Effect of perioperative FLOT versus ECF/ECX on short-term outcomes after surgery for resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma: propensity score-matched study

Disease stage at diagnosis determines the outcome in patients with gastric or lower oesophageal cancer. Many patients present at a late stage, where distant metastases preclude treatment with curative intent. Few Western patients who present with early disease confined to the mucosa are suitable for surgery alone or endoscopic resection1. Most patients considered for surgery have locoregional disease, involving invasion within the wall and/or locoregional lymph node spread. Poor survival after surgery alone has led to a number of trials exploring the role of chemotherapy in addition to surgery2–4. Several studies showed that chemotherapy was effective for these cancers in patients with advanced disease. The regimen of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infused fluorouracil (ECF) achieved a favourable response in locally advanced gastric5,6 and oesophagogastric (OG) cancer7, resulting in its use alongside surgery. The MAGIC trial of perioperative chemotherapy for gastric and OG junctional adenocarcinoma combined three 3-week cycles of ECF before and after surgery, and demonstrated an improvement in 5-year overall survival versus surgery alone (36 per cent versus 23 per cent)8. In the French FNCLCC/FFCD 9703·3 study, patients received 2–3 cycles of cisplatin with fluorouracil before and after surgery or surgery alone, resulting in a significant and similar improvement in 5-year overall survival in the perioperative chemotherapy arm (38 per cent versus 24 per cent)9. Recent evidence has supported a new regimen consisting of a triplet of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), folinic acid, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT). The FLOT4 trial compared perioperative therapy with FLOT with ECF/ECX (where oral capecitabine (X) was substituted in some patients for infusional 5-FU (F)). In locally advanced, resectable gastric or OG junctional adenocarcinoma, perioperative FLOT improved overall survival versus perioperative ECF/ECX (45 per cent versus 36 per cent)10. There is limited evidence of the safety profile of FLOT and its impact on surgical complications after oesophageal and gastric cancer resection. This study investigated the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing resection after completing four cycles of FLOT at a single tertiary OG cancer centre in the UK compared with a historic cohort of patients treated with preoperative ECF/ECX identified from the institutional database.

The study included all patients with adenocarcinomas of the stomach, OG junction, and lower third of the oesophagus, who underwent and completed four cycles of preoperative FLOT and subsequently underwent oesophageal/gastric resection. Patients receiving other neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens, undergoing a robotic minimally invasive procedure, those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy outside this institution, and patients recruited to ongoing immunotherapy trials (ICONIC; NCT03399071), including FLOT chemotherapy, were excluded. Patient cohort All FLOT patients from October 2017 (when FLOT was included in the institutional protocol) until March 2020 were identified from a prospectively developed database and compared with a similar number of patients treated between 2006 and 2017 with ECX/ECF. The perioperative outcomes for all patients were evaluated using the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group standardized platform for reporting complications, quality measures, and mortality associated with all OG resections11. Statistical analysis Outcomes were tabulated in a similar format, and the data for the study were extracted, prepared, and analysed using SPSS version 25 (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA). Baseline demographic, clinical, and operative factors were compared across cohorts using Pearson's χ2 test for categorical variables and Mann–Whitney or Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous data. All analyses were standardized using a binary logistic regression to standardize both groups according to sex, age group, BMI group, and performance status for operative details, perioperative morbidities, and histological outcomes. The authors used the Gastric & Oesophageal Cancer Staging American Joint Committee on Cancer, eighth edition12,13. The Mandard Regression system was also used for histological reporting14, and the Clavien-Dindo scoring criteria for estimating complications15. To endorse matching the FLOT group to the ECF/ECX group, a propensity score was calculated for each patient with the main variables known to affect the outcome (age, sex, BMI, ASA, tumour site). For the propensity score, only complete data with no missing values were used. Patients with FLOT were matched to the closest patient with ECF at a 1:1 ratio to obtain comparable groups. All P-values reported were two-sided and statistical significance was considered when P < 0.05.

A mean propensity score was calculated for both groups and was relatively similar at 0.598 within the FLOT group versus 0.618 in the ECX group. When considering the highest 30 matched patients, there were no significant differences in anastomotic leaks (FLOT 2/30; ECX 3/30 (P = 0.640)), 30-day reoperations (FLOT 0/30; ECX 3/30 (P = 0.076)), 30-day mortality (FLOT 0/30; ECX 2/30; P = 0.150), and length of stay (FLOT median 13 days versus ECX median 15 days; P = 0.275) (Table S6).

Following the publication of the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC), perioperative chemotherapy became a standard of care for patients with resectable gastric and oesophageal cancer8. A significant challenge in the perioperative setting of patients with resectable disease is maintaining a balance between the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy and acceptable toxicity. In the FLOT4 trial, patients had a higher rate of curative surgery and improved median overall survival (50 versus 35 months) versus ECF/ECX, without an increase in surgical morbidity and mortality, reoperations, and hospitalization time. As a result, many centres have adopted the FLOT perioperative regimen as the current standard of care. Despite this, evidence remains sparse about the short and medium-term perioperative morbidity associated with FLOT, especially in the poorer performance status groups. While studies have shown this to be relatively safe, increased chemotherapy-related toxicity and higher risks of complications have been reported in the elderly with resectable disease16. There is limited evidence regarding surgical perioperative outcomes related to FLOT versus other regimens. In the present study, the cohorts receiving FLOT and ECF/ECX were mostly patients over the age of 60 years with a BMI between 20 and 30 kg/m2 and a WHO performance status of 1. Other than an increase in minimally invasive procedures for oesophageal cancer, the two patient groups were comparable and had similar outcomes. Hospital length of stay was slightly longer for patients having open surgery versus those undergoing a minimally invasive procedure (median open 15 days versus minimally invasive 12 days; P = 0.035). These institutional results support the perioperative morbidity results of the FLOT4 trial. There were no significant differences in perioperative complications between cohorts across all systemic classifications of benchmark complications on primary or secondary (propensity-matched) analysis14. There were no differences in outcome with regard to OG leaks, either when separately analysed by cancer pathology (gastric (FLOT 2.4 per cent versus ECX 3.3 per cent; P = 0.727) or oesophageal (FLOT 2.4 per cent versus 4.4 per cent; P = 0.474)) or surgical approach (open (FLOT 0 per cent versus 2 per cent; P = 0.155) versus minimally invasive (FLOT 2 per cent versus ECX 2 per cent; P = 0.999)). There was also no statistical difference in the return to theatre due to anastomotic leak rate (FLOT 0 per cent versus 3.0 per cent; P = 0.081), or in 30- (FLOT 0 per cent versus 3.0 per cent; P = 0.081) or 90-day (FLOT 0 per cent versus 2.0 per cent; P = 0.155) mortality. FLOT has been reported to induce significantly higher pathological complete regression rates than ECF/ECX (20/128 (16 per cent) versus 8/137 (6 per cent); P = 0.02)10. While not the focus of the present study, the results support this previous finding. A significantly higher rate of complete tumour pathological response was seen in the FLOT group (20/100 (20 per cent) versus 10/100 (5 per cent); P = 0.048), and circumferential margin positivity was also lower in the FLOT group (5/100 (5 per cent) versus 14/100 (14 per cent); P = 0.03) (Table 2). The study is limited due to the use of a consecutive case series from a single centre, with no prospective evaluation of surgical quality among the operating surgeons. The study is prone to historical bias due to the adoption of minimally invasive oesophagectomy and enhanced recovery pathways during the study period. These modifications may have influenced the length of stay. However, the results support the use of the perioperative FLOT regimen as the standard of care for locally advanced resectable OG cancer.

A.C. and S.K. are joint senior authors. All the authors would like to thank National Health Service for funding, and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research.

This manuscript received no funding; however, the following authors declare the following funding and conflicts of interest, and all other authors declare no conflicts of interest: D.C. reports receiving research funding from Agen, Sanofi, Merrimack, AstraZeneca Celgene, MedImmune, Ayer, 4C, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Merck, and is on the scientific advisory board for OVIBIO. N.S. has received research funding from Merck KG, and BMS. I.C. has been on advisory boards for Eli-Lilly, Bristol Meyers Squibb, MSD, Bayer, Roche, Merck-Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, OncXerna, Pierre Fabre, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Astella, GSK, Sotio, and Eisai; has received research funding from Eli-Lilly, Janssen-Cilag; and has received honoraria from Eli-Lilly and Eisai.

Supplementary material is available at BJS Open online.

1. Bollschweiler E, Berlth F, Baltin C, Mönig S, Hölscher AH. Treatment of early gastric cancer in the Western World. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:5672–5678 2. DeMeester SR. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and cardia: a review of the disease and its treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:12–30 3. Rouvelas I, Zeng W, Lindblad M, Viklund P, Ye W, Lagergren J. Survival after neoadjuvant therapy compared with surgery alone for resectable esophageal cancer in a population-based study. World J Surg 2006;30:2182–2190 4. Mariette C, Piessen G, Briez N, Gronnier C, Triboulet JP. Oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: Which therapeutic approach? Lancet Oncol 2011;12:296–305 5. Webb A, Cunningham D, Scarffe JH, Harper P, Norman A, Joffe JK et al. Randomized trial comparing epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate in advanced esophagogastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:261–267 6. Findlay M, Cunningham D, Norman A, Mansi J, Nicolson M, Hickish T et al. A phase II study in advanced gastro-esophageal cancer using epirubicin and cisplatin in combination with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (ECF). Ann Oncol 1994;5:609–616 7. Waters JS, Norman A, Cunningham D, Scarffe JH, Webb A, Harper P et al. Long-term survival after epirubicin, cisplatin and fluorouracil for gastric cancer: results of a randomized trial. Br J Cancer 1999;80:269–272 8. Cunningham D, Allum WH, Stenning SP, Thompson JN, Van De Velde CJH, Nicolson M et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;355:11–20 9. Ychou M, Boige V, Pignon J-P, Conroy T, Bouché O, Lebreton G et al. Perioperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an FNCLCC and FFCD multicenter phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1715–1721 10. Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, Goetze TO, Meiler J, Kasper S et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 2019;393:1948–1957 11. Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling G et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2019;269:291–298 12. Rice TW, Patil DT, Blackstone EH. 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: application to clinical practice. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6:119–130 13. Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more 'personalized' approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:93–99 14. Mandard A-M, Dalibard F, Mandard J-C, Marnay J, Henry-Amar M, Petiot J-F et al. Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer 1994;73:2680–2686 15. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–213 16. Lorenzen S, Pauligk C, Homann N, Schmalenberg H, Jäger E, Al-Batran S-E. Feasibility of perioperative chemotherapy with infusional 5-FU, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with (FLOT) or without (FLO) docetaxel in elderly patients with locally advanced esophagogastric cancer. Br J Cancer 2013;108:519–526 © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.