Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Reece-Smith, A M
• Saunders, J H
• Soomro, I N
• Bowman, C R
• Duffy, J P
• Kaye, P V
• Welch, N T
• Madhusudan, S
• Parsons, S L

Titel

Postoperative survival following perioperative MAGIC versus neoadjuvant OE02-type chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Ist Teil von

• Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2017-05, Vol.99 (5), p.378-384

Ort / Verlag

England

Erscheinungsjahr

2017

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The optimal management of resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma is controversial, with many centres using neoadjuvant chemotherapy following the Medical Research Council (MRC) oesophageal working group (OE02) trial and the MRC Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial. The more intensive MAGIC regimen is used primarily in gastric cancer but some also use it for oesophageal cancer. A database of cancer resections (2001-2013) provided information on survival of patients following either OE02 or MAGIC-type treatment. The data were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Straight-to-surgery patients were also reviewed and divided into an 'early' cohort (2001-2006, OE02 era) and a 'late' cohort (2006-2013, MAGIC era) to estimate changes in survival over time. Subgroup analysis was performed for responders (tumour regression grade [TRG] 1-3) versus non-responders (TRG 4 and 5) and for anatomical site (gastro-oesophageal junction [GOJ] vs oesophagus). An OE02 regimen was used for 97 patients and 275 received a MAGIC regimen. Those in the MAGIC group were of a similar age to those undergoing OE02 chemotherapy but the proportion of oesophageal cancers was higher among MAGIC patients than among those receiving OE02 treatment. MAGIC patients had a significantly lower stage following chemotherapy than OE02 patients and a higher median overall survival although TRG was similar. On subgroup analysis, this survival benefit was maintained for GOJ and oesophageal cancer patients as well as non-responders. Analysis of responders showed no difference between regimens. 'Late' group straight-to-surgery patients were significantly older than those in the 'early' group. Survival, however, was not significantly different for these two cohorts. Although the original MAGIC trial comprised few oesophageal cancer cases, our patients had better survival with MAGIC than with OE02 chemotherapy in all anatomical subgroups, even though there was no significant change in operative survival over the time period in which these patients were treated. The use of the MAGIC regimen should therefore be encouraged in cases of operable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma.