The incidence of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients may have changed in the past decade, possibly due to novel cancer therapies, improved survival, and high-resolution imaging. Danish medical registries were used to identify 499,092 patients with a first-time cancer diagnosis between 1997 and 2017, who were matched to 1,497,276 comparison individuals without cancer from the general population. We computed cumulative incidences of venous thromboembolism 6 and 12 months after the diagnosis/index date. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression. Risk factors were examined by computing subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) in a competing risk analysis. Cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism 12 months after the cancer diagnosis/index date was 2.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.2%-2.3%) in the cancer cohort and 0.35% (95% CI, 0.34%-0.36%) in the comparison cohort (HR, 8.5; 95% CI, 8.2-8.8). Important risk factors for cancer patients were prior venous thromboembolism (SHR, 7.6; 95% CI, 7.2-8.0), distant metastasis (SHR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.9-3.4), and use of chemotherapy (SHR, 3.4; 95% CI, 3.1-3.7), protein kinase inhibitors (SHR, 4.1; 95% CI 3.4-4.9), anti-angiogenic therapy (SHR, 4.4; 95% CI, 3.8-5.2), and immunotherapy (SHR, 3.6; 2.8-4.6). Twelve-month incidence in the cancer cohort increased from 1.0% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.2%) in 1997 to 3.4% (95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%) in 2017, which was paralleled by improved 12-month survival and increased use of computed tomography (CT) scans, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. In conclusion, the risk of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients is increasing steadily and is 9-fold higher than in the general population.

PURPOSE Preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to the chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer followed by surgery study (CROSS) has become a standard of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer. We aimed to assess long-term outcome of this regimen. METHODS From 2004 through 2008, we randomly assigned 366 patients to either five weekly cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week) followed by surgery, or surgery alone. Follow-up data were collected through 2018. Cox regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival, cause-specific survival, and risks of locoregional and distant relapse. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy beyond 5 years of follow-up was tested with time-dependent Cox regression and landmark analyses. RESULTS The median follow-up was 147 months (interquartile range, 134-157). Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.89). The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on overall survival was not time-dependent ( P value for interaction, P = .73), and landmark analyses suggested a stable effect on overall survival up to 10 years of follow-up. The absolute 10-year overall survival benefit was 13% (38% v 25%). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy reduced risk of death from esophageal cancer (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80). Death from other causes was similar between study arms (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.99). Although a clear effect on isolated locoregional (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.72) and synchronous locoregional plus distant relapse (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.72) persisted, isolated distant relapse was comparable (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.13). CONCLUSION The overall survival benefit of patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer who receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to CROSS persists for at least 10 years.

Purpose: The CROSS trial established neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma (rEAC). In the PERFECT trial, we investigated the feasibility and efficacy of nCRT combined with programmed-death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition for rEAC. Patients and Methods: Patients with rEAC received nCRT according to the CROSS regimen combined with five cycles of atezolizumab (1,200 mg). The primary endpoint was the feasibility of administering five cycles of atezolizumab in ≥75% patients. A propensity score–matched nCRT cohort was used to compare pathologic response, overall survival, and progression-free survival. Exploratory biomarker analysis was performed on repeated tumor biopsies. Results: We enrolled 40 patients of whom 85% received all cycles of atezolizumab. Immune-related adverse events of any grade were observed in 6 patients. In total, 83% proceeded to surgery. Reasons for not undergoing surgery were progression (n = 4), patient choice (n = 2), and death (n = 1). The pathologic complete response rate was 25% (10/40). No statistically significant difference in response or survival was found between the PERFECT and the nCRT cohort. Baseline expression of an established IFNγ signature was higher in responders compared with nonresponders (P = 0.043). On-treatment nonresponders showed either a high number of cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTL) with a transcriptional signature consistent with expression of immune checkpoints, or a low number of CTLs. Conclusions: Combining nCRT with atezolizumab is feasible in patients with rEAC. On the basis of our exploratory biomarker study, future studies are necessary to elucidate the potential of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patient subgroups. See related commentary by Catenacci, p. 3269

PURPOSE To analyze the effect of radiation dose escalation to the primary tumor on local tumor control in definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) for patients with esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with medically inoperable and/or irresectable esophageal carcinoma, referred for dCRT, were randomly assigned between a standard dose (SD) of 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy for 5.5 weeks to the tumor and regional lymph nodes and a high dose (HD) up to a total dose of 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor. Chemotherapy consisted of courses of concurrent carboplatin (area under the curve 2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) in both arms once a week for 6 weeks. The primary end point was local progression-free survival. RESULTS Between September 2012 and June 2018, 260 patients were included. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was present in 61% of patients, and 39% had adenocarcinoma (AC). Radiation treatment was completed by 94%, and 85% had at least five courses of chemotherapy. The median follow-up time for all patients was 50 months. The 3-year local progression-free survival (LPFS) was 70% in the SD arm versus 73% in the HD arm (not significant). The LPFS for SCC and AC was 75% versus 79% and 61% versus 61% for SD and HD, respectively (not significant). The 3-year locoregional progression-free survival was 52% and 59% for the SD and HD arms, respectively ( P = .08). Overall, grade 4 and 5 common toxicity criteria were 12% and 5% in the SD arm versus 14% and 10% in the HD arm, respectively ( P = .15). CONCLUSION In dCRT for esophageal cancer, radiation dose escalation up to 61.6 Gy to the primary tumor did not result in a significant increase in local control over 50.4 Gy. The absence of a dose effect was observed in both AC and SCC.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

IMPORTANCE The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant combination treatment with folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) is unclear.OBJECTIVE To assess the association of adjuvant chemotherapy with overall survival (OS) in patients after pancreatic cancer resection and neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX treatment.

BackgroundResults from the recent CROSS trial showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) significantly increased survival as compared to surgery alone in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. Furthermore, in the nCRT arm 49% of patients with a squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and 23% of patients with an adenocarcinoma (AC) had a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. These results provide a rationale to reconsider and study the timing and necessity of esophagectomy in (all) patients after application of the CROSS regimen.ObjectiveWe propose a “surgery as needed” approach after completion of nCRT. In this approach, patients will undergo active surveillance after completion of nCRT. Surgical resection would be offered only to those patients in whom residual disease or a locoregional recurrence is highly suspected or proven. However, before a surgery as needed approach in oesophageal cancer patients (SANO) can be tested in a randomized controlled trial, we aim to determine the accuracy of detecting the presence or absence of residual disease after nCRT (preSANO trial).MethodsThis study is set up as a prospective, single arm, multicenter, diagnostic trial. Operable patients with potentially curable SCC or AC of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction will be included. Approximately 4-6 weeks after completion of nCRT all included patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) including endoscopy with (random) conventional mucosal biopsies of the primary tumor site and of any other suspected lesions in the esophagus and radial endo-ultrasonography (EUS) for measurement of tumor thickness and area. Patients in whom no locoregional or disseminated disease can be proven by cytohistology will be offered a postponed surgical resection 6-8 weeks after CRE-I (ie, approximately 12-14 weeks after completion of nCRT). In the week preceding the postponed surgical resection, a second clinical response evaluation (CRE-II) will be planned that will include a whole body PET-CT, followed again by endoscopy with (random) conventional mucosal biopsies of the primary tumor site and any other suspected lesions in the esophagus, radial EUS for measurement of tumor thickness and area, and linear EUS plus fine needle aspiration of PET-positive lesions and/or suspected lymph nodes. The main study parameter is the correlation between the clinical response assessment during CRE-I and CRE-II and the final pathological response in the resection specimen.ResultsThe first patient was enrolled on July 23, 2013, and results are expected in January 2016.ConclusionsIf this preSANO trial shows that the presence or absence of residual tumor can be predicted reliably 6 or 12 weeks after completion of nCRT, a randomized trial comparing nCRT plus standard surgery versus chemoradiotherapy plus “surgery as needed” will be conducted (SANO trial).Trial RegistrationNetherlands Trial Register: NTR4834; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4834 (archived by Webcite at http://www.webc...

Aims To examine hospital nurses’ perception of their actual and potential contribution to shared decision‐making about life‐prolonging treatment and their perception of the pre‐conditions for such a contribution. Design A qualitative interview study. Methods Semi‐structured face‐to‐face interviews were conducted with 18 hospital nurses who were involved in care for patients with life‐threatening illnesses. Data were collected from October 2018‐January 2019. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis by two researchers. Results Nurses experienced varying degrees of influence on decision‐making about life‐prolonging treatment. Besides, we identified different points of contact in the treatment trajectory at which nurses could be involved in treatment decision‐making. Nurses’ descriptions of behaviours that potentially contribute to shared decision‐making were classified into three roles as follows: checking the quality of a decision, complementing shared decision‐making and facilitating shared decision‐making. Pre‐conditions for fulfilling the roles identified in this study were: (a) the transfer of information among nurses and between nurses and other healthcare professionals; (b) a culture where there is a positive attitude to nurses' involvement in decision‐making; (c) a good relationship with physicians; (d) knowledge and skills; (e) sufficient time; and (f) a good relationship with patients. Conclusion Nurses described behaviour that reflected a supporting role in shared decision‐making about patients’ life‐prolonging treatment, although not all nurses experienced this involvement as such. Nurses can enhance the shared decision‐making process by checking the decision quality and by complementing and facilitating shared decision‐making. Impact Nurses are increasingly considered instrumental in the shared decision‐making process. To facilitate their contribution, future research should focus on the possible impact of nurses’ involvement in treatment decision‐making and on evidence‐based training to raise awareness and offer guidance for nurses on how to adopt this role.