Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly the standard of care in the management of locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and junction (AEG). In randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the MAGIC regimen of pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, and the CROSS regimen of preoperative chemotherapy combined with radiation, were superior to surgery only in RCTs that included AEG but were not powered on this cohort. No completed RCT has directly compared neoadjuvant or perioperative chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The Neo-AEGIS trial, uniquely powered on AEG, and including comprehensive modern staging, compares both these regimens. This open label, multicentre, phase III RCT randomises patients (cT2-3, N0-3, M0) in a 1:1 fashion to receive CROSS protocol (Carboplatin and Paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy, 41.4Gy/23Fr, over 5 weeks). The power calculation is a 10% difference in favour of CROSS, powered at 80%, two-sided alpha level of 0.05, requiring 540 patients to be evaluable, 594 to be recruited if a 10% dropout is included (297 in each group). The primary endpoint is overall survival, with a minimum 3-year follow up. Secondary endpoints include: disease free survival, recurrence rates, clinical and pathological response rates, toxicities of induction regimens, post-operative pathology and tumour regression grade, operative in-hospital complications, and health-related quality of life. The trial also affords opportunities for establishing a bio-resource of pre-treatment and resected tumour, and translational research. This RCT directly compares two established treatment regimens, and addresses whether radiation therapy positively impacts on overall survival compared with a standard perioperative chemotherapy regimen Sponsor: Irish Clinical Research Group (ICORG). NCT01726452 . Protocol 10-14. Date of registration 06/11/2012.

Gastroesophageal cancer has a rapidly increasing incidence worldwide and reliable biomarkers are urgently required to facilitate earlier diagnosis and improve survival. The aromatic amino acids tyrosine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan represent potential biomarkers and their relation to gastroesophageal cancer will be evaluated in this review. An electronic literature search was performed to identify all published research relating to the measurement of tyrosine, phenylalanine, or tryptophan in the biofluids or tissues of patients with gastroesophageal cancer. Sixteen studies were included in this systematic review. Six studies investigated serum concentrations, which all found decreased concentrations of these aromatic amino acids, except one study that found increased phenylalanine. Five studies reported increased concentrations within gastric content of these patients and two reported increased urinary concentrations. Tissue concentrations of these aromatic amino acids were increased in three studies. Tyrosine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan represent potential biomarkers of gastroesophageal cancer, and further research is necessary to definitively establish the mechanism responsible for altered concentrations of these compounds in patients with gastroesophageal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(1); 32–38. ©2014 AACR.

In the United Kingdom, upper gastrointestinal symptoms account for at least 3% of consultations in primary care.¹ The national esophagogastric cancer (OGC) audit reported 7044 cases of OGC diagnosed in 2016. Many patients present with advanced-stage disease and only 38% of cases can be treated with a curative intent.² Current UK referral guidelines for suspected OGC focus on alarm symptoms such as dysphagia and odynophagia, despite these symptoms having poor sensitivity and specificity for OGC and often only occur in advanced disease translating into a poor outcome and overall survival.³ There is a wide range in the rate of oesophagogastro duodenoscopy (OGD) among general practice populations in England and OGC patients belonging to practices with the lowest rates of OGD referral are at greatest risk of poor overall survival owing to advanced tumor stage at diagnosis.⁴ Furthermore, OGD is an expensive invasive investigation, with poor uptake in specific ethic minority populations consequently affecting survival.⁵ This high prevalence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms coupled with the low incidence of OGC and the nonspecific nature of symptoms in early disease highlight the need for a triage test to direct patients to have OGD.

Background Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency and can represent a challenging diagnosis, with a negative appendectomy rate as high as 20 %. This review aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of individual biomarkers in the diagnosis of appendicitis and appraise the quality of these studies. Methods A systematic review of the literature between January 2000 and September 2015 using of PubMed, OvidMedline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies in which the diagnostic accuracy, statistical heterogeneity and predictive ability for severity of several biomarkers could be elicited were included. Information regarding costs and process times was retrieved from the regional laboratory. European surgeons blinded to these reviews were independently asked to rank which characteristics of biomarkers were most important in acute appendicitis to inform a cost–benefit trade-off. Sensitivity testing and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the robustness of the analysis and study quality, respectively. Results Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed. Traditional biomarkers (such as white cell count) were found to have a moderate diagnostic accuracy (0.75) but lower costs in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Conversely, novel markers (pro-calcitonin, IL 6 and urinary 5-HIAA) were found to have high process-related costs including analytical times, but improved diagnostic accuracy. QUADAS-2 analysis revealed significant potential biases in the literature. Conclusion When assessing biomarkers, an appreciation of the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of individual biomarkers is needed. Further studies should seek to investigate new biomarkers and address concerns over bias, in order to improve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Background Peritoneal cytology has been used as a part of the cancer staging of gastric cancer patients. The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the value of peritoneal cytology as part of the staging of gastric cancer and survival prediction. The second aim was to establish if positive cytology may be modified by neoadjuvant therapy, to improve prognosis. Methods An electronic literature search was performed using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to January 2016. The logarithm of the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used as the primary summary statistic. Comparative studies were used, and the outcome measure was survival in three groups: (1) positive versus negative cytology at staging laparoscopy immediately preceding surgery; (2) effect of neoadjuvant therapy on cytology and survival; and (3) positive cytology in the absence of macroscopic peritoneal disease was compared with obvious macroscopic peritoneal disease. Results Pooled analysis demonstrated that positive cytology was associated with significantly reduced overall survival (HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.77–4.31; P < 0.0001). Interestingly, negative cytology following neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with significantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.31–0.57; P < 0.0001). The absence of macroscopic peritoneal disease with positive cytology was associated with significantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56–0.73; P < 0.0001). Conclusion This study suggests that patients with initial positive cytology may have a good prognosis following neoadjuvant treatment if the cytology results change to negative after treatment.