Prevalence and Risk Factors for Malignant Nodal Involvement in Early Esophago-Gastric Adenocarcinoma
Philip H. Pucher, Saqib Rahman, Pradeep Bhandari, Natalie Blencowe, Swathikan Chidambaram, Tom Crosby, Richard Evans, Ewen A. Griffiths, Sivesh K. Kamarajah, Sheraz Markar, Nigel Trudgill, Tim Underwood, James Gossage, on behalf of the CONGRESS collaborative
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify lymph node metastasis (LNM) risk and outcomes following treatment of early esophago-gastric (EG) adenocarcinoma. BACKGROUND: The standard of care for early T1N0 EG cancer is endoscopic resection (ER). Radical surgical resection is recommended for patients perceived to be at risk of LNM. Current models to select organ-preserving versus surgical treatment are inconsistent. METHODS: CONGRESS is a UK-based multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients diagnosed with clinical or pathological T1N0 EG adenocarcinoma from 2015 to 2022 were included. Outcomes and rates of LNM were assessed. Cox regression was performed to assess the impact of prognostic and treatment factors on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 1601 patients from 26 centers were included, with median follow-up 32 months (IQR 14-53). 1285/1612 (80.3%) underwent ER, 497/1601 (31.0%) underwent surgery. Overall rate of LNM was 13.5%. On ER staging, tumour depth (T1bsm2-3 17.6% vs T1a 7.1%), lymphovascular invasion (17.2% vs 12.6%), or signet cells (28.6% vs 13.0%) were associated with LNM. In multivariable regression analysis, these were not significantly associated with LNM rates or survival. Adjusting for demographic and tumour variables, surgery after ER was associated with significant survival benefit, HR 0.33 (0.15-0.77), P =0.010. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter data set suggests that early EG adenocarcinoma is associated with significant risk of LNM. These data are representative of current real clinical practice with ER-based staging, and suggests previously held beliefs regarding reliability of predictive factors for LNM may need to be reconsidered. Further research to identify patients who may benefit from organ-preserving versus surgical treatment is urgently required.