A meta-analysis on salvage surgery as a potentially curative procedure in patients with isolated local recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer after chemoradiotherapy

BackgroundIsolated local recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer (EC) after curative intended definitive (dCRT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with initially omitted surgery, is a potential indication for salvage surgery. We aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of salvage surgery in these patients.Material and methodsA systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was performed using databases of PubMed/Medline. All included studies were performed in patients with persistent or recurrent EC after initial treatment with dCRT or nCRT, between 2007 and 2017. Survival analysis was performed with an inverse-variance weighting method.ResultsOf the 278 identified studies, 28 were eligible, including a total of 1076 patients. Postoperative complications after salvage esophagectomy were significantly more common among patients with isolated persistent than in those with locoregional recurrent EC, including respiratory (36.6% versus 22.7%; difference in proportion 10.9 with 95% confidence interval (CI) [3.1; 18.7]) and cardiovascular complications (10.4% versus 4.5%; difference in proportion 5.9 with 95% CI [1.5; 10.2]). The pooled estimated 30- and 90-day mortality was 2.6% [1.6; 3.6] and 8.0% [6.3; 9.8], respectively. The pooled estimated 3-year and 5-year overall survival (OS) were 39.0% (95% CI: [35.8; 42.2]) and 19.4% [95% CI:16.5; 22.4], respectively. Patients with isolated persistent or recurrent EC after initial CRT had similar 5-year OS (14.0% versus 19.7%, difference in proportion −5.7, 95% CI [-13.7; 2.3]).ConclusionsSalvage surgery is a potentially curative procedure in patients with locally recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer and can be performed safely after definitive or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy when surgery was initially omitted.     

Solid‐type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of the stomach: Deficiency of mismatch repair and SWI/SNF complex

ARID1A, one of the subunits in SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, is frequently mutated in gastric cancers with microsatellite instability (MSI). The most frequent MSI in solid‐type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (PDA) has been reported, but the SWI/SNF complex status in solid‐type PDA is still largely unknown. We retrospectively analyzed 54 cases of solid‐type PDA for the expressions of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6), SWI/SNF complex subunits (ARID1A, INI1, BRG1, BRM, BAF155, and BAF170) and EBER, and mutations in KRAS and BRAF. We analyzed 40 cases of another histological type of gastric cancer as a control group. The solid‐type PDAs showed coexisting glandular components (76%), MMR deficiency (39%), and complete/partial loss of ARID1A (31%/7%), INI1 (4%/4%), BRG1 (48%/30%), BRM (33%/33%), BAF155 (13%/41%), and BAF170 (6%/2%), EBER positivity (4%), KRAS mutation (2%), and BRAF mutation (2%). Compared to the control group, MMR deficiency and losses of ARID1A, BRG1, BRM, and BAF155 were significantly frequent in solid‐type PDAs. Mismatch repair deficiency was associated with the losses of ARID1A, BRG1, and BAF155 in solid‐type PDAs. In the MMR‐deficient group, solid components showed significantly more frequent losses of ARID1A, BRG1, BRM, and BAF155 compared to glandular components (P = .0268, P = .0181, P = .0224, and P = .0071, respectively). In the MMR‐proficient group, solid components showed significantly more frequent loss of BRG1 compared to glandular components (P = .012). In conclusion, solid‐type PDAs showed frequent losses of MMR proteins and the SWI/SNF complex. We suggest that loss of the SWI/SNF complex could induce a morphological shift from differentiated‐type adenocarcinoma to solid‐type PDA.     

CT Densitometry and Morphology of Radiofrequency-Ablated Stage IA Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z4033 (Alliance) Trial

PurposeTo evaluate tumor and ablation zone morphology and densitometry related to tumor recurrence in participants with Stage IA non–small cell lung cancer undergoing radiofrequency ablation in a prospective, multicenter trial.Materials and MethodsForty-five participants (median 76 years old; 25 women; 20 men) from 16 sites were followed for 2 years (December 2006 to November 2010) with computed tomography (CT) densitometry. Imaging findings before and after ablation were recorded, including maximum CT attenuation (in Hounsfield units) at precontrast and 45-, 90-, 180-, and 300-s postcontrast.ResultsEvery 1-cm increase in the largest axial diameter of the ablation zone at 3-months’ follow-up compared to the index tumor reduced the odds of 2-year recurrence by 52% (P = .02). A 1-cm difference performed the best (sensitivity, 0.56; specificity, 0.93; positive likelihood ratio of 8). CT densitometry precontrast and at 45 seconds showed significantly different enhancement patterns in a comparison among pretreated lung cancer (delta = +61.2 HU), tumor recurrence (delta = +57 HU), and treated tumor/ablation zone (delta [change in attenuation] = +16.9 HU), (P < .0001). Densitometry from 45 to 300 s was also different among pretreated tumor (delta = −6.8 HU), recurrence (delta = −11.2 HU), and treated tumor (delta = +12.1 HU; P = .01). Untreated and residual tumor demonstrated washout, whereas treated tumor demonstrated increased attenuation.ConclusionsAn ablation zone ≥1 cm larger than the initial tumor, based on 3-month follow-up imaging, is recommended to decrease odds of recurrence. CT densitometry can delineate tumor versus treatment zones.     

胃癌微创外科临床研究进展及展望（2000-2020）

目前临床研究已证实腹腔镜胃癌根治术治疗早期胃癌的安全性、可行性和有效性。基于此，第4版日本《胃癌治疗指南》推荐腹腔镜手术治疗临床Ⅰ期远端胃癌。然而，腹腔镜胃癌手术治疗进展期胃癌的有效性和安全性仍存争议。中国腹腔镜胃肠外科研究组（CLASS研究组）发起的CLASS-01研究顺利完成，提供了全球首个局部进展期胃癌腹腔镜手术安全性和疗效的前瞻性多中心证据。胃癌外科的主流方向在从“大切口和扩大化手术切除”逐渐向“微创、精准化手术”转变，以使手术安全性和病人术后生活质量最优化。     

A case report of pseudoaneurysm after a core needle biopsy of breast cancer

Breast pseudoaneurysms after a core needle biopsy are a rare complication with a low incidence. However, it is important to be aware of the possibility of complications that require treatment.     

Association between hereditary predisposition to common cancers and congenital multimalformations

In a previous article we reported that mutations favoring cancer at adulthood seemed to improve fertility and limit miscarriages. Because spontaneous abortion may result from anomalies in embryo, we questioned if an increased frequency of congenital malformation could be evidenced among cancer-prone families. Oncogenetics database (≈193 000 members) of the comprehensive cancer center Jean Perrin was crossed with regional registry of congenital malformations (≈10 000). Among children born between 1986 and 2011, 176 children with malformation matched in both databases. In breast/ovaries cancer-prone families, the risk for malformations was multiplied by 2.4 [1.2-4.5] in case of a BRCA1 mutation. Frequencies of malformation in BRCA2 and MMR mutated families were similar to families without a cancer syndrome. In comparison to malformations concerning a unique anatomical system, multimalformations were significantly more frequent in case of BRCA or MMR mutations: compared to families without cancer syndrome, the risk of multimalformations was multiplied by 4.1 [0.8-21.7] for cancer-prone families but with no known deleterious mutation, by 6.9 [1.2-38.6] in families with a known mutation but an unknown parental mutational status and by 10.4 [2.3-46.0] when one parent carried the familial mutation. No association with the type of anatomical system was found, nor with multiple births. These results suggest that BRCA and MMR genes play an important role in human embryogenesis and that if their function is lowered because of heterozygote mutations, congenital malformations are either more likely (BRCA1 mutations) and/or more susceptible to concern several anatomical systems.     

The case for allele‐specific recognition by the TCR

There is a sharp difference in how one views TCR structure–function–behaviour dependent on whether its recognition of major histocompatibility complex‐encoded restriction elements (R) is germline selected or somatically generated. The generally accepted or Standard model is built on the assumption that recognition of R is by the V regions of the αβ TCR, which is not driven by allele specificity, whereas the competing model posits that recognition of R is allele‐specific. The establishing of allele‐specific recognition of R by the TCR would rule out the Standard model and clear the road to a consideration of a competing construct, the Tritope model. Here, the case for allele‐specific recognition (germline selected) is detailed making it obvious that the Standard model is untenable.