(n = 253)<br />
some acceptable toxicity was observed.<br />
As compared <strong>with</strong> the surgery group, the<br />
perioperative-chemotherapy group had a higher<br />
likelihood of overall survival (HR for death, 0.75;<br />
95%CI 0.60 to 0.93; P=0.009; five-year survival rate,<br />
36 percent vs. 23 percent) and of progression-free<br />
survival (HR for progression, 0.66; 95%CI 0.53 to<br />
0.81; P
134 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Restag<strong>in</strong>g after neoadjuvant treatment.<br />
CPG ID Ref Searc Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
h date<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced disease hav<strong>in</strong>g chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy should have their Ross P 1996<br />
Low<br />
response assessed for an impact on the potential to operate ; follow<strong>in</strong>g a good response the patient<br />
should be restaged and the role restaged and the role of surgery re-evaluated by the multidiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary<br />
team.<br />
Wilke H 1995<br />
Surgical treatment.<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Gastric cancer resectional surgery should be carried out <strong>in</strong> high volume specialist surgical units by<br />
frequent operators.<br />
Bachmann MO 2002 Low<br />
Surgery for gastric cancer should be aimed at achiev<strong>in</strong>g an R0 resection. Marub<strong>in</strong>i E 2002<br />
Bozzetti F 1997<br />
High<br />
Consideration should be given to pouch formation after total gastrectomy.<br />
D2 lymphadenectomy, <strong>with</strong> a m<strong>in</strong>imum of 25 lymph nodes removed, should be considered for patients<br />
undergo<strong>in</strong>g gastrectomy. Rout<strong>in</strong>e resection of additional organs (spleen and pancreas) dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
gastrectomy is not recommended.<br />
Lehnert T 2004 High?<br />
FNCLCC [129] January Une chirurgie d’exérèse à visée curative doit être réalisée (standard). Maruyama 1987<br />
2002<br />
Jakl 1995<br />
Allum 1989<br />
Pour les tumeurs distales (1/3 <strong>in</strong>férieur, antre), il est <strong>in</strong>diqué de pratiquer une gastrectomie des 4/5 et Gouzi 1989<br />
High<br />
curage ganglionnaire monobloc avec élargissement monobloc de nécessité aux organes de vois<strong>in</strong>age<br />
atte<strong>in</strong>ts (standard).<br />
Bozzetti 1999<br />
Pour les tumeurs proximales (2/3 supérieurs), il est <strong>in</strong>diqué de pratiquer une gastrectomie totale et<br />
curage ganglionnaire monobloc avec élargissement monobloc de nécessité aux organes de vois<strong>in</strong>age<br />
atte<strong>in</strong>ts (standard).<br />
No evidence provided<br />
Pour les cancers superficiels et pour des petites tumeurs limitées, les techniques de chirurgie<br />
laparoscopique sont applicables dans le cadre d’études prospectives (option).<br />
Observational studies Low<br />
Un curage ganglionnaire de type D1 (ganglions périgastriques, groupes 1 à 6 soit ≥ 15 ganglions) doit Dent 1988<br />
High<br />
être réalisé selon la topographie de la tumeur (standard).<br />
Robertson 1994<br />
Cischieri 1996<br />
Bonenkamp 1999<br />
Wu 2004<br />
Un curage de type D2 (D1 + ganglions pédiculaires (groupes 1 à 11 soit ≥ 25 ganglions)) sans<br />
Dent 1988<br />
splénectomie ni pancréatectomie peut être envisagé (option).<br />
Robertson 1994<br />
Cischieri 1996<br />
Bonenkamp 1999<br />
Wu 2004
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 135<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Volume-outcome relation<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Csendes 2002<br />
Des essais randomisés évaluant le curage D2 sans splénectomie sont recommandés. Une splénectomie<br />
est <strong>in</strong>diquée en cas d'adénopathies de l'artère splénique ou de cancer de la grosse tubérosité atteignant<br />
la séreuse (recommandation).<br />
Csendes 2002<br />
Subanalyses of RCTs<br />
Il n’y a pas de modalités standards de reconstruction après gastrectomie distale subtotale (standard).<br />
La reconstruction peut être effectuée par rétablissement de cont<strong>in</strong>uité par anastomose gastrojéjunale ou<br />
par établissement de cont<strong>in</strong>uité par anastomose gastroduodénale (option).<br />
Chareton 1996 High<br />
Il est recommandé de privilégier le rétablissement de cont<strong>in</strong>uité par la technique habituelle du chirurgien No evidence provided<br />
(recommandation).<br />
Enz<strong>in</strong>ger P 2007 [293] Patients <strong>with</strong> stage IB<br />
through IV (M0) gastric<br />
and gastroesophageal<br />
junction adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma,<br />
previously randomized to<br />
adjuvant chemoradiation<br />
after surgery or surgery<br />
alone (n = 448)<br />
Type of surgery<br />
Hosono S 2006 [164] August<br />
2006<br />
Après gastrectomie totale, le rétablissement de la cont<strong>in</strong>uité digestive peut se faire par anse jéjunale<br />
selon la technique en Y de Roux, avec ou sans reconstitution d’un réservoir (J Pouch), ou par<br />
constitution d’un réservoir avec <strong>in</strong>terposition entre oesophage et duodénum d’une anse jéjunale en S ou<br />
du côlon transverse gauche (option).<br />
5 RCTs<br />
4 prospective trials<br />
Moderate<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer<br />
Effect of hospital surgical<br />
volume, as assessed by<br />
Medicare claims data, on<br />
overall survival and gastric<br />
cancer recurrence<br />
Laparoscopy assisted<br />
distal gastrectomy<br />
(LADG) vs. conventional<br />
open distal gastrectomy<br />
(CODG)<br />
Hospital surgical volume was not predictive of<br />
overall survival (P = 0.46) or disease-free survival<br />
(P = 0.43) at a median follow-up of 8.9 years.<br />
However, patients who underwent either a D1<br />
or D2 dissection at a high- or moderate-volume<br />
center experienced an adjusted hazard ratio of<br />
0.80 (95% CI, 0.53-1.20) for overall survival and<br />
0.78 (95% CI, 0.53-1.14) for disease-free survival<br />
compared <strong>with</strong> those patients resected at a lowvolume<br />
hospital; these results were not<br />
statistically significant. When a D0 resection was<br />
performed, hospital procedure volume showed<br />
no impact on survival.<br />
Compared to CODG, LADG was a longer<br />
procedure (weighted mean difference 54.3;<br />
95%CI 38.8 to 69.8; P < 0.001), but<br />
was associated <strong>with</strong> a lower associated morbidity<br />
(OR 0.54; 95%CI 0.37 to 0.77; P < 0.001); this<br />
was most significant for postoperative ileus (OR<br />
Retrospective selection of<br />
patients from a RCT (n =<br />
556)<br />
Inclusion of 4 RCTs (only 1<br />
Western study) and 12<br />
retrospective studies<br />
<strong>English</strong> only<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on how<br />
quality appraisal was done<br />
Low<br />
Observation<br />
al study<br />
Very low<br />
SR Moderate
136 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Hayashi H 2005 [163] Patients <strong>with</strong> early gastric<br />
cancers <strong>in</strong> the lower half<br />
of the stomach (n = 28)<br />
Huscher C 2005 [165] Patients <strong>with</strong> distal gastric<br />
cancer<br />
Inaba T 2004 [294] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer undergo<strong>in</strong>g distal<br />
gastrectomy or total<br />
gastrectomy<br />
Lee JH 2005 [166] Patients <strong>with</strong> early gastric<br />
cancer<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
0.27; 95%CI 0.09 to 0.84; P = 0.02). There was<br />
no significant difference between the two groups<br />
<strong>in</strong> anastomotic, pulmonary, and wound<br />
Open distal gastrectomy<br />
(n = 14) vs. laparoscopyassisted<br />
distal gastectomy<br />
(n = 14)<br />
Laparoscopic-assisted (n<br />
= 30) vs. open radical<br />
subtotal gastrectomy (n =<br />
29)<br />
Upper midl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>cision vs.<br />
transverse <strong>in</strong>cision<br />
Laparoscopy-assisted<br />
distal gastrectomy<br />
(LADG) <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
lymphadenectomy vs.<br />
complications and mortality.<br />
The LADG group required a significantly shorter<br />
period of postoperative epidural anesthesia and<br />
had no major postsurgery complications.<br />
Pathologic exam<strong>in</strong>ations showed that surgery was<br />
equally radical <strong>in</strong> the two groups.<br />
Operative mortality rates were 6.7% (2 patients)<br />
<strong>in</strong> the OG and 3.3% (1 patient) <strong>in</strong> the LG (P =<br />
not significant); morbidity rates were 27.6% and<br />
26.7%, respectively (P = not significant). Five-year<br />
overall and disease-free survival rates were 55.7%<br />
and 54.8% and 58.9% and 57.3% <strong>in</strong> the OG and<br />
the LG, respectively (P = not significant).<br />
Times for both open<strong>in</strong>g and clos<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
abdom<strong>in</strong>al cavity were longer <strong>with</strong> a transverse<br />
<strong>in</strong>cision, <strong>in</strong> both the distal gastrectomy group and<br />
total gastrectomy group. In the patients <strong>in</strong> whom<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>uous epidural analgesia was used<br />
postoperatively, the number of additional doses<br />
of analgesics was smaller <strong>in</strong> the transverse<strong>in</strong>cision<br />
group after distal gastrectomy. The<br />
<strong>in</strong>cidence of postoperative pneumonia was lower<br />
<strong>in</strong> the transverse-<strong>in</strong>cision group after distal<br />
gastrectomy. The number of patients <strong>with</strong><br />
postoperative <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al obstruction was smaller<br />
<strong>in</strong> the transverse-<strong>in</strong>cision group than <strong>in</strong> the<br />
midl<strong>in</strong>e-<strong>in</strong>cision group after distal gastrectomy. In<br />
contrast to distal gastrectomy, there was no<br />
significant difference <strong>in</strong> the number of doses of<br />
postoperative analgesics, <strong>in</strong>cidence of<br />
postoperative pneumonia, or <strong>in</strong>cidence of<br />
postoperative <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al obstruction between the<br />
two study groups after total gastrectomy.<br />
The mean postoperative hospital stay and the<br />
duration of analgesic adm<strong>in</strong>istration were shorter<br />
for group L but not significantly. Postoperative<br />
pulmonary complications occurred more<br />
Randomization <strong>with</strong> sealed<br />
envelope<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g???<br />
Not clear if randomization<br />
was bl<strong>in</strong>ded<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>ded assessment??<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation about<br />
randomization procedure<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g???<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g?? RCT Moderate
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 137<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Lee WJ 2003 [295] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer treated <strong>with</strong><br />
extended lymph node<br />
dissection<br />
(D2) dur<strong>in</strong>g gastrectomy<br />
Sasako M 2006 [296] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer of the cardia or<br />
subcardia<br />
Yu W 2006 [297] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma who<br />
underwent total<br />
gastrectomy (n = 216)<br />
Lymphadenectomy<br />
McCulloch 2004 [152] April<br />
2001<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
open distal gastrectomy frequently <strong>in</strong> the O group (p = 0.043). At a<br />
median follow-up of 14 months, there has been<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer<br />
D2 gastric resection<br />
performed <strong>with</strong> the<br />
LigasureTM system (n =<br />
40) vs. resection us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
conventional haemostatic<br />
methods (n = 40)<br />
Left thoracoabdom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
approach (LTA) (n = 85)<br />
vs. abdom<strong>in</strong>al-transhiatal<br />
approach (TH) (n = 82)<br />
Total gastrectomy either<br />
<strong>with</strong> (n = 104) or <strong>with</strong>out<br />
(n = 103) splenectomy<br />
Limited vs. extended<br />
lymph node removal<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g gastrectomy<br />
no recurrence of disease <strong>in</strong> either group.<br />
Ligasure was associated <strong>with</strong> less <strong>in</strong>traoperative<br />
blood loss (mean (s.d.) 142(73) versus 239(124)<br />
ml; P = 0.001) and a shorter operat<strong>in</strong>g time<br />
(mean(s.d.) 169(25) versus 222(28) m<strong>in</strong>; P =<br />
0.001) than conventional operation.<br />
Postoperative dra<strong>in</strong>age fluid volumes were<br />
greater <strong>in</strong> the Ligasure group (mean (s.d.)<br />
1577(940) versus 886(542) ml; P = 0.020). There<br />
were no differences <strong>in</strong> postoperative<br />
complications or hospital stay.<br />
5-year overall survival was 52.3% (95% CI 40.4-<br />
64.1) <strong>in</strong> the TH group and 37.9% (26.1-49.6) <strong>in</strong><br />
the LTA group. The hazard ratio of death for<br />
LTA compared <strong>with</strong> TH was 1.36 (0.89-2.08,<br />
p=0.92). Three patients died <strong>in</strong> hospital after LTA<br />
but none after TH. Morbidity was worse after<br />
LTA than after TH.<br />
Gastrectomy comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>with</strong> splenectomy tended<br />
to be associated <strong>with</strong> slightly higher morbidity<br />
and mortality rates, a slightly greater <strong>in</strong>cidence of<br />
lymph node metastasis at the splenic hilum and<br />
along the splenic artery, and marg<strong>in</strong>ally better<br />
survival, but there were no statistically significant<br />
differences between the groups. Splenectomy had<br />
no impact on survival <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> metastatic<br />
lymph nodes at the hilum of the spleen or <strong>in</strong><br />
those <strong>with</strong> metastatic lymph nodes along the<br />
splenic artery.<br />
Meta-analysis of randomised trials did not reveal<br />
any survival benefit for extended lymph node<br />
dissection (Risk ratio = 0.95 (95%CI 0.83 - 1.09),<br />
but showed <strong>in</strong>creased postoperative mortality<br />
(RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.45 - 3.45). Pre-specified<br />
subgroup analysis suggested a possible benefit <strong>in</strong><br />
stage T3+ tumours (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.42-<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
randomization procedure<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
No bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g RCT Moderate<br />
9 patients excluded from<br />
analysis<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Two randomised and two<br />
non-randomised<br />
comparisons of limited<br />
(D1) versus extended (D2)<br />
node dissection and 11<br />
cohort studies of either D1<br />
or D2 resection were<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
SR High
138 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
1.10). Non-randomised comparisons showed no<br />
significant survival benefit for extended dissection<br />
(RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 -1.02), but decreased<br />
mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.93). Subgroup<br />
analysis showed apparent benefit <strong>in</strong> UICC stage II<br />
and IIIa. Observational studies of D2 resection<br />
reported much better mortality and survival than<br />
those of D1 surgery, but the sett<strong>in</strong>gs were<br />
strik<strong>in</strong>gly different.<br />
analysed.<br />
Degiuli M 2004 [154] Patients <strong>with</strong> potentially D1 (n = 76) and D2 Complications developed <strong>in</strong> 10.5% of patients No <strong>in</strong>formation on bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g RCT Moderate<br />
curable gastric cancer gastrectomy (n = 86) after D1 and <strong>in</strong> 16.3% of patients after D2<br />
gastrectomy (p
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 139<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Wu C 2004 &<br />
2006<br />
Yonemura Y<br />
2006<br />
Reconstruction<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Hospital mortality was reported at 0.80%: one<br />
patient <strong>in</strong> each group died of operative<br />
complications, while one from each group died of<br />
[298] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma treated<br />
<strong>with</strong> curative <strong>in</strong>tent<br />
[159] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
Adachi S 2003 [299] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer (n = 30)<br />
D1 (ie, level 1)<br />
lymphadenectomy (n =<br />
110) vs. D3 (ie, levels 1,<br />
2, and 3) dissection (n =<br />
111)<br />
D2 (level 1 and 2<br />
lymphadenectomy) (n =<br />
128) vs. D4 (D2 plus<br />
lymphadenectomy of<br />
para-aortic lymph nodes)<br />
dissection (n = 128)<br />
Roux-en-Y<br />
esophagojejunostomy (R-<br />
Y), R-Y <strong>with</strong> pouch (P-Y),<br />
and jejunal <strong>in</strong>terposition<br />
<strong>with</strong> pouch (P-I) after<br />
total gastrectomy<br />
rapid progressive cancer while <strong>in</strong>patient.<br />
Overall 5-year survival was significantly higher <strong>in</strong><br />
patients assigned D3 surgery than <strong>in</strong> those<br />
assigned D1 surgery (59.5% [95% CI 50.3-68.7] vs<br />
53.6% [44.2-63.0]; difference beteween groups<br />
5.9% [-7.3 to 19.1], log-rank p=0.041). 215<br />
patients who had R0 resection (ie, no<br />
microscopic evidence of residual disease) had<br />
recurrence at 5 years of 50.6% [41.1-60.2] for D1<br />
surgery and 40.3% [30.9-49.7] for D3 surgery<br />
(difference between groups 10.3% [-3.2 to 23.7],<br />
log-rank p=0.197).<br />
Five (4%) and two (2%) medical complications<br />
developed <strong>in</strong> the D2 and D4 groups, respectively.<br />
Surgical complications developed <strong>in</strong> 28 (22%) and<br />
48 patients (38%) after D2 and D4 gastrectomy.<br />
The most common complications were<br />
anastomotic leakage, pancreatic fistula, and<br />
abdom<strong>in</strong>al abscess. Pancreatic fistula developed <strong>in</strong><br />
6 (19%) of 32 patients after D4 plus<br />
pancreatosplenectomy, but the <strong>in</strong>cidence of<br />
pancreatic fistula after D2 gastrectomy plus<br />
pancreatosplenectomy was low (6%, 1/16). Two<br />
patients died <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong> 30 days of operation (0.8%,<br />
2/256), and each patient belonged to the D2 and<br />
D4 group.<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on hard endpo<strong>in</strong>ts.<br />
Reconstruction should be performed <strong>with</strong> pouch<br />
formation after total gastrectomy <strong>with</strong> curative<br />
<strong>in</strong>tent.<br />
No bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g RCT Moderate<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
randomization procedure.<br />
No bl<strong>in</strong>ded assessment<br />
Randomization <strong>with</strong> sealed<br />
envelope<br />
In case or recurrence or<br />
impossible follow-up <strong>with</strong><strong>in</strong><br />
2 years after surgery:<br />
replacement by other<br />
patient<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g???<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
Ishikawa M 2005 [300] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric Roux-en-Y 5 of 24 patients <strong>with</strong> RY reconstruction Randomization <strong>with</strong> sealed RCT Moderate
140 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma who<br />
reconstruction vs. developed gastrojejunal stasis <strong>in</strong> the early envelopes<br />
underwent distal conventional Billroth I postoperative period, which led to a longer No <strong>in</strong>formation on bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
gastrectomy (n = 50) reconstruction<br />
postoperative hospital stay as compared <strong>with</strong> the<br />
B-I group (mean +/- S.D; B-I; 19.0 +/- 6.2, RY;<br />
31.8 +/- 21.7 days) (P < 0.05). Endoscopic<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>ation revealed that the frequency of bile<br />
reflux (P < 0.01) and degree of <strong>in</strong>flammation <strong>in</strong><br />
the remnant stomach (P < 0.05) were less <strong>in</strong> the<br />
RY group than <strong>in</strong> the B-I group. However,<br />
<strong>in</strong>flammatory f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> the lower esophagus<br />
were observed <strong>in</strong> 7 (27%) of B-I, and 8 (35%) of<br />
the RY group, suggest<strong>in</strong>g that late phase<br />
esophagitis was not improved <strong>in</strong> the RY group.<br />
Iwata T 2006 [160] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric Reconstruction by jejunal The JPI group showed a significant dietary Very small sample size RCT Moderate<br />
cancer <strong>in</strong> the upper third pouch <strong>in</strong>terposition (JPI advantage. Three months after surgery, JPI No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
of the stomach who group) (n = 4) vs. patients could eat more than 80% of the volume randomization procedure<br />
underwent proximal reconstruction by jejunal of their preoperative meals, whereas JI patients or bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
gastrectomy (n = 9) <strong>in</strong>terposition (JI group) (n ate less than 50%. The percentage of<br />
= 5)<br />
postoperative body weight loss was higher <strong>in</strong> the<br />
JI group than <strong>in</strong> the JPI group because the volume<br />
of the remnant stomach was more adequate <strong>in</strong><br />
the latter. Moreover, it was easier to enter the<br />
remnant stomach and duodenum for endoscopic<br />
fiberscopy <strong>in</strong> the JPI group for the treatment of<br />
hepato-biliary pancreatic disease.<br />
Kono K 2003 [162] Patients receiv<strong>in</strong>g total Roux-en-Y<br />
Jejunal pouch reconstruction provided the better No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
gastrectomy for early reconstruction group QOL than Roux-en-Y reconstruction <strong>with</strong>out randomization procedure<br />
gastric cancer (n = 50) <strong>with</strong>out pouch (RY pouch both at short-term and long-term periods. or bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
group) or the jejunal Pouch reconstruction provided less bile reflux<br />
pouch reconstruction <strong>in</strong>to the esophagus compared <strong>with</strong> Roux-en-Y<br />
group (pouch group) reconstruction.<br />
Mochiki E 2004 [301] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric Jejunal <strong>in</strong>terposition The <strong>in</strong>terposed jejunum <strong>with</strong> a pouch shows No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
cancer treated by total <strong>with</strong>out a pouch (n = 12) marked disturbances from the motor pattern of a randomization procedure<br />
gastrectomy (n = 12) vs. jejunal <strong>in</strong>terposition normal jejunum dur<strong>in</strong>g the fast<strong>in</strong>g and fed states. or bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>with</strong> a pouch (n = 14) These motor abnormalities may be responsible<br />
for <strong>in</strong>sufficient food <strong>in</strong>take of the J-P group.<br />
Shibata C 2004 [302] Patients <strong>with</strong> early gastric Pylorus-preserv<strong>in</strong>g There were no differences <strong>in</strong> early results Randomization <strong>with</strong> sealed RCT Moderate<br />
cancer (n = 81)<br />
gastrectomy (PPG) (n = between PPG and CDG. The <strong>in</strong>cidence of early envelope<br />
36) vs. conventional distal dump<strong>in</strong>g syndrome was lower <strong>in</strong> PPG (8%) than No <strong>in</strong>formation on bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
gastrectomy (CDG) <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong> CDG (33%). Other late results <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the 7 patients excluded from
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 141<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Billroth I anastomosis (n <strong>in</strong>cidence of gallstones were not different analysis<br />
= 38)<br />
between the 2 groups.<br />
Yoo C 2005 [161] Patients <strong>with</strong> upper third Proximal gastrectomy No significant differences <strong>in</strong> operat<strong>in</strong>g time,<br />
RCT High<br />
gastric cancer<br />
<strong>with</strong> jejunal pouch hospital stay, and postoperative complications.<br />
<strong>in</strong>terposition (PGJP) (n = Blood loss was significantly less <strong>in</strong> the PGJP group<br />
25) vs. Roux-en-Y (P = 0.036). N<strong>in</strong>eteen patients (73%) <strong>in</strong> the<br />
esophagojejunostomy TGRY group had one or more postgastrectomy<br />
(TGRY) (n = 26) symptoms, which was significantly more frequent<br />
than <strong>in</strong> the PGJP group (32%; P = 0.012). There<br />
were also significant differences between the two<br />
groups <strong>with</strong> regard to food <strong>in</strong>take, weight<br />
recovery, hemoglob<strong>in</strong>, and serum vitam<strong>in</strong> B12<br />
levels <strong>in</strong> favour of PGJP.<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Adjuvant treatment.<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Postoperative chemotherapy for patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer is not recommended outside a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial. Janunger 2002<br />
Earle 2003<br />
High<br />
CCO [150] April For patients unable to undergo radiation, adjuvant chemotherapy alone may be of benefit, particularly for Numerous MA and RCTs High<br />
2003 patients <strong>with</strong> lymph node metastases. The optimal regimen rema<strong>in</strong>s to be def<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />
FNCLCC [129] January La chimiothérapie adjuvante n’est pas <strong>in</strong>diquée dans le traitement des cancers de l’estomac en dehors Numerous MA and RCTs High<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
2002 d’essais thérapeutiques (standard).<br />
Il est recommandé de poursuivre les essais thérapeutiques, en améliorant les protocoles de<br />
chimiothérapie, comparant la chimiothérapie adjuvante à la chirurgie seule ou à la chirurgie +<br />
radiochimiothérapie postopératoire (recommandation).<br />
CCO [150] April<br />
2003<br />
FNCLCC [129] January<br />
2002<br />
Chemoradiotherapy<br />
There is <strong>in</strong>sufficient evidence from randomized trials to recommend adjuvant radiation therapy outside<br />
of a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.<br />
La radiothérapie externe adjuvante n'est pas une attitude thérapeutique standard dans les cancers de<br />
l'estomac (standard).<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Postoperative chemoradiation for patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer is not recommended outside a cl<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
trial.<br />
CCO [150] April Follow<strong>in</strong>g surgical resection, patients whose tumours penetrated the muscularis propria or <strong>in</strong>volved<br />
2003 regional lymph nodes should be considered for adjuvant comb<strong>in</strong>ed chemoradiotherapy. The current<br />
standard protocol consists of one cycle of 5-FU (425 mg/m2/day) and leucovor<strong>in</strong> (20 mg/m2/day) <strong>in</strong> a<br />
Hallissey 1994<br />
Kraml<strong>in</strong>g 1996<br />
High<br />
Hallissey 1994 High<br />
McDonald JS 2001 Moderate<br />
Dent 1979<br />
Moertel 1984<br />
McDonald 2001<br />
High
142 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
CPG ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
FNCLCC [129] January<br />
2002<br />
Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
evidence<br />
daily regimen for five days, followed one month later by 4,500 cGy (180 cGy/day) of radiation given <strong>with</strong><br />
5-FU (400 mg/m2/day) and leucovor<strong>in</strong> (20 mg/m2/day) on days 1 through 4 and the last three days of<br />
radiation. One month after completion of radiation, two cycles of 5-FU (425 mg/m2/day) and leucovor<strong>in</strong><br />
(20 mg/m2/day) <strong>in</strong> a daily regimen for five days are given at monthly <strong>in</strong>tervals.<br />
Chez tous les patients opérés d’un cancer de l’estomac R0 avec un curage D1 ou D2 et de stade II ou III,<br />
la radiochimiothérapie adjuvante n’est pas considérée comme un traitement standard. En cas de curage <<br />
D1 (mo<strong>in</strong>s de 15 ganglions exam<strong>in</strong>és) et chez des patients T3 et/ou N+, la radiochimiothérapie peut être<br />
proposée chez les patients non dénutris selon les modalités de l’essai de Macdonald (standard).<br />
En cas de chirurgie avec curage D1 ou D2 et avec un envahissement ganglionnaire majeur (N2 ou N3),<br />
une radiochimiothérapie adjuvante peut être proposée dans l’attente d’autres résultats, chez des patients<br />
non dénutris (option).<br />
Il est recommandé de réaliser des essais thérapeutiques évaluant la place de la radiochimiothérapie<br />
adjuvante dans le traitement des cancers de l’estomac (accord d’experts). Le choix entre ces différentes<br />
options thérapeutiques doit prendre en compte l'avis ou le souhait des patients (recommandation).<br />
Intraperitoneal<br />
chemotherapy<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Intraperitoneal chemotherapy and immunotherapy for patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer are not<br />
recommended outside a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.<br />
Immunotherapy<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Intraperitoneal chemotherapy and immunotherapy for patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer are not<br />
recommended outside a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.<br />
CCO [150] April There is <strong>in</strong>sufficient evidence from randomized trials to recommend adjuvant immunotherapy outside of<br />
2003 a cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.<br />
FNCLCC [129] January<br />
2002<br />
L’immunochimiothérapie adjuvante n’est pas un standard dans les cancers de l’estomac en occident<br />
(standard).<br />
Il est recommandé de poursuivre les essais thérapeutiques comparant l’immunochimiothérapie adjuvante<br />
à la chirurgie seule (recommandation).<br />
Bleiberg 1989<br />
Dent 1979<br />
Moertel 1984<br />
McDonald 2001<br />
High<br />
Yonemura Y 2001 Moderate<br />
Earle 2003 High<br />
Ochiai 1983<br />
Yamamura 1986<br />
Bonfanti 1988<br />
Jakesz 1988<br />
Kim 1992<br />
Popeila 1982<br />
Imaizumi 1990<br />
Kim 1997<br />
Jakesz 1988<br />
IGTSG 1988<br />
Primrose 1998<br />
Tonnesen 1988<br />
Langman 1999<br />
High<br />
High
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 143<br />
Study ID<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Ajani J 2006 [269] October<br />
2005<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer<br />
Oral capecitab<strong>in</strong>e Narrative presentation of results, no<br />
conclusions to be drawn.<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e search only<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
selection, quality<br />
appraisal, etc<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on search<br />
SR Low<br />
Berrardi R 2004 [303] Not Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric Adjuvant chemotherapy 3 RCTs <strong>in</strong> favour, 3 RCTs aga<strong>in</strong>st.<br />
SR? Low<br />
stated cancer<br />
Narrative presentation of results. at all.<br />
Casc<strong>in</strong>u S 2007 [304] Gastric cancer patients at PELFw regimen (consist<strong>in</strong>g of 5-year survival rates were 52% <strong>in</strong> the No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
high risk for recurrence eight weekly adm<strong>in</strong>istrations PELFw arm and 50% <strong>in</strong> the 5-FU/LV arm. bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g patients <strong>with</strong> of cisplat<strong>in</strong> (40 mg/m2), LV Compared <strong>with</strong> the 5-FU/LV regimen,<br />
serosal <strong>in</strong>vasion (stage (250 mg/m2), epidoxorubic<strong>in</strong> the PELFw regimen did not reduce the<br />
pT3 N0) and/or lymph (35 mg/m2), 5-FU (500 risk of death (HR = 0.95, 95%<br />
node metastasis (stage mg/m2), and glutathione (1.5 confidence <strong>in</strong>terval [CI] = 0.70 to 1.29)<br />
pT2 or pT3 N1, N2, or g/m2) <strong>with</strong> the support of or relapse (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.75 to<br />
N3)<br />
filgrastim) (n = 201) vs. 5- 1.29). Less than 10% of patients <strong>in</strong> either<br />
FU/LV regimen (consist<strong>in</strong>g of arm experienced a grade 3 or 4 toxic<br />
six monthly adm<strong>in</strong>istrations of episode. Neutropenia (occurr<strong>in</strong>g more<br />
a 5-day course of 5-FU (375 often <strong>in</strong> the PELFw arm) and diarrhea<br />
mg/m2 daily) and LV (20 and mucositis (more prevalent <strong>in</strong> the 5-<br />
mg/m2 daily, 5-FU/LV)) (n = FU/LV arm) were the most common<br />
196)<br />
serious side effects. Nevertheless, only<br />
19 patients (9.4%) completed the<br />
treatment <strong>in</strong> the PELFw arm and 85<br />
(43%) patients completed the treatment<br />
<strong>in</strong> the 5-FU/LV arm.<br />
Nishikawa T [305] Excluded: re-analysis of RCT<br />
2007<br />
previous RCT (2001)<br />
Nitti D 2006 [172] NA Patients <strong>with</strong><br />
FAMTX or FEMTX vs. control In a planned comb<strong>in</strong>ed analysis of the Prospective meta-analysis MA Moderate<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma of the<br />
two trials, no significant differences of 2 RCTs<br />
stomach or esophago-<br />
were found between the treatment and Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g??<br />
gastric junction treated<br />
control arms for either DFS (hazards<br />
<strong>with</strong> curative resection<br />
ratio: 0.98, P=0.87) or OS (hazards<br />
ratio: 0.98, P=0.86). The 5-year OS was<br />
43% <strong>in</strong> the treatment arm and 44% <strong>in</strong><br />
the control arm and the 5-year DFS was<br />
41% and 42%, respectively.<br />
Oba K 2006 [168] March Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric Adjuvant oral fluor<strong>in</strong>ated For the 4 trials that met the eligibility Meta-analysis of 4 MA High<br />
2005 cancer<br />
pyrimid<strong>in</strong>es vs. surgery alone criteria, the estimated hazard ratio was Japanese centrally<br />
0.73 (95%CI=0.60-0.89) <strong>in</strong> favour of oral randomized controlled
144 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Tentes A 2006 [306] Patients <strong>with</strong> locally<br />
advanced gastric cancer<br />
after potentially curative<br />
gastrectomy<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
fluor<strong>in</strong>ated pyrimid<strong>in</strong>es. cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials conducted<br />
Adjuvant <strong>in</strong>traarterial<br />
chemotherapy (IARC) vs.<br />
surgery alone<br />
Five-year survival rate for the study and<br />
the control group was 52 and 54%,<br />
respectively (p>0.05). Mean survival for<br />
the study and the control group was<br />
50+/-8 and 62+/-10 months, respectively<br />
(p>0.05). The number of recurrences<br />
and the failure sites were comparable<br />
(p>0.05).<br />
between 1980 and 2005<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
randomization procedure<br />
or bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
Ueda Y 2006 [307] Excluded: protocol<br />
Bouche O 2005 [169] Stage II-III-IVM0 gastric Postoperative chemotherapy 5- and 7-year overall survival were Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g??? RCT Moderate<br />
cancer patients treated (n = 127) vs. surgery alone (n 41.9% and 34.9% <strong>in</strong> the control group<br />
<strong>with</strong> curative resection (n = 133).<br />
versus 46.6% and 44.6% <strong>in</strong> the<br />
= 260)<br />
5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) 800 chemotherapy group (P=0.22). Cox<br />
mg/m(2) daily (5-day<br />
model hazard ratios were 0.74 [95%CI<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>uous <strong>in</strong>fusion) was 0.54-1.02; P=0.063] for death and 0.70<br />
<strong>in</strong>itiated before day 14 after (95%CI 0.51-0.97; P=0.032) for<br />
resection. One month later,<br />
four 5-day cycles of 5-FU (1<br />
g/m² per day) plus cisplat<strong>in</strong><br />
(100 mg/m(2) on day 2) were<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istered every 4 weeks.<br />
recurrence.<br />
Tsuburaya A<br />
2005<br />
[308] Excluded: protocol<br />
Chipponi J 2004 [170] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric Surgery alone (n = 104) vs. Because of toxicity, 54% of the patients No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
cancer and lymph node or surgery and adjuvant stopped the protocol before the end of bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
serosal <strong>in</strong>volvement or chemotherapy (daily<br />
the n<strong>in</strong>e courses, and 46% of the<br />
both<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istration of 200 mg/m² patients received the n<strong>in</strong>e courses<br />
of fol<strong>in</strong>ic acid, 5-fluorouracil <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g 32% <strong>with</strong> a decreased dose and<br />
(375 mg/m² dur<strong>in</strong>g the first 14% <strong>with</strong> a full dose. The 5-year survival<br />
session <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g 25 mg by rate was 39% <strong>in</strong> the control group and<br />
session until reach<strong>in</strong>g 500<br />
mg/m²) and CDDP 15 mg/m²<br />
(n = 101)<br />
39% <strong>in</strong> the chemotherapy group.<br />
Nashimoto A [171] Serosa-negative gastric Adjuvant chemotherapy There was no significant difference <strong>in</strong> No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
2003<br />
cancer patients (exclud<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong>travenous mitomyc<strong>in</strong> 1.33 relapse-free and overall survival bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
patients who were T1N0) mg/m², fluorouracil (FU) 166.7 between the arms (5-year relapse-free<br />
(n = 252)<br />
mg/m², and cytarab<strong>in</strong>e 13.3 survival 88.8% chemotherapy v 83.7%
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 145<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Radiotherapy<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Chemoradiotherapy<br />
No additional studies found<br />
Intraperitoneal chemotherapy<br />
Yan TD 2007 [175] Decemb<br />
er 2006<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
mg/m² twice weekly for the surgery alone; P =.14 and 5-year survival<br />
first 3 weeks after surgery, 91.2% chemotherapy v 86.1% surgery<br />
and oral FU 134 mg/m² daily alone; P =.13, respectively). N<strong>in</strong>e<br />
for the next 18 months for a patients (7.1%) <strong>in</strong> the chemotherapy arm<br />
total dose of 67 g/m²) vs. and 17 patients (13.8%) <strong>in</strong> the surgery-<br />
surgery alone<br />
alone arm had cancer recurrence.<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> locally<br />
advanced resectable<br />
gastric cancer<br />
Adjuvant <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal<br />
chemotherapy<br />
A significant improvement <strong>in</strong> survival<br />
was associated <strong>with</strong> hyperthermic<br />
<strong>in</strong>traoperative <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal<br />
chemotherapy (HIIC) alone (HR = 0.60;<br />
95% CI = 0.43 to 0.83; p = 0.002) or<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>with</strong> early postoperative<br />
<strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC)<br />
(HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.68; p =<br />
0.0002). Survival improvement was<br />
marg<strong>in</strong>ally significant (p = 0.06) <strong>with</strong><br />
normothermic <strong>in</strong>traoperative<br />
<strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy, but not<br />
significant <strong>with</strong> EPIC alone or delayed<br />
postoperative <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal<br />
chemotherapy. Intraperitoneal<br />
chemotherapy was also found to be<br />
associated <strong>with</strong> higher risks for <strong>in</strong>traabdom<strong>in</strong>al<br />
abscess (RR = 2.37; 95% CI =<br />
1.32 to 4.26; p = 0.003) and neutropenia<br />
(RR = 4.33; 95% CI = 1.49 to 12.61; p =<br />
0.007).<br />
13 RCTs of which 10<br />
were of good quality<br />
Very good SR<br />
Yu W 2006 [309] Excluded narrative review<br />
Xu DZ 2004 [174] January<br />
2003<br />
Patients undergo<strong>in</strong>g<br />
curative resection<br />
for gastric cancer<br />
Adjuvant <strong>in</strong>traperitoneal<br />
chemotherapy<br />
Intraperitoneal chemotherapy may<br />
benefit the patients after curative<br />
resection for locally advanced gastric<br />
cancer, and the comb<strong>in</strong>ation of<br />
<strong>in</strong>traperitoneal chemotherapy <strong>with</strong><br />
Also identified by Yan et<br />
al.<br />
Ch<strong>in</strong>ese and <strong>English</strong> only<br />
11 RCTs identified, of<br />
which 2 were not<br />
SR High<br />
SR High
146 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Immunotherapy<br />
Chen DW 2005 [310] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma who had<br />
undergone major surgery<br />
Oba K 2007 [176] Not<br />
stated<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
hyperthermia or activated carbon identified by Yan et al.<br />
particles may provide more benefits to (Chen ZX 1996, Tan CQ<br />
patients due to the enhanced antitumor<br />
activity of drugs. Sensitivity analysis and<br />
fail-safe number suggested that the<br />
result was comparatively reliable.<br />
However, of 11 trials, only 3 studies<br />
were of high quality.<br />
2000)<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> curative<br />
resections of gastric<br />
cancers<br />
Farreras N 2005 [311] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer (n = 66)<br />
Popiela T 2004 [177] Patients <strong>with</strong> stage III or<br />
IV gastric cancer who had<br />
undergone curative<br />
resection (n = 156)<br />
Immunonutrition (n = 20) vs.<br />
standard nutrition (n = 20)<br />
Immunochemotherapy <strong>with</strong><br />
polysaccharide K (PSK)<br />
Early postoperative enteral<br />
immunonutrition (formula<br />
supplemented <strong>with</strong> arg<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>e,<br />
omega-3 fatty acids and<br />
ribonucleic acid (RNA)) vs. an<br />
isocaloric-isonitrogenous<br />
control<br />
BCG + FAM<br />
(immunochemotherapy) vs.<br />
FAM (chemotherapy) vs.<br />
control (surgery only)<br />
No serious adverse effects were<br />
recorded <strong>with</strong> the two formulas.<br />
Postoperative procedures were smooth<br />
<strong>in</strong> both groups.<br />
The overall hazard ratio for eligible<br />
patients was 0.88 (95% confidence<br />
<strong>in</strong>terval, 0.79-0.98; P = 0.018) <strong>with</strong> no<br />
significant heterogeneity [chi (2)(8) for<br />
heterogeneity = 11.7; P = 0.16]. The<br />
results of this meta-analysis suggest that<br />
adjuvant immunochemotherapy <strong>with</strong><br />
PSK improves the survival of patients<br />
after curative gastric cancer resection.<br />
Patients fed <strong>with</strong> immunonutrition<br />
(n=30) showed significantly lower<br />
episodes of surgical wound heal<strong>in</strong>g<br />
complications (0 vs. 8 (26.7%) P=0.005)<br />
when compared to patients fed <strong>with</strong> the<br />
control formula (n=30).<br />
Overall 10-year survival was 47.1% for<br />
the immunochemotherapy group (P <<br />
0.037 vs FAM and P < 0.0006 vs<br />
control), 30% for the chemotherapy<br />
group (vs control, NS), and 15.2% for<br />
the control group. In patients <strong>with</strong><br />
pT2/T3 primary tumors, 10-year survival<br />
was 55.3% for BCG + FAM vs 28.2% for<br />
FAM (P < 0.01) and 14.6% for the<br />
control group (P < 0.00018). BCG +<br />
No full-text RCT<br />
8 RCTs <strong>in</strong>cluded SR High<br />
No ITT anlysis (6 patients<br />
excluded, 3 <strong>in</strong> both arms)<br />
Randomization <strong>with</strong><br />
envelope<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 147<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Sato Y 2004 [312] Patients who underwent<br />
curative resection of<br />
gastric cancer<br />
Palliative treatment.<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
FAM significantly improved the survival<br />
of patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al-type but not<br />
diffuse-type cancer.<br />
Immunochemotherapy was well<br />
800 mg/d 5'-DFUR (Furtulon)<br />
for 2 years from 2 weeks after<br />
the operation (n = 143) vs.<br />
OK-432 plus 5'-DFUR by the<br />
same regimen (n = 144)<br />
tolerated.<br />
The 5-year survival rates for groups A<br />
and B were 62.9% and 63.8%,<br />
respectively, show<strong>in</strong>g no significant<br />
difference (P = 0.7996).<br />
No full-text RCT<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
Surgery<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Palliative gastrectomy should be avoided <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer who have dissem<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
peritoneal disease.<br />
Green D 2002 Low<br />
D2 lymphadenectomy should be avoided <strong>in</strong> patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer <strong>in</strong> the palliative sett<strong>in</strong>g. Hanazaki K 1999 Low<br />
Health professionals should take the follow<strong>in</strong>g factors <strong>in</strong>to account when consider<strong>in</strong>g palliative gastric Green D 2002<br />
Low<br />
resection:<br />
Kunisaki C 2003<br />
- peritoneal disease<br />
- tumour diameter<br />
- histological type<br />
- degree of differentiation<br />
Laparoscopic bypass or gastric outlet stent<strong>in</strong>g are alternatives to palliative gastric bypass. Brune IB 1997 Low<br />
Palliative gastric bypass should be avoided when malignant ascites or small bowel obstruction are<br />
present.<br />
Blair S 2001 Low<br />
Exploratory laparotomy alone should be avoided. Ouchi K 1998 Low<br />
FNCLCC [129] January La chirurgie palliative est <strong>in</strong>diquée pour les sténoses symptomatiques, les tumeurs qui saignent et parfois<br />
Low<br />
2002 en urgence pour perforation. Il n’y a pas d’<strong>in</strong>dication à la chirurgie s’il existe une atte<strong>in</strong>te péritonéale, une<br />
ascite néoplasique ou des métastases hépatiques et si la tumeur est peu symptomatique (standard).<br />
L’exérèse ou la dérivation peuvent être proposes (option). Low<br />
L’<strong>in</strong>dication de chirurgie palliative dépend de l’<strong>in</strong>tensité des signes fonctionnels, de l’état général et<br />
nutritionnel, de l’âge, des ressources thérapeutiques complémentaires utilisables et surtout de la<br />
résécabilité et d’une espérance de vie supérieure à 6 mois. L’exérèse est préférable à la derivation<br />
(recommendation).<br />
Low<br />
Chemotherapy
148 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
CPG ID Ref Search Recommendation Support<strong>in</strong>g evidence Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 In patients <strong>with</strong> locally advanced or metastatic cancer of the stomach <strong>with</strong> good performance status<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ation chemotherapy <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g cisplat<strong>in</strong> and <strong>in</strong>fusional 5FU (such as ECF or MCF) should be<br />
considered.<br />
Janunger K 2002 High<br />
FNCLCC [129] January La chimiothérapie doit être proposée aux patients en bon état général dans le but d’améliorer leur Murad 1993<br />
High<br />
2002 survie (standard).<br />
Pyrhonen 1995<br />
Glimelius 1997<br />
Modalités (option):<br />
Cull<strong>in</strong>an 1995<br />
High<br />
- monochimiothérapie par 5FU - acide fol<strong>in</strong>ique<br />
Kim 1993<br />
- polychimiothérapie par des comb<strong>in</strong>aisons à base de 5FU et de cisplat<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Cull<strong>in</strong>an 1994<br />
Many other RCTs<br />
Il est recommandé de poursuivre les essais thérapeutiques pour préciser l’<strong>in</strong>térêt de nouveaux<br />
médicaments en première ligne et en seconde ligne. Le choix de la chimiothérapie doit être fait en<br />
fonction de l’état général et de l’âge. Une polychimiothérapie est recommandée pour les patients en bon<br />
état général. Le choix entre ces différentes options thérapeutiques doit prendre en compte l'avis ou le<br />
souhait des patients (recommendation).<br />
No evidence provided<br />
Supportive care<br />
SIGN [47] 2004 Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric cancer should have access to a specialist palliative care team. Smeenk FW 1998<br />
Micc<strong>in</strong>esi G 2003<br />
Costant<strong>in</strong>i M 2003<br />
Costant<strong>in</strong>i M 1993<br />
Low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 149<br />
Study ID<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Ajani J 2006 [269] October<br />
2005<br />
Trumper M<br />
2006<br />
Di Cosimo S<br />
2003<br />
Wagner AD<br />
2005 & 2006<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
cancer<br />
Oral capecitab<strong>in</strong>e Narrative presentation of results, no<br />
conclusions to be drawn.<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e search only<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
selection, quality<br />
appraisal, etc<br />
SR Low<br />
[274] Excluded Retrospective<br />
subanalysis of<br />
[313] February<br />
2003<br />
[181] February<br />
2005<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
gastric cancer<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
gastric cancer<br />
Docetaxel Eight phase II trials focused on docetaxel<br />
as a s<strong>in</strong>gle agent. Consider<strong>in</strong>g<br />
collectively the 262 evaluable patients<br />
enrolled <strong>in</strong> these studies, the mean<br />
response rate (RR) was 19% (CI 95%<br />
14-24%). Docetaxel was well tolerated<br />
<strong>with</strong> a dose-limit<strong>in</strong>g myelosuppression<br />
(grade 3-4 neutropenia <strong>in</strong> 36-95% of<br />
cases). Add<strong>in</strong>g fluorouracil, an RR<br />
rang<strong>in</strong>g from 22% to 86% was<br />
registered, due to differences <strong>in</strong><br />
populations studied (young vs elderly)<br />
and modalities of drug adm<strong>in</strong>istration<br />
(cont<strong>in</strong>uous vs. bolus <strong>in</strong>fusion). RRs for<br />
docetaxel-cisplat<strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation were<br />
56%, 37% and 36% <strong>in</strong> three phase II trials<br />
and 35% <strong>in</strong> a phase III trial. The addition<br />
of both cisplat<strong>in</strong> and fluorouracil to<br />
docetaxel did not <strong>in</strong>crease toxicity.<br />
Randomized trials compar<strong>in</strong>g docetaxelcisplat<strong>in</strong>-fluorouracil<br />
<strong>with</strong> ciplat<strong>in</strong>fluorouoracil<br />
or epirubic<strong>in</strong>-cisplat<strong>in</strong>fluorouracil,<br />
the most commonly used<br />
regimens, are ongo<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Chemotherapy Analysis of chemotherapy versus best<br />
supportive care (HR = 0.39; 95% CI,<br />
0.28 to 0.52) and comb<strong>in</strong>ation versus<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle agent, ma<strong>in</strong>ly fluorouracil (FU) -<br />
based chemotherapy (HR = 0.83; 95%<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
selection process or<br />
quality appraisal<br />
3 RCTs<br />
SR Low<br />
27 RCTs <strong>in</strong>cluded SR High
150 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Wohrer SS 2004 [314] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
gastric cancer<br />
Ajani J 2005 [315] Untreated patients <strong>with</strong><br />
confirmed advanced<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
CI = 0.74 to 0.93) showed significant<br />
overall survival benefits <strong>in</strong> favor of<br />
chemotherapy and comb<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
chemotherapy, respectively. In addition,<br />
comparisons of FU/cisplat<strong>in</strong>-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
regimens <strong>with</strong> versus <strong>with</strong>out<br />
anthracycl<strong>in</strong>es (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62<br />
to 0.95) and FU/anthracycl<strong>in</strong>e-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ations <strong>with</strong> versus <strong>with</strong>out<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> (HR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to<br />
0.91) both demonstrated a significant<br />
survival benefit for the three-drug<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ation. Compar<strong>in</strong>g ir<strong>in</strong>otecanconta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
versus nonir<strong>in</strong>otecanconta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ations (ma<strong>in</strong>ly<br />
FU/cisplat<strong>in</strong>) resulted <strong>in</strong> a nonsignificant<br />
survival benefit <strong>in</strong> favor of the<br />
ir<strong>in</strong>otecan-conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g regimens (HR =<br />
0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.06), but they<br />
have never been compared aga<strong>in</strong>st a<br />
three-drug comb<strong>in</strong>ation.<br />
Chemotherapy Analysis of results shows chemotherapy<br />
to be superior to best supportive care<br />
alone. Comb<strong>in</strong>ation chemotherapy<br />
compared <strong>with</strong> monochemotherapy is<br />
associated <strong>with</strong> significantly higher<br />
overall (complete plus partial) response<br />
rates but nevertheless results <strong>in</strong> similar<br />
survival. ECF (epirubic<strong>in</strong>, cisplat<strong>in</strong> and 5fluorouracil)<br />
currently represents one of<br />
the most effective regimens for<br />
advanced gastric cancer, whereas among<br />
the newer comb<strong>in</strong>ations, ir<strong>in</strong>otecan- or<br />
taxane-based regimens have also given<br />
promis<strong>in</strong>g results. In patients <strong>with</strong> a<br />
poor performance status, consideration<br />
could be given to leucovor<strong>in</strong>-modulated<br />
DCF (docetaxel 75 mg/m2,<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> 75 mg/m² on day 1,<br />
5-fluorouracil alone.<br />
Of 158 randomly assigned patients, 155<br />
(DCF, n = 79; DC, n = 76) received<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>English</strong> only<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
selection process or<br />
quality appraisal<br />
SR Low<br />
RCT High
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 151<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
gastric or<br />
and fluorouracil 750 mg/m²/d treatment. The confirmed ORR was<br />
gastroesophageal as cont<strong>in</strong>uous <strong>in</strong>fusion on days 43% for DCF (n = 79) and 26% for DC<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma 1 to 5) (n = 79) vs. DC (n = 76). Median time to progression<br />
(docetaxel 85 mg/m² and was 5.9 months for DCF and 5.0 months<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> 75 mg/m² on day 1) for DC. Median overall survival time was<br />
every 3 weeks (n = 76) 9.6 months for DCF and 10.5 months<br />
for DC. The most frequent grade 3 and<br />
4 events per patient <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
neutropenia (DCF = 86%; DC = 87%)<br />
and GI (DCF = 56%; DC = 30%).<br />
Bouche O 2004 [316] Patients <strong>with</strong> histologically LV 200 mg/m² (2-hour The overall response rates, which were No <strong>in</strong>formation on exact RCT Moderate<br />
proven metastatic gastric <strong>in</strong>fusion) followed by FU 400 confirmed by an <strong>in</strong>dependent expert randomization procedure<br />
or cardial adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma mg/m² (bolus) and FU 600 panel, were 13% (95%CI, 3.4% to or bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>with</strong>out l<strong>in</strong>itis<br />
mg/m² (22-hour cont<strong>in</strong>uous 23.3%), 27% (95%CI, 14.1% to 40.4%), Included <strong>in</strong> Wagner 2006<br />
<strong>in</strong>fusion) on days 1 and 2 and 40% (95%CI, 25.7% to 54.3%) for<br />
every 14 days (LV5FU2; arm arms A, B, and C, respectively. Median<br />
A) (n = 45) vs. LV5FU2 plus progression-free survival and overall<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> 50 mg/m² (1-hour survival times were 3.2 months (95%CI,<br />
<strong>in</strong>fusion) on day 1 or 2 (arm 1.8 to 4.6 months) and 6.8 months<br />
B) (n = 44), vs. LV5FU2 plus (95%CI, 2.6 to 11.1 months) <strong>with</strong><br />
ir<strong>in</strong>otecan 180 mg/m² (2-hour LV5FU2, respectively; 4.9 months<br />
<strong>in</strong>fusion) on day 1 (arm C) (n (95%CI, 3.5 to 6.3 months) and 9.5<br />
= 45)<br />
months (95%CI, 6.9 to 12.2 months)<br />
<strong>with</strong> LV5FU2-cisplat<strong>in</strong>, respectively; and<br />
6.9 months (95%CI, 5.5 to 8.3 months)<br />
and 11.3 months (95%CI, 9.3 to 13.3<br />
months) <strong>with</strong> LV5FU2-ir<strong>in</strong>otecan,<br />
respectively.<br />
Cocconi G 2003 [317] Patients <strong>with</strong> untreated 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), The complete response (CR) rates to No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
advanced gastric doxorubic<strong>in</strong> and methotrexate PELF and FAMTX were, respectively, bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
(FAMTX) (n = 97) vs. cisplat<strong>in</strong>, 13% [95% confidence <strong>in</strong>tervals (CI) 6% Included <strong>in</strong> Wagner 2006<br />
epirubic<strong>in</strong>, leucovor<strong>in</strong> and 5- to 20%] and 2% (95% CI 0% to 5%; P =<br />
FU (PELF) (n = 98)<br />
0.003), and the objective response rates<br />
[CR plus partial response (PR) rates]<br />
39% (95% CI 29% to 49%) and 22% (95%<br />
CI 13% to 30%; P = 0.009), thus<br />
significantly favour<strong>in</strong>g the PELF<br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ation. The survival rates after 12<br />
months (30.8% versus 22.4%) and 24<br />
months (15.7% versus 9.5%) were also
152 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Koizumi W<br />
2004<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
higher among patients receiv<strong>in</strong>g PELF,<br />
but these differences were not<br />
statistically significant. The toxicities<br />
were qualitatively different but<br />
quantitatively similar. Both regimens<br />
seem to be feasible provided that careful<br />
[318] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
unresectable gastric<br />
cancer<br />
Lutz M 2007 [319] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
gastric cancer<br />
Moehler M 2005 [320] Patients <strong>with</strong> untreated<br />
metastatic or locally<br />
advanced gastric cancer<br />
Cisplat<strong>in</strong> + mitomyc<strong>in</strong> + oral<br />
5’-DFUR (n = 32) vs. Cisplat<strong>in</strong><br />
+ oral 5’-DFUR (n = 29)<br />
Weekly FU 3000 mg/m²/24<br />
hours (HD-FU) (n = 37), FU<br />
2600 mg/m²/24 hours plus dl-<br />
FA 500 mg/m² or l-FA 250<br />
mg/m² (HD-FU/FA) (n = 53),<br />
vs. FU 2000 mg/m²/24 hours<br />
plus FA plus biweekly Cis 50<br />
mg/m² (n = 51), each<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istered for 6 weeks <strong>with</strong><br />
a 1-week rest<br />
Ir<strong>in</strong>otecan plus high-dose 5fluorouracil<br />
(5-FU) and<br />
leucovor<strong>in</strong> (LV) (ILF) (n = 56)<br />
vs. etoposide plus 5-FU/LV<br />
(ELF) (n = 58)<br />
patient monitor<strong>in</strong>g is assured.<br />
No significant differences <strong>in</strong> response<br />
rate and median survival time.<br />
Confirmed responses were observed <strong>in</strong><br />
6.1% (two of 33) of the eligible patients<br />
treated <strong>with</strong> HD-FU, <strong>in</strong> 25% (12 of 48,<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g one complete remission [CR])<br />
<strong>with</strong> HD-FU/FA, and <strong>in</strong> 45.7% (21 of 46,<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g four CRs) <strong>with</strong> HD-FU/FA/Cis.<br />
The HD-FU arm was closed after stage<br />
1 because the required m<strong>in</strong>imum<br />
number of responses was not met. The<br />
median progression-free survival of all<br />
patients <strong>in</strong> the HD-FU, HD-FU/FA, and<br />
HD-FU/FA/Cis arm was 1.9, 4.0, and 6.1<br />
months, respectively. The median<br />
overall survival was 7.1, 8.9, and 9.7<br />
months, and the survival rate at 1 year<br />
was 24.3%, 30.3%, and 45.3%,<br />
respectively. Grade 4 toxicities were<br />
rare. The most relevant grade 3/4<br />
toxicities were neutropenia <strong>in</strong> 1.9%,<br />
5.4%, and 19.6%, and diarrhea <strong>in</strong> 2.7%,<br />
1.9%, and 3.9% of the cycles <strong>in</strong> the HD-<br />
FU, HD-FU/FA, and HD-/FU/Cis arms,<br />
respectively.<br />
The objective cl<strong>in</strong>ical response rates<br />
after 14 weeks treatment were 30% for<br />
ILF and 17% for ELF (RR 0.57, 95%CI<br />
0.29–1.13, P=0.077). Overall response<br />
rates over the entire treatment period<br />
for ILF and ELF were 43 and 24%,<br />
respectively (RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.33–0.97;<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on exact<br />
randomization procedure<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g??<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on exact<br />
randomization procedure<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on exact<br />
randomization procedure<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g???<br />
Included <strong>in</strong> Wagner 2006<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 153<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Ohtsu A 2003 [321] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
gastric cancer<br />
Park SH 2006 [322] Patients <strong>with</strong> measurable<br />
metastatic gastric cancer<br />
Pozzo C 2004 [323] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
gastric or oesophagealgastric<br />
junction<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
P=0.047). For ILF and ELF, respectively,<br />
median progression-free survival was 4.5<br />
vs 2.3 months, time to treatment failure<br />
was 3.6 vs 2.2 months (P=0.45), and<br />
overall survival was 10.8 vs 8.3 months<br />
(P=0.28). Both regimens were well<br />
tolerated, the ma<strong>in</strong> grade 3/4 toxicities<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g diarrhoea (18%, ILF) and<br />
Fluorouracil (FU) alone vs. FU<br />
plus cisplat<strong>in</strong> (FP) vs. uracil<br />
and tegafur plus mitomyc<strong>in</strong><br />
(UFTM)<br />
Paclitaxel + 5FU (n = 38) vs.<br />
docetaxel + 5FU (n = 38)<br />
Ir<strong>in</strong>otecan [80 mg/m2² IV], FA<br />
(500 mg/m² IV) and a 22-h<br />
<strong>in</strong>fusion of 5-FU (2000 mg/m²<br />
neutropenia (57%, ELF).<br />
At the <strong>in</strong>terim analysis, the UFTM arm<br />
showed a significantly <strong>in</strong>ferior survival<br />
<strong>with</strong> higher <strong>in</strong>cidences of hematologic<br />
toxic effects than did control arm FU<br />
alone, and the registration to UFTM was<br />
term<strong>in</strong>ated. Both <strong>in</strong>vestigational<br />
regimens, FP and UFTM, had a<br />
significantly higher <strong>in</strong>cidence of<br />
hematologic toxic effects than FU alone,<br />
although the effects were manageable.<br />
The overall response rates of the FUalone,<br />
FP, and UFTM arms were 11%,<br />
34%, and 9%, respectively. The median<br />
progression-free survival was 1.9<br />
months <strong>with</strong> FU alone, 3.9 months <strong>with</strong><br />
FP, and 2.4 months <strong>with</strong> UFTM,<br />
respectively. Although FP demonstrated<br />
a higher response rate (P < .001) and<br />
longer progression free survival than did<br />
FU alone (P < .001), no differences <strong>in</strong><br />
overall survival were observed between<br />
the arms. The median survival times and<br />
1-year survival rates were 7.1 months<br />
and 28% <strong>with</strong> FU, 7.3 months and 29%<br />
<strong>with</strong> FP, and 6.0 months and 16% <strong>with</strong><br />
UFTM, respectively.<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Included <strong>in</strong> Wagner 2006<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
No significant differences No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
randomization procedure<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
The overall response rate <strong>in</strong> the<br />
ir<strong>in</strong>otecan/5-FU/FA arm was 42.4%, <strong>with</strong><br />
a complete response rate of 5.1%.<br />
No ITT RCT Moderate
154 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma IV), weekly for 6 weeks <strong>with</strong> Correspond<strong>in</strong>g figures for the<br />
a 1-week rest (n = 59), vs. ir<strong>in</strong>otecan/cisplat<strong>in</strong> arm were 32.1% and<br />
ir<strong>in</strong>otecan (200 mg/m² IV) and 1.8%, respectively. The median time to<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> (60 mg/m² IV), on day progression was 6.5 months<br />
1 for 3 weeks (n = 58) (ir<strong>in</strong>otecan/5-FU/FA) and 4.2 months<br />
(ir<strong>in</strong>otecan/<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong>) (P < 0.0001), <strong>with</strong> median<br />
survival times of 10.7 and 6.9 months,<br />
respectively (P = 0.0018). The major<br />
toxicity was grade 3/4 neutropenia,<br />
which was more pronounced <strong>with</strong><br />
ir<strong>in</strong>otecan/cisplat<strong>in</strong> than <strong>with</strong><br />
ir<strong>in</strong>otecan/5-FU/FA (65.7% versus 27%).<br />
Diarrhea was the ma<strong>in</strong> grade 3/4 nonhematological<br />
toxicity <strong>with</strong> both<br />
ir<strong>in</strong>otecan/5-FU/FA (27.0%) and<br />
ir<strong>in</strong>otecan/cisplat<strong>in</strong> (18.1%).<br />
Sadighi S 2006 [324] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced Docetaxel, cisplat<strong>in</strong>, 5-FU Only the TCF group showed statistically No <strong>in</strong>formation on RCT Moderate<br />
gastric cancer<br />
(TCF) (n = 44) vs. epirubic<strong>in</strong>, and cl<strong>in</strong>ically mean<strong>in</strong>gful improvement <strong>in</strong> randomization procedure<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong>, 5-FU (ECF) (n = 42) global QOL (P = 0.001). Surgical and<br />
pathologic response were better <strong>with</strong><br />
TCF, but there was no difference <strong>in</strong><br />
survival rate between two groups.<br />
or bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Sumpter K 2005 [270] Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>operable, ECF (n = 53)<br />
First <strong>in</strong>terim analysis was performed Interim analysis<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
histologically verified ECX (n = 48)<br />
when 80 pts had been randomised. 6 orig<strong>in</strong>ally randomized<br />
locally advanced or EOF (n = 55)<br />
Doselimit<strong>in</strong>g fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e toxicities pts not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> results<br />
metastatic<br />
EOX (n = 48)<br />
were stomatitis, palmar plantar Non<strong>in</strong>feriority study<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma, (E = epirubuc<strong>in</strong>, C = cisplat<strong>in</strong>, erythema (PPE) and diarrhoea; 5.1% of No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
squamous cell or F = 5FU, O = oxaliplat<strong>in</strong>, X = X-treated pts experienced grade 3/4 bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of randomization<br />
undifferentiated<br />
capecitab<strong>in</strong>)<br />
toxicity. Protocol planned dose<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma of the<br />
escalation of X to 625 mg/m² b.i.d. was<br />
oespohagus,<br />
<strong>in</strong>stituted and a second <strong>in</strong>terim analysis<br />
oesophagogastric junction<br />
has been performed. A total of 204 pts<br />
(OGJ) or stomach<br />
were randomised at the time of the<br />
protocol planned 2nd <strong>in</strong>terim analysis.<br />
Grade 3/4 fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e-related<br />
toxicity was seen <strong>in</strong> 13.7% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
F, 8.4% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g X 500 mg/m² b.i.d.<br />
and 14.7% pts receiv<strong>in</strong>g X 625 mg/m²<br />
b.i.d. Comb<strong>in</strong>ed complete and partial
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 155<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Takahashi Y<br />
2004<br />
Thuss-Patience P<br />
2005<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
response rates were ECF 31% (95% CI<br />
18.7–46.3), EOF 39% (95% CI 25.9–<br />
53.1), ECX 35% (95% CI 21.4–50.3),<br />
EOX 48% (95% CI 33.3–62.8). Grade<br />
3/4 fluoropyrimid<strong>in</strong>e toxicity affected<br />
14.7% of pts treated <strong>with</strong> X 625<br />
mgm 2 b.i.d. 1, which is similar to<br />
that observed <strong>with</strong> F, confirm<strong>in</strong>g this to<br />
be the optimal dose. The replacement of<br />
C by O and F by X does not appear to<br />
impair efficacy. The trial cont<strong>in</strong>ues to<br />
[325] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced or<br />
recurrent gastric<br />
carc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
[326] Patients <strong>with</strong> metastatic<br />
or locally advanced gastric<br />
adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>with</strong>out<br />
prior chemotherapy (n =<br />
94)<br />
Tailored CPT-11 + S-1 vs S-1<br />
total accrual of 1000 pts.<br />
Excluded: protocol RCT<br />
ECF (epirubic<strong>in</strong> 50 mg/m² day<br />
1, cisplat<strong>in</strong> 60 mg/m² day 1,<br />
and fluorouracil 200 mg/m²<br />
days 1 through 21, every 3<br />
weeks) (n = 45) or DF<br />
(docetaxel 75 mg/m² day 1,<br />
and fluorouracil 200 mg/m²<br />
days 1 through 21, every 3<br />
weeks) (n = 45)<br />
In the DF arm, two patients (4.4%,<br />
<strong>in</strong>tent to treat) experienced a confirmed<br />
complete tumor remission as best<br />
response, and 15 patients (33.3%)<br />
experienced a confirmed partial<br />
remission (overall response rate [ORR],<br />
37.8%; 95% CI, 25.9% to 51.9%). Two<br />
patients (4.4%) <strong>in</strong> the ECF arm showed<br />
confirmed complete remission, and 14<br />
(31.1%) showed confirmed partial<br />
remission<br />
(ORR, 35.6%; 95% CI, 24.8% to 48.7%).<br />
For the DF and ECF arms, the median<br />
survival was 9.5 and 9.7 months, and the<br />
median time to tumor progression 5.5<br />
and 5.3 months, respectively.<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
randomization procedure<br />
Four patients excluded<br />
because of violation of<br />
<strong>in</strong>clusion criteria<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
Tsuburaya A<br />
2005<br />
[308] Excluded: protocol RCT<br />
Berardi R 2004 [303] Not Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on search SR? Low<br />
stated cancer<br />
at all: excluded<br />
Casaretto L [180] Not Patients diagnosed <strong>with</strong> Chemotherapy versus support The 1-year survival rate was 8% for 5 RCTs <strong>in</strong>cluded SR High<br />
2006<br />
stated gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma cancer treatment<br />
support care and 20% for chemotherapy<br />
(RR = 2.14, 95%CI = 1.00-4.57, P =<br />
0.05); 30% of the patients <strong>in</strong> the<br />
chemotherapy group and 12% <strong>in</strong> the
156 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Bonneta<strong>in</strong> F<br />
2005<br />
Van Cutsem E<br />
2006<br />
Stent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Dormann A<br />
2004<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
support care group atta<strong>in</strong>ed a 6-month<br />
symptom-free period (RR = 2.33, 95%CI<br />
= 1.41-3.87, P < 0.01). Quality of life<br />
evaluated after 4 months was<br />
significantly better for the chemotherapy<br />
patients (34%; RR = 2.07, 95%CI = 1.31-<br />
3.28, P < 0.01) <strong>with</strong> tumor mass<br />
reduction (RR = 3.32, 95%CI = 0.77-<br />
[327] Patients <strong>with</strong> metastatic<br />
gastric adenocarc<strong>in</strong>oma<br />
[328] Patients <strong>with</strong> advanced<br />
gastric cancer<br />
[329] Septemb<br />
er 2003<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> malignant<br />
symptomatic<br />
gastroduodenal<br />
obstruction<br />
LV5FU2-ir<strong>in</strong>otecan vs. LV5FU2<br />
alone vs. LV5FU2-cisplat<strong>in</strong><br />
Docetaxel 75 mg/m² and<br />
cisplat<strong>in</strong> 75 mg/m² (day 1) plus<br />
fluorouracil 750 mg/m²/d (days<br />
1 to 5) every 3 weeks (n =<br />
221) vs. cisplat<strong>in</strong> 100 mg/m²<br />
(day 1) plus fluorouracil 1,000<br />
mg/m²/d (days 1 to 5) every 4<br />
weeks (n = 224)<br />
14.24, P = 0.1).<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> a stable or improved global<br />
health ranged from 11% <strong>in</strong> the LV5FU2cisplat<strong>in</strong><br />
arm to 18% <strong>in</strong> the LV5FU2ir<strong>in</strong>otecan<br />
arm. The ir<strong>in</strong>otecan-basedtherapy<br />
presented 14 to 15 scores <strong>with</strong><br />
a better QoL.<br />
TTP was longer <strong>with</strong> DCFvs. CF (32%<br />
risk reduction; log-rank P < .001).<br />
Overall survival was longer <strong>with</strong> DCF<br />
versus CF<br />
(23% risk reduction; log-rank P = .02).<br />
Two-year survival rate was 18% <strong>with</strong><br />
DCF and 9% <strong>with</strong> CF. Overall response<br />
rate was higher <strong>with</strong> DCF (P = .01).<br />
Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse<br />
events occurred <strong>in</strong> 69% (DCF) v 59%<br />
(CF) of patients. Frequent grade 3 to 4<br />
toxicities for DCF vs. CF were:<br />
neutropenia (82% vs. 57%), stomatitis<br />
(21% vs. 27%), diarrhea (19% vs. 8%),<br />
lethargy (19% vs. 14%). Complicated<br />
neutropenia was more frequent <strong>with</strong><br />
DCF than CF (29% vs. 12%).<br />
Self-expand<strong>in</strong>g metal stents Cl<strong>in</strong>ical success was achieved <strong>in</strong> 526<br />
patients <strong>in</strong> the group <strong>in</strong> which technical<br />
success was reported (89 %; 87 % of the<br />
entire group undergo<strong>in</strong>g stent<strong>in</strong>g).<br />
Disease-related factors accounted for<br />
the majority of cl<strong>in</strong>ical failures. Oral<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
randomization procedure<br />
or bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on exact<br />
randomization procedure<br />
32 case series <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
(only 10 prospective)<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on quality<br />
appraisal or selection<br />
process (two reviewers?)<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
RCT Moderate<br />
SR Very low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 157<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Hosono S 2007 [178] Septemb<br />
er 2006<br />
Jeurn<strong>in</strong>k S 2007 [179] Decemb<br />
er 2005<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
<strong>in</strong>take became possible <strong>in</strong> all of the<br />
patients <strong>in</strong> whom a successful procedure<br />
was carried out, <strong>with</strong> 87 % tak<strong>in</strong>g soft<br />
solids or a full diet, <strong>with</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al resolution<br />
of symptoms occurr<strong>in</strong>g after a mean of 4<br />
days. There was no procedure-related<br />
mortality. Severe complications<br />
(bleed<strong>in</strong>g and perforation) were<br />
observed <strong>in</strong> seven patients (1.2 %). Stent<br />
migration was reported <strong>in</strong> 31 patients (5<br />
%). Stent obstruction occurred <strong>in</strong> 104<br />
cases (18 %), ma<strong>in</strong>ly due to tumor<br />
<strong>in</strong>filtration. The mean survival period<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> malignant<br />
gastroduodenal<br />
obstruction<br />
Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric<br />
outlet obstruction<br />
Endoscopic stent<strong>in</strong>g vs.<br />
surgical gastroenterostomy<br />
was 12.1 weeks.<br />
Endoscopic stent<strong>in</strong>g was found to be<br />
associated <strong>with</strong> higher cl<strong>in</strong>ical success (P<br />
= 0.007), a shorter time from the<br />
procedure to start<strong>in</strong>g oral <strong>in</strong>take (P <<br />
0.001), less morbidity (P = 0.02), lower<br />
<strong>in</strong>cidence of delayed gastric empty<strong>in</strong>g (P<br />
= 0.002), and a shorter hospital stay<br />
(P < 0.001) than surgical gastroenterostomy.<br />
There was no significant<br />
difference between the two groups <strong>in</strong><br />
the analysis of 30-day mortality.<br />
Stent vs. gastrojejunostomy No differences between stent placement<br />
and gastrojejunostomy were found <strong>in</strong><br />
technical success (96% vs. 100%), early<br />
and late major complications 7% vs. 6%<br />
and 18% vs. 17%, respectively) and<br />
persist<strong>in</strong>g symptoms (8% vs. 9%). Initial<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>ical success was higher after stent<br />
placement (89% vs. 72%). M<strong>in</strong>or<br />
complications were less frequently seen<br />
after stent placement <strong>in</strong> the patient<br />
series (9% vs. 33%), however the pooled<br />
analysis showed no differences (OR:<br />
0.75, p = 0.8). Recurrent obstructive<br />
symptoms were more common after<br />
stent placement (18% vs. 1%). Hospital<br />
<strong>English</strong> only<br />
1 RCT and 8 nonrandomized<br />
retrospective<br />
studies <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
Medl<strong>in</strong>e only<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on study<br />
selection<br />
Inclusion of 44 studies (2<br />
RCTs)<br />
SR Low<br />
SR Low
158 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
stay was prolonged after GJJ compared<br />
to stent placement (13 days vs. 7 days).<br />
The mean survival was 105 days after<br />
stent placement and 164 days after GJJ.<br />
Fiori E 2004 [330] Included <strong>in</strong> Jeurn<strong>in</strong>k S RCT<br />
Mehta S 2006 [331] Included <strong>in</strong> Jeurn<strong>in</strong>k S RCT<br />
Wenger U 2006 [271] Patients <strong>with</strong> <strong>in</strong>curable<br />
cancer of the distal<br />
oesophagus or gastric<br />
cardia (n = 41)<br />
Follow up.<br />
No evidence identified.<br />
Antireflux stent (n = 19) vs.<br />
standard stent (n = 22)<br />
Fewer patients <strong>with</strong> complications were<br />
observed <strong>in</strong> the antireflux stent group (n<br />
= 3) than <strong>in</strong> the standard group (n = 8),<br />
but no statistically significant difference<br />
was shown (p = 0.14). The survival rates<br />
were similar <strong>in</strong> the two groups (p =<br />
0.99; hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence<br />
<strong>in</strong>terval, 0.5-2.0). The groups did not<br />
differ significantly <strong>in</strong> terms of studied<br />
oesophageal or respiratory symptoms<br />
or quality of life. Cl<strong>in</strong>ically relevant<br />
improvement <strong>in</strong> dysphagia occurred <strong>in</strong><br />
both groups. Dyspnea decreased after<br />
antireflux stent <strong>in</strong>sertion (mean score<br />
change, -11), and <strong>in</strong>creased after<br />
<strong>in</strong>sertion of standard stent (mean score<br />
change, +21).<br />
Interim report<br />
Central randomization,<br />
but no <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
procedure<br />
Patients were bl<strong>in</strong>ded, but<br />
no <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g of cl<strong>in</strong>icians<br />
RCT Moderate
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 159<br />
APPENDIX 6<br />
EVIDENCE TABLES OF GASTRIC LYMPHOMA BY CLINICAL QUESTION<br />
Study ID<br />
Molecular diagnosis<br />
Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Diagnosis and stag<strong>in</strong>g of gastric lymphoma.<br />
Weston 1998 [332] Mix of 50 patients of which<br />
15 had gastric lymphoma<br />
Endoscopy<br />
Palazzo 1993 [333] Patients <strong>with</strong> primary<br />
gastric lymphoma (n = 50)<br />
Ultrasonography<br />
Hoepffner 2003 [203] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric NHL<br />
(n = 44)<br />
CT scan<br />
Ferreri 1998 [334] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric MALT<br />
lymphoma (n = 20)<br />
Low-grade: n = 11; high-<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
grade: n = 9<br />
Vorbeck 2002 [202] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric MALT<br />
lymphoma (n = 14)<br />
Hoepffner 2003 [203] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric NHL<br />
(n = 44)<br />
Endoscopic ultrasonography<br />
Caletti 1993 [199] Patients <strong>with</strong> endoscopic<br />
gross appearance<br />
suspicious for gastric<br />
cancer of lymphoma<br />
PCR monoclonality<br />
Standard: histology<br />
(endoscopy)<br />
EUS vs. endoscopy<br />
Standard: histology (surgery) (n<br />
= 24)<br />
EUS (n = 44) vs. CT (n = 24)<br />
vs. US (n = 34)<br />
Standard: histology (surgery)<br />
CT for detection of perigastric<br />
adenopathy<br />
Standard: histology (surgery)<br />
EUS vs. CT<br />
Standard: histology<br />
(endoscopy)<br />
EUS (n = 44) vs. CT (n = 24)<br />
vs. US (n = 34)<br />
Standard: histology (surgery)<br />
EUS<br />
Standard: histology (surgery) (n<br />
= 86)<br />
Sensitivity 73%, specificity 46%<br />
However, correct <strong>in</strong>terpretation of these<br />
values is impossible<br />
Endoscopy correctly assessed tumour<br />
extent <strong>in</strong> 25% of cases<br />
Sensitivity for diagnosis: 27% (specificity<br />
unknown)<br />
Sensitivity to dist<strong>in</strong>guish II1 from I: 27%<br />
Specificity 100%<br />
Sensitivity for diagnosis: 57% (specificity<br />
unknown)<br />
Sensitivity for diagnosis: 42% (specificity<br />
unknown)<br />
42 gastric cancers, 44 primary<br />
lymphomas, 142 patients <strong>with</strong> benign<br />
gastric lesions or suspected pancreatic<br />
diseases.<br />
Sensitivity (lymphoma): 89%<br />
Specificity: 97%<br />
PPV: 87%; NPV: 97%<br />
Selection of patients?? Prospective<br />
study<br />
Decision for surgery not<br />
based on EUS<br />
Selection of patients??<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
CT not performed <strong>in</strong> all<br />
patients<br />
Selection of patients??<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on how<br />
patients were selected<br />
Small study sample<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
Selection of patients??<br />
Small study sample<br />
CT not performed <strong>in</strong> all<br />
patients<br />
Selection of patients??<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
No <strong>in</strong>formation on bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g surgery<br />
Standard not applied to all<br />
patients, no <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
follow-up of 142 patients<br />
<strong>with</strong>out gastric malignancy<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Retrospective<br />
(?) study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Very low<br />
Low
160 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
date<br />
evidence<br />
Palazzo 1993 [333] Patients <strong>with</strong> primary EUS vs. endoscopy<br />
Diagnosis of LN metastasis: sensitivity Decision for surgery not Prospective Very low<br />
gastric lymphoma (n = 50) Standard: histology (surgery) (n 100%, specificity 80%<br />
based on EUS<br />
study<br />
= 24)<br />
Selection of patients??<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
Fischbach 2002 [200] Patients <strong>with</strong> primary EUS<br />
Sensitivity to dist<strong>in</strong>guish II1 from I: 59% 10 patients excluded from Prospective Low<br />
gastric B-cell lymphoma Standard: histology (surgery) Specificity 71%<br />
statistical analysis, study<br />
stage I and II (n = 80)<br />
because EUS was<br />
considered <strong>in</strong>appropriate<br />
for evaluation of nonregional<br />
lymph nodes<br />
Fusaroli 2002 [335] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric MALT EUS<br />
Inter-observer agreement T-stage: kappa<br />
Prospective Very low<br />
lymphoma (n = 54; n = 42, Bl<strong>in</strong>ded assessment of 0.38 before and 0.37 after treatment<br />
study<br />
six months after treatment) photographs by 9 other Inter-observer agreement N-stage: kappa<br />
endosonographers<br />
0.63 before and 0.34 after treatment<br />
Vorbeck 2002 [202] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric MALT EUS vs. CT<br />
Sensitivity for diagnosis: 93% (specificity Selection of patients?? Prospective Very low<br />
lymphoma (n = 14) Standard: histology<br />
(endoscopy)<br />
unknown)<br />
Small study sample study<br />
Hoepffner 2003 [203] Patients <strong>with</strong> gastric NHL EUS (n = 44) vs. CT (n = 24) Sensitivity for diagnosis: 95% (specificity CT not performed <strong>in</strong> all Prospective Very low<br />
(n = 44)<br />
vs. US (n = 34)<br />
unknown)<br />
patients<br />
study<br />
PET scan<br />
Standard: histology (surgery)<br />
Selection of patients??<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
Rodriguez 1997<br />
Gallium 67 imag<strong>in</strong>g<br />
[201] Mix of 15 patients, of which<br />
8 had primary gastric NHL<br />
and 7 others served as<br />
control<br />
Kataoka 1990 [336] Patients <strong>with</strong> NHL of the GI<br />
tract (n = 24, of which 20<br />
had gastric NHL), selected<br />
out of 189 consecutive<br />
patients<br />
PET vs. CT or MRI<br />
Standard: endoscopic biopsies<br />
Gallium 67 (n = 24) vs. barium<br />
study (n = 24) vs. CT (n = 16)<br />
Sensitivity 88% Patient selection??<br />
Comparator not applied to<br />
all patients<br />
Sensitivity for diagnosis: 95% (specificity<br />
unknown)<br />
Not only patients <strong>with</strong><br />
gastric NHL<br />
Bl<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g?<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Retrospective<br />
study<br />
Very low<br />
Very low
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>Report</strong>s 75 Upper GI Cancer 161<br />
Treatment of low-grade (Ie and IIE) MALT lymphoma<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Helicobacter eradication<br />
Montalban 2001 [208] Patients <strong>with</strong> stage I lowgrade<br />
gastric MALT<br />
lymphoma<br />
Fischbach 2004 [207] Patients <strong>with</strong> low grade<br />
gastric MALT lymphoma<br />
Chemotherapy<br />
Aviles 2005 [209] 241 patients <strong>with</strong> low-grade<br />
MALT lymphoma <strong>in</strong> early<br />
stage (IE and IIE)<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
Eradication treatment 91% achieved disappearance of the<br />
lymphoma<br />
Exclusive H pylori<br />
eradication<br />
surgery (80 cases),<br />
radiotherapy (78 cases), and<br />
chemotherapy (83 cases)<br />
(CHOP)<br />
Treatment of high-grade gastric lymphoma IE and IIE<br />
Complete regression of lymphoma <strong>in</strong> 56<br />
patients (62%), m<strong>in</strong>imal residual disease<br />
<strong>in</strong> 17 patients (18%), partial<br />
remission <strong>in</strong> 11 patients (12%), no<br />
change <strong>in</strong> four patients (4%), and<br />
progressive disease <strong>in</strong> two patients<br />
(2%)<br />
Event-free survival at follow-up (median<br />
follow-up was 7.5 y) :<br />
Surgery : 52 %<br />
Radiotherapy : 52%<br />
Chemotherapy : 87% ( p
162 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Study ID Ref Search<br />
date<br />
Chen LT 2001 [341] patients suffer<strong>in</strong>g from<br />
high-grade gastric<br />
lymphomas (DLBCL)<br />
B<strong>in</strong>n M 2003 [193] patients suffer<strong>in</strong>g from<br />
localized gastric<br />
lymphomas (DLBCL)<br />
Koch P 2005 [342] 393 patients <strong>with</strong><br />
aggressive localized PGL<br />
were treated between<br />
December 1996 and<br />
Population Intervention Results Comments Study type Level of<br />
evidence<br />
(chemotherapy) after 5 years for all<br />
stages and histologies.<br />
December 2003<br />
Ishikura S 2005 [343] 52 patients <strong>with</strong> aggressive<br />
localized PGL<br />
were treated between<br />
December 1999 and<br />
December 2003<br />
Aviles A 2006 [344] 101 patients <strong>with</strong> high<br />
grade lymphoma<br />
were treated between<br />
December 1999 and<br />
December 2003<br />
16 patients received a brief<br />
antibiotic therapy as first-l<strong>in</strong>e<br />
treatment<br />
58 patients underwent<br />
chemotherapy<br />
48 patients underwent surgery<br />
+chemotherapy<br />
332 patients underwent<br />
“conservative treatment”<br />
(radiotherapy +/-chemotherapy)<br />
61 patients received surgery<br />
and conservative treatment.<br />
Chemotherapy (CHOP) and<br />
radiotherapy (40.5Gy)<br />
52 patients underwent surgery<br />
+chemotherapy (CEOP-Bleo)<br />
49 patients underwent<br />
chemotherapy alone<br />
Total : 101<br />
Eradication of H pylori: 15 patients<br />
Rapid gross tumor regression: 10<br />
patients<br />
Complete remission rate: 62.5% (CI<br />
35.8% - 89.1%)<br />
Median duration of complete response<br />
was 31.2 months (range, 14.4 to 49.1<br />
months)<br />
Overall survival at follow-up (59 months<br />
(range 3–128) :<br />
Best prognosis : 90.5%(chemotherapy<br />
alone) versus 91.1% (surgery<br />
+chemotherapy) (P = 0.303)<br />
Mild Prognosis : 85.9%(chemotherapy<br />
alone) versus 91.6% (surgery<br />
+chemotherapy) (P = 0.187)<br />
Overall survival at 42 months :<br />
For surgery was 86% versus<br />
91.0% for patients <strong>with</strong>out surgery<br />
Complete remission rate: 48 on 52 (CI<br />
82-98%%)<br />
Overall survival at follow-up (median<br />
follow-up was 2y) : 94%<br />
Overall survival at follow-up (median<br />
follow-up was 5 y) :<br />
Surgery + chemotherapy: 78% (CI 70-<br />
88%)<br />
Chemotherapy: 76% (CI 70-87%)<br />
P=0.8<br />
a similar 5-year survival<br />
rate<br />
(>90%) is to be expected<br />
<strong>with</strong> either surgery plus<br />
chemotherapy or<br />
chemotherapy alone<br />
Treatment decision was<br />
left to each participat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
centre<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
comparative<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Prospective<br />
study<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
Low<br />
RCT High
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75 Upper GI Cancer 163<br />
APPENDIX 7<br />
TNM CLASSIFICATION<br />
Oesophageal cancer<br />
(source: Digestive System Tumours. In: Sob<strong>in</strong> LH, Wittek<strong>in</strong>g Ch, editors. TNM<br />
Classification of Malignant Tumours. 6 th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss; 2002. p. 57-96.)<br />
PRIMARY TUMOUR (T)<br />
TX Primary tumour cannot be assessed<br />
T0 No evidence of primary tumour<br />
Tis Carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> situ<br />
T1 Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades lam<strong>in</strong>a propria or submucosa<br />
T2 Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades muscularis propria<br />
T3 Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades adventitia<br />
T4 Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades adjacent structures<br />
REGIONAL LYMPH NODES (N)<br />
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed<br />
N0 No regional lymph node metastasis<br />
N1 Regional lymph node metastasis<br />
DISTANT METASTASIS (M)<br />
MX Distant metastasis cannot be assessed<br />
M0 No distant metastasis<br />
M1 Distant metastasis<br />
Tumours of the lower thoracic oesophagus:<br />
M1a Metastasis <strong>in</strong> celiac lymph nodes<br />
M1b Other distant metastasis<br />
Tumours of the midthoracic oesophagus:<br />
M1a Not applicable<br />
M1b Nonregional lymph nodes and/or other distant metastasis<br />
Tumours of the upper thoracic oesophagus:<br />
M1a Metastasis <strong>in</strong> cervical nodes<br />
M1b Other distant metastasis<br />
STAGE GROUPING<br />
Stage 0 Tis N0 M0<br />
Stage I T1 N0 M0<br />
Stage IIA T2 N0 M0<br />
T3 N0 M0<br />
Stage IIB T1 N1 M0<br />
T2 N1 M0<br />
Stage III T3 N1 M0<br />
T4 Any N M0<br />
Stage IV Any T Any N M1<br />
Stage IVA Any T Any N M1a<br />
Stage IVB Any T Any N M1b
164 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Gastric cancer<br />
PRIMARY TUMOUR (T)<br />
TX Primary tumour cannot be assessed<br />
T0 No evidence of primary tumour<br />
Tis Carc<strong>in</strong>oma <strong>in</strong> situ : <strong>in</strong>traepithelial tumour <strong>with</strong>out <strong>in</strong>vasion of the lam<strong>in</strong>a propria<br />
T1 Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades lam<strong>in</strong>a propria or submucosa<br />
T2 Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades muscularis propria or subserosa<br />
T2a Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades muscularis propria<br />
T2b Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades subserosa<br />
T3 Tumour penetrates serosa (visceral peritoneum) <strong>with</strong>out <strong>in</strong>vasion of adjacent<br />
structures<br />
T4 Tumour <strong>in</strong>vades adjacent structures<br />
REGIONAL LYMPH NODES (N)<br />
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed<br />
N0 No regional lymph node metastasis<br />
N1 Metastasis <strong>in</strong> 1 to 6 regional lymph nodes<br />
N2 Metastasis <strong>in</strong> 7 to 15 regional lymph nodes<br />
N3 Metastasis <strong>in</strong> more than 15 regional lymph nodes<br />
DISTANT METASTASIS (M)<br />
MX Distant metastasis cannot be assessed<br />
M0 No distant metastasis<br />
M1 Distant metastasis<br />
STAGE GROUPING<br />
Stage 0 Tis N0 M0<br />
Stage IA T1 N0 M0<br />
Stage IB T1 N1 M0<br />
T2a/b N0 M0<br />
Stage II T1 N2 M0<br />
T2a/b N1 M0<br />
T3 N0 M0<br />
Stage IIIA T2a/b N2 M0<br />
T3 N1 M0<br />
T4 N0 M0<br />
Stage IIIB T3 N2 M0<br />
Stage IV T4 N1-3 M0<br />
T1-3 N3 M0<br />
Any T Any N M1
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75 Upper GI Cancer 165<br />
APPENDIX 8<br />
USED MESH AND SEARCH TERMS FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE<br />
SEARCH IN MEDLINE (OVID)<br />
Oeophageal cancer:<br />
1 exp esophageal neoplasms/<br />
2 (esophag$ adj5 neoplas$).tw.<br />
3 (oesophag$ adj5 neoplas$).tw.<br />
4 (esophag$ adj5 cancer$).tw.<br />
5 (oesophag$ adj5 cancer$).tw.<br />
6 (esophag$ adj5 carc<strong>in</strong>$).tw.<br />
7 (oesophag$ adj5 carc<strong>in</strong>$).tw.<br />
8 (esophag$ adj5 tumo$).tw.<br />
9 (oesophag$ adj5 tumo$).tw.<br />
10 (esophag$ adj5 metasta$).tw.<br />
11 (oesophag$ adj5 metasta$).tw.<br />
12 (esophag$ adj5 malig$).tw.<br />
13 (oesophag$ adj5 malig$).tw.<br />
14 or/1-13<br />
Gastric cancer:<br />
1 exp stomach neoplasms/<br />
2 (stomach adj5 neoplas$).tw.<br />
3 (stomach adj5 cancer$).tw.<br />
4 (stomach adj5 carc<strong>in</strong>$).tw.<br />
5 (stomach adj5 tumo$).tw.<br />
6 (stomach adj5 metasta$).tw.<br />
7 (stomach adj5 malig$).tw.<br />
8 (gastric adj5 neoplas$).tw.<br />
9 (gastric adj5 cancer$).tw.<br />
10 (gastric adj5 carc<strong>in</strong>$).tw.<br />
11 (gastric adj5 tumo$).tw.<br />
12 (gastric adj5 metasta$).tw.<br />
13 (gastric adj5 malig$).tw.<br />
14 or/1-13
166 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Systematic reviews / meta-analyses:<br />
1 meta-analysis.pt,ti,ab,sh.<br />
2 1 or (meta anal$ or metaanal$).ti,ab,sh.<br />
3 (methodol$ or systematic$ or quantitativ$).ti,ab,sh.<br />
((methodol$ or systematic$ or quantitativ$) adj (review$ or overview$<br />
4<br />
or survey$)).ti,ab,sh.<br />
5 (medl<strong>in</strong>e or embase or <strong>in</strong>dex medicus).ti,ab.<br />
((pool$ or comb<strong>in</strong>ed or comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g) adj (data or trials or studies or<br />
6<br />
results)).ti,ab.<br />
7 3 or 4 or 5 or 6<br />
8 7 and review.pt,sh.<br />
9 2 or 8<br />
Randomized controlled trials:<br />
1 Randomized controlled trials/<br />
2 Randomized controlled trial.pt.<br />
3 Random allocation/<br />
4 Double bl<strong>in</strong>d method/<br />
5 S<strong>in</strong>gle bl<strong>in</strong>d method/<br />
6 Cl<strong>in</strong>ical trial.pt.<br />
7 exp cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials/<br />
8 or/1-7<br />
9 (cl<strong>in</strong>ic$ adj trial$1).tw.<br />
10 ((s<strong>in</strong>gl$ or doubl$ or treb$ or tripl$) adj (bl<strong>in</strong>d$3 or mask$3)).tw.<br />
11 Placebos/<br />
12 Placebo$.tw.<br />
13 Randomly allocated.tw.<br />
14 (allocated adj2 random).tw.<br />
15 or/9-14<br />
16 8 or 15<br />
17 Case report.tw.<br />
18 Letter.pt.<br />
19 Historical article.pt.<br />
20 Review of reported cases.pt.<br />
21 Review, multicase.pt.<br />
22 or/17-21<br />
23 16 not 22
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75 Upper GI Cancer 167<br />
Chemotherapy:<br />
1 exp drug therapy/<br />
2 exp chemotherapy adjuvant/<br />
3 exp drug therapy comb<strong>in</strong>ation/<br />
4 exp ant<strong>in</strong>eoplastic agents comb<strong>in</strong>ed/<br />
5 chemothera$.tw.<br />
6 exp chemotherapy/<br />
7 or/1-6<br />
Endoscopy:<br />
1 endoscopy/ or endoscopy, digestive system/ or endoscopy, gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al/<br />
2 Gastroscopy/<br />
3 Esophagoscopy/<br />
4 or/1-3<br />
Stag<strong>in</strong>g (e.g. gastric cancer):<br />
1 exp stomach neoplasms/<br />
2 (stomach adj5 neoplas$).tw.<br />
3 (stomach adj5 cancer$).tw.<br />
4 (stomach adj5 carc<strong>in</strong>$).tw.<br />
5 (stomach adj5 tumo$).tw.<br />
6 (stomach adj5 metasta$).tw.<br />
7 (stomach adj5 malig$).tw.<br />
8 (gastric adj5 neoplas$).tw.<br />
9 (gastric adj5 cancer$).tw.<br />
10 (gastric adj5 carc<strong>in</strong>$).tw.<br />
11 (gastric adj5 tumo$).tw.<br />
12 (gastric adj5 metasta$).tw.<br />
13 (gastric adj5 malig$).tw.<br />
14 or/1-13<br />
tomography scanners, x-ray computed/ or tomography, x-ray computed/<br />
15 or magnetic resonance imag<strong>in</strong>g/ or positron-emission tomography/ or<br />
tomography, spiral computed/ or tomography/<br />
16 Endosonography/<br />
17 Laparoscopy/<br />
18 Bronchoscopy/<br />
19 Thoracoscopy/<br />
20 Ultrasonography/<br />
21 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20<br />
22 Neoplasm Stag<strong>in</strong>g/<br />
23 "Tumor Markers, Biological"/<br />
24 "Immunoenzyme Techniques"/<br />
25 23 or 24<br />
26 Stomach Neoplasms/an, pa, di, ra, ri, us [Analysis, Pathology, Diagnosis,
168 Upper GI Cancer <strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong> 75<br />
Radiography, Radionuclide Imag<strong>in</strong>g, Ultrasonography]<br />
27 21 or 22 or 25<br />
28 14 and 27<br />
29 26 or 28<br />
30 Prospective Studies/<br />
31 29 and 30<br />
Recurrence (e.g. oesophageal cancer):<br />
1 Salvage Therapy/<br />
2 neoplasm recurrence, local/ or recurrence/<br />
3 exp esophageal neoplasms/<br />
4 (esophag$ adj5 neoplas$).tw.<br />
5 (oesophag$ adj5 neoplas$).tw.<br />
6 (esophag$ adj5 cancer$).tw.<br />
7 (oesophag$ adj5 cancer$).tw.<br />
8 (esophag$ adj5 carc<strong>in</strong>$).tw.<br />
9 (oesophag$ adj5 carc<strong>in</strong>$).tw.<br />
10 (esophag$ adj5 tumo$).tw.<br />
11 (oesophag$ adj5 tumo$).tw.<br />
12 (esophag$ adj5 metasta$).tw.<br />
13 (oesophag$ adj5 metasta$).tw.<br />
14 (esophag$ adj5 malig$).tw.<br />
15 (oesophag$ adj5 malig$).tw.<br />
16 or/3-15<br />
17 1 or 2<br />
18 16 and 17
This page is left <strong>in</strong>tentionally blank.
Wettelijk depot : D/2008/10.273/16
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>reports</strong><br />
1. Effectiviteit en kosten-effectiviteit van behandel<strong>in</strong>gen voor rookstop. D/2004/10.273/1.<br />
2. Studie naar de mogelijke kosten van een eventuele wijzig<strong>in</strong>g van de rechtsregels <strong>in</strong>zake<br />
medische aansprakelijkheid (fase 1). D/2004/10.273/2.<br />
3. Antibioticagebruik <strong>in</strong> ziekenhuizen bij acute pyelonefritis. D/2004/10.273/5.<br />
4. Leukoreductie. Een mogelijke maatregel <strong>in</strong> het kader van een nationaal beleid voor<br />
bloedtransfusieveiligheid. D/2004/10.273/7.<br />
5. Het preoperatief onderzoek. D/2004/10.273/9.<br />
6. Validatie van het rapport van de Onderzoekscommissie over de onderf<strong>in</strong>ancier<strong>in</strong>g van de<br />
ziekenhuizen. D/2004/10.273/11.<br />
7. Nationale richtlijn prenatale zorg. Een basis voor een kl<strong>in</strong>isch pad voor de opvolg<strong>in</strong>g van<br />
zwangerschappen. D/2004/10.273/13.<br />
8. F<strong>in</strong>ancier<strong>in</strong>gssystemen van ziekenhuisgeneesmiddelen: een beschrijvende studie van een<br />
aantal Europese landen en Canada. D/2004/10.273/15.<br />
9. Feedback: onderzoek naar de impact en barrières bij implementatie – Onderzoeksrapport:<br />
deel 1. D/2005/10.273/01.<br />
10. De kost van tandprothesen. D/2005/10.273/03.<br />
11. Borstkankerscreen<strong>in</strong>g. D/2005/10.273/05.<br />
12. Studie naar een alternatieve f<strong>in</strong>ancier<strong>in</strong>g van bloed en labiele bloedderivaten <strong>in</strong> de<br />
ziekenhuizen. D/2005/10.273/07.<br />
13. Endovasculaire behandel<strong>in</strong>g van Carotisstenose. D/2005/10.273/09.<br />
14. Variaties <strong>in</strong> de ziekenhuispraktijk bij acuut myocard<strong>in</strong>farct <strong>in</strong> België. D/2005/10.273/11.<br />
15. Evolutie van de uitgaven voor gezondheidszorg. D/2005/10.273/13.<br />
16. Studie naar de mogelijke kosten van een eventuele wijzig<strong>in</strong>g van de rechtsregels <strong>in</strong>zake<br />
medische aansprakelijkheid. Fase II : ontwikkel<strong>in</strong>g van een actuarieel model en eerste<br />
schatt<strong>in</strong>gen. D/2005/10.273/15.<br />
17. Evaluatie van de referentiebedragen. D/2005/10.273/17.<br />
18. Prospectief bepalen van de honoraria van ziekenhuisartsen op basis van kl<strong>in</strong>ische paden en<br />
guidel<strong>in</strong>es: makkelijker gezegd dan gedaan.. D/2005/10.273/19.<br />
19. Evaluatie van forfaitaire persoonlijk bijdrage op het gebruik van spoedgevallendienst.<br />
D/2005/10.273/21.<br />
20. HTA Moleculaire Diagnostiek <strong>in</strong> België. D/2005/10.273/23, D/2005/10.273/25.<br />
21. HTA Stomamateriaal <strong>in</strong> België. D/2005/10.273/27.<br />
22. HTA Positronen Emissie Tomografie <strong>in</strong> België. D/2005/10.273/29.<br />
23. HTA De electieve endovasculaire behandel<strong>in</strong>g van het abdom<strong>in</strong>ale aorta aneurysma (AAA).<br />
D/2005/10.273/32.<br />
24. Het gebruik van natriuretische peptides <strong>in</strong> de diagnostische aanpak van patiënten met<br />
vermoeden van hartfalen. D/2005/10.273/34.<br />
25. Capsule endoscopie. D/2006/10.273/01.<br />
26. Medico–legale aspecten van kl<strong>in</strong>ische praktijkrichtlijnen. D2006/10.273/05.<br />
27. De kwaliteit en de organisatie van type 2 diabeteszorg. D2006/10.273/07.<br />
28. Voorlopige richtlijnen voor farmaco-economisch onderzoek <strong>in</strong> België. D2006/10.273/10.<br />
29. Nationale Richtlijnen College voor Oncologie: A. algemeen kader oncologisch<br />
kwaliteitshandboek B. wetenschappelijke basis voor kl<strong>in</strong>ische paden voor diagnose en<br />
behandel<strong>in</strong>g colorectale kanker en testiskanker. D2006/10.273/12.<br />
30. Inventaris van databanken gezondheidszorg. D2006/10.273/14.<br />
31. Health Technology Assessment prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) voor<br />
prostaatkankerscreen<strong>in</strong>g. D2006/10.273/17.<br />
32. Feedback : onderzoek naar de impact en barrières bij implementatie – Onderzoeksrapport :<br />
deel II. D/2006/10.273/19.<br />
33. Effecten en kosten van de vacc<strong>in</strong>atie van Belgische k<strong>in</strong>deren met geconjugeerd<br />
pneumokokkenvacc<strong>in</strong>. D/2006/10.273/21.<br />
34. Trastuzumab bij vroegtijdige stadia van borstkanker. D/2006/10.273/23.<br />
35. Studie naar de mogelijke kosten van een eventuele wijzig<strong>in</strong>g van de rechtsregels <strong>in</strong>zake<br />
medische aansprakelijkheid (fase III)- preciser<strong>in</strong>g van de kostenram<strong>in</strong>g. D/2006/10.273/26.<br />
36. Farmacologische en chirurgische behandel<strong>in</strong>g van obesitas. Residentiële zorg voor ernstig<br />
obese k<strong>in</strong>deren <strong>in</strong> België. D/2006/10.273/28.<br />
37. HTA Magnetische Resonantie Beeldvorm<strong>in</strong>g. D/2006/10.273/32.
38. Baarmoederhalskankerscreen<strong>in</strong>g en testen op Human Papillomavirus (HPV).<br />
D/2006/10.273/35<br />
39. Rapid assessment van nieuwe wervelzuil technologieën : totale discusprothese en<br />
vertebro/ballon kyfoplastie. D/2006/10.273/38.<br />
40. Functioneel bilan van de patiënt als mogelijke basis voor nomenclatuur van k<strong>in</strong>esitherapie <strong>in</strong><br />
België? D/2006/10.273/40.<br />
41. Kl<strong>in</strong>ische kwaliteits<strong>in</strong>dicatoren. D/2006/10.273/43.<br />
42. Studie naar praktijkverschillen bij electieve chirurgische <strong>in</strong>grepen <strong>in</strong> België. D/2006/10.273/45.<br />
43. Herzien<strong>in</strong>g bestaande praktijkrichtlijnen. D/2006/10.273/48.<br />
44. Een procedure voor de beoordel<strong>in</strong>g van nieuwe medische hulpmiddelen. D/2006/10.273/50.<br />
45. HTA Colorectale Kankerscreen<strong>in</strong>g: wetenschappelijke stand van zaken en budgetimpact<br />
voor België. D/2006/10.273/53.<br />
46. Health Technology Assessment. Polysomnografie en thuismonitor<strong>in</strong>g van zuigel<strong>in</strong>gen voor de<br />
preventie van wiegendood. D/2006/10.273/59.<br />
47. Geneesmiddelengebruik <strong>in</strong> de belgische rusthuizen en rust- en verzorg<strong>in</strong>gstehuizen.<br />
D/2006/10.273/61<br />
48. Chronische lage rugpijn. D/2006/10.273/63.<br />
49. Antivirale middelen bij seizoensgriep en grieppandemie. Literatuurstudie en ontwikkel<strong>in</strong>g van<br />
praktijkrichtlijnen. D/2006/10.273/65.<br />
50. Eigen betal<strong>in</strong>gen <strong>in</strong> de Belgische gezondheidszorg. De impact van supplementen.<br />
D/2006/10.273/68.<br />
51. Chronische zorgbehoeften bij personen met een niet- aangeboren hersenletsel (NAH)<br />
tussen 18 en 65 jaar. D/2007/10.273/01.<br />
52. Rapid Assessment: Cardiovasculaire Primaire Preventie <strong>in</strong> de Belgische Huisartspraktijk.<br />
D/2007/10.273/03.<br />
53. F<strong>in</strong>ancier<strong>in</strong>g van verpleegkundige zorg <strong>in</strong> ziekenhuizen. D/2007/10 273/06<br />
54. Kosten-effectiviteitsanalyse van rotavirus vacc<strong>in</strong>atie van zuigel<strong>in</strong>gen <strong>in</strong> België<br />
55. Evidence-based <strong>in</strong>houd van geschreven <strong>in</strong>formatie vanuit de farmaceutische <strong>in</strong>dustrie aan<br />
huisartsen. D/2007/10.273/12.<br />
56. Orthopedisch Materiaal <strong>in</strong> België: Health Technology Assessment. D/2007/10.273/14.<br />
57. Organisatie en F<strong>in</strong>ancier<strong>in</strong>g van Musculoskeletale en Neurologische Revalidatie <strong>in</strong> België.<br />
D/2007/10.273/18.<br />
58. De Implanteerbare Defibrillator: een Health Technology Assessment. D/2007/10.273/21.<br />
59. Laboratoriumtesten <strong>in</strong> de huisartsgeneeskunde. D2007/10.273/24.<br />
60. Longfunctie testen bij volwassenen. D/2007/10.273/27.<br />
61. Vacuümgeassisteerde Wondbehandel<strong>in</strong>g: een Rapid Assessment. D/2007/10.273/30<br />
62. Intensiteitsgemoduleerde Radiotherapie (IMRT). D/2007/10.273/32.<br />
63. Wetenschappelijke ondersteun<strong>in</strong>g van het College voor Oncologie: een nationale<br />
praktijkrichtlijn voor de aanpak van borstkanker. D/2007/10.273/35.<br />
64. HPV Vacc<strong>in</strong>atie ter Preventie van Baarmoederhalskanker <strong>in</strong> België: Health Technology<br />
Assessment. D/2007/10.273/41.<br />
65. Organisatie en f<strong>in</strong>ancier<strong>in</strong>g van genetische diagnostiek <strong>in</strong> België. D/2007/10.273/44.<br />
66. Health Technology Assessment: Drug-Elut<strong>in</strong>g Stents <strong>in</strong> België. D/2007/10.273/47.<br />
67. Hadrontherapie. D/2007/10.273/50.<br />
68. Vergoed<strong>in</strong>g van schade als gevolg van gezondheidszorg – Fase IV : Verdeelsleutel tussen het<br />
Fonds en de verzekeraars. D/2007/10.273/52.<br />
69. Kwaliteit van rectale kankerzorg – Fase 1: een praktijkrichtlijn voor rectale kanker<br />
D/2007/10.273/54.<br />
70. Vergelijkende studie van ziekenhuisaccrediter<strong>in</strong>gs-programma ’ s <strong>in</strong> Europa<br />
D/2008/10.273/57.<br />
71. Aanbevel<strong>in</strong>gen voor het gebruik van vijf oftalmologische testen <strong>in</strong> de kl<strong>in</strong>ische<br />
praktijk .D/2008/10.273/04<br />
72. Het aanbod van artsen <strong>in</strong> België. Huidige toestand en toekomstige uitdag<strong>in</strong>gen.<br />
D/2008/10.273/07<br />
73. F<strong>in</strong>ancier<strong>in</strong>g van het zorgprogramma voor de geriatrische patiënt <strong>in</strong> algemene ziekenhuizen:<br />
def<strong>in</strong>itie en evaluatie van een geriatrische patiënt, def<strong>in</strong>itie van de <strong>in</strong>terne liaisongeriatrie en<br />
evaluatie van de middelen voor een goede f<strong>in</strong>ancier<strong>in</strong>g. D/2008/10.273/11<br />
74. Hyperbare Zuurstoftherapie: Rapid Assessment. D/2008/10.273/13.<br />
75. Wetenschappelijke ondersteun<strong>in</strong>g van het College voor Oncologie: een nationale<br />
praktijkrichtlijn voor de aanpak van slokdarm- en maagkanker D/2008/10.273/16