Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology

Open Access 08-05-2024 | Esophageal Cancer | Thoracic Oncology

International Expert Consensus on Semantics of Multimodal Esophageal Cancer Treatment: Delphi Study

Authors: Charlène J. van der Zijden, MD, Study Coordinators of the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, For the International Expert Panel

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recent developments in esophageal cancer treatment, including studies exploring active surveillance following chemoradiotherapy, have led to a need for clear terminology and definitions regarding different multimodal treatment options.

Objective

The aim of this study was to reach worldwide consensus on the definitions and semantics of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment.

Methods

In total, 72 experts working in the field of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment were invited to participate in this Delphi study. The study comprised three Delphi surveys sent out by email and one online meeting. Input for the Delphi survey consisted of terminology obtained from a systematic literature search. Participants were asked to respond to open questions and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements. Consensus was reached when there was ≥75% agreement among respondents.

Results

Forty-nine of 72 invited experts (68.1%) participated in the first online Delphi survey, 45 (62.5%) in the second survey, 21 (46.7%) of 45 in the online meeting, and 39 (86.7%) of 45 in the final survey. Consensus on neoadjuvant and definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery was reached for 27 of 31 items (87%). No consensus was reached on follow-up after treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy.

Conclusion(s)

Consensus was reached on most statements regarding terminology and definitions of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Implementing uniform criteria facilitates comparison of studies and promotes international research collaborations.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2074–84.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Obermannová R, Alsina M, Cervantes A, et al. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2022;33(10):992–1004.CrossRefPubMed
3.
van der Zijden CJ, Lagarde SM, Hermus M, et al. A prospective cohort study on active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: protocol of surgery as needed for oesophageal cancer-2. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):327.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Noordman BJ, Wijnhoven BPL, Lagarde SM, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):142.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Eyck BM, van der Wilk BJ, Noordman BJ, et al. Updated protocol of the SANO trial: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial comparing surgery with active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer. Trials. 2021;22(1):345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Hipp J, Nagavci B, Schmoor C, Meerpohl J, Hoeppner J, Schmucker C. Post-neoadjuvant surveillance and surgery as needed compared with post-neoadjuvant surgery on principle in multimodal treatment for esophageal cancer: a scoping review. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(3):429.CrossRefPubMed
7.
van der Wilk BJ, Eyck BM, Wijnhoven BPL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer (SANO-trial): a phase-III stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial [abstract]. Lugano: European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO); 2023.
8.
Fajardo R, Abbas AE, Petrov RV, Bakhos CT. Salvage esophagectomy. Surg Clin N Am. 2021;101(3):467–82.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zhou N, Hofstetter WL, Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Working G, et al. Salvage esophagectomy definition influences comparative outcomes in esophageal squamous cell cancers. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;114(6):2032–40.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Urschel JD, Ashiku S, Thurer R, Sellke FW. Salvage or planned esophagectomy after chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer: a review. Dis Esophagus. 2003;16(2):60–5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Bruinsma SM, Roobol MJ, Carroll PR, et al. Expert consensus document: Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer: results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure. Nat Rev Urol. 2017;14(5):312–22.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Graham B, Regehr G, Wright JG. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(12):1150–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Castor Electronic Data Capture. 2023 (3 March 2023).
16.
Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):401–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
van der Wille BJ, Noordman BJ, Neijenhuis LKA, et al. Active surveillance versus immediate surgery in clinically complete responders after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: a multicenter propensity matched study. Ann Surg. 2021;274(6):1009–16.CrossRef
18.
Sudo K, Taketa T, Correa AM, et al. Locoregional failure rate after preoperative chemoradiation of esophageal adenocarcinoma and the outcomes of salvage strategies. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(34):4306–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Taketa T, Xiao L, Sudo K, et al. Propensity-based matching between esophagogastric cancer patients who had surgery and who declined surgery after preoperative chemoradiation. Oncology. 2013;85(2):95–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Furlong H, Bass G, Breathnach O, O’Neill B, Leen E, Walsh TN. Targeting therapy for esophageal cancer in patients aged 70 and over. J Geriatr Oncol. 2013;4(2):107–13.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Castoro C, Scarpa M, Cagol M, et al. Complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell cancer of the thoracic oesophagus: is surgery always necessary? J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(8):1375–81.CrossRefPubMed
22.
van der Wilk BJ, Eyck BM, Hofstetter WL, et al. Chemoradiotherapy followed by active surveillance versus standard esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2022;275(3):467–76.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Noordman BJ, de Bekker-Grob EW, Coene P, et al. Patients’ preferences for treatment after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2018;105(12):1630–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
van der Wilk BJ, Spronk I, Noordman BJ, et al. Preferences for active surveillance or standard oesophagectomy: discrete-choice experiment. Br J Surg. 2022;109(2):169–71.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Walsh TN, Kharytaniuk N, Furlong H, et al. Patient choice of surgery or surveillance following a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2024;111(1):352.CrossRef
27.
Akins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR. Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
International Expert Consensus on Semantics of Multimodal Esophageal Cancer Treatment: Delphi Study
Authors
Charlène J. van der Zijden, MD
Study Coordinators of the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute
For the International Expert Panel
Publication date
08-05-2024
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-15367-w