scholarly journals Surveillance versus esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after induction chemoradiation

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 81-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tara R. Semenkovich ◽  
Bryan F. Meyers
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Clinical Complete Response

RA03.05: COMPARISON OF OUTCOME OF ESOPHAGECTOMY VERSUS NON-SURGICAL TREATMENT FOR RESECTABLE ESOPHAGEAL CANCER WITH CLINICAL COMPLETE RESPONSE TO NEOADJUVANT THERAPY

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 24-24
Author(s):  
Shuhei Koga ◽  
Yu Ohkura ◽  
Masaki Ueno ◽  
Harushi Udagawa
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Residual Tumor ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Intergroup Difference ◽  
Clinical Complete Response ◽  
Significant Intergroup Difference ◽  
Non Surgical Treatment

Abstract Background Treatment for patients who have achieved clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy has not been established, with no consensus regarding the indications for either esophagectomy or non-surgical treatment. Methods Among 1545 patients with esophageal cancer at Toranomon Hospital between January 2006 and August 2017, 39 who achieved cCR after neoadjuvant treatment were divided into two groups according to treatment: esophagectomy group (n = 18) andtreatment group (n = 21) for comparison. Results No significant intergroup difference was observed in baseline characteristics. Pathological complete response was confirmed in 13 (72.2%) of the 18 patients who underwent esophagectomy, while residual tumor was detected at the location of primary tumor in 2 (11.1%) patients and lymph node metastasis was found in 3 (16.7%) patients. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly longer in the esophagectomy group than in the non-surgical group (P = 0.002). Disease-specific survival (DSS) was significantly longer in the esophagectomy group (P = 0.007). However, no significant intergroup difference was observed in overall survival estimated based on all deaths, including (P = 0.451). Conclusion With improved diagnostic accuracy, non-surgical treatment can be an option for patients estimated as cCR after treatment administered in a neoadjuvant setting. However, surgical resection is considered more appropriate because of residual tumor in some patients with cCR and because of superior DSS and RFS following esophagectomy compared with non-surgical treatment. Future studies must focus on ameliorating late postoperative complications such as respiratory failure and aspiration pneumonia. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Organ preservation in rectal cancer patients treated with total neoadjuvant therapy.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 692-692
Author(s):  
Rosa Maria Jimenez-Rodriguez ◽  
Felipe Fernando Quezada-Diaz ◽  
Irbaz Hameed ◽  
Sujata Patil ◽  
Jesse Joshua Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Rectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Clinical Complete Response ◽  
Mri Staging ◽  
Total Neoadjuvant Therapy

692 Background: Retrospective case series suggest that watch-and-wait (WW) is a safe alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in selected patients with a clinical complete response (cCR) after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Because treatment strategies vary widely and total numbers of patients treated at different institutions have not been reported, the proportion of rectal cancer patients who can potentially benefit from WW is not known. Here, we report the results of a treatment strategy incorporating WW in a cohort of rectal cancer patients treated with total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). Methods: Consecutive patients with stage II/III (MRI staging) rectal adenocarcinoma treated with TNT from 2012 to 2017 by a single surgeon were included. TNT consisted of mFOLFOX6 (8 cycles) or CapeOX (5 cycles) either before or after CRT (5600 cGy in 28 fractions with sensitizing fluorouracil or capecitabine). Tumor response was assessed with a digital rectal exam, endoscopy, and MRI according to predefined criteria. Patients with a cCR were offered WW, and patients with residual tumor were offered TME. WW and TME patients were compared based on intention to treat, using the chi-square or rank sum test. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: A total of 109 patients were identified. One patient died during CRT. Of the 108 patients, 64 (59%) had an incomplete clinical response; 4 of the 64 patients declined surgery or had local excision, and 60 underwent TME. The remaining 44 patients (41%) had a cCR and underwent WW. On average, patients in the WW group were older and had smaller, more distal tumors. Median radiation dose, number of chemotherapy cycles, number ofadverse events, or length of follow-up (28 months) did not differ between the TME and WW groups. Five (11%) of the 44 WW patients had local tumor regrowth, at a median of 14 (4–25) months after TNT; 2 of the 5 also had distant metastasis. Six (10%) of the 60 TME patients had a pathological complete response. RFS did not differ between the TME and WW groups (log rank P= 0.09). Conclusions: Approximately 40% of patients with stage II/III rectal cancer treated with TNT achieve a clinical complete response and can benefit from a WW approach with the aim of preserving the rectum.

Changes in neutrophil-to-lympocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios to predict survival and pathologic complete response in esophageal cancer patients who receive trimodality therapy.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 170-170
Author(s):  
Jalal Hyder ◽  
Drexell Boggs ◽  
Andrew Hanna ◽  
Mohan Suntharalingam ◽  
Michael David Chuong
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Trimodality Therapy ◽  
Lymphocyte Ratio

170 Background: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) predict for survival in cancer patients. In patients receiving multi-modality therapy, the effect of each specific therapy on the NLR and PLR is not well understood. We therefore evaluated changes in NLR and PLR among locally advanced esophageal cancer patients who received trimodality therapy. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of non-metastatic patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) followed by esophagectomy at our institution between March 2000 and April 2012. NLR and PLR values were obtained the following time points (TP): 1) at diagnosis before CRT, 2) after CRT prior to surgery, and 3) after surgery. We also evaluated change in NLR and PLR using the difference and ratio between TPs. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were applied to evaluate the independent prognostic significance of NLR and PLR. Results: 83 patients with stage II-IV esophageal cancer and median age 60 years were included. Median follow up was 29.3 months. Median dose of 50.4 Gy (50.4-59.4) in 28 fractions (28-33) was used. Median NLR and PLR at the each TP: 1) 3.3 and 157.2, 2) 12 and 645, and 11.5 and 391.7, respectively. On multivariate analysis, inferior OS was associated with PLR ≥250 at TP 3 (p=.03), PLR decrease ≥609.2 from TP 2-3 (p=.02), and PLR ratio (TP 1/TP3) ≥1.08 (p=.03). Inferior progression free survival (PFS) was associated with NLR at TP 2 ≥36 (p=.0008), NLR increase ≥28.3 from TP 1-2 (p=.0005), PLR increase from TP 1-3 ≥19 (p=.01), and PLR ratio (TP 2/TP 3) ≥0.34 (p=0.1). Pathologic complete response (pCR) was less likely for adenocarcinoma histology (p=.03), NLR at TP 2 ≥10.6 (p=.04), and NLR increase from TP 1 to TP 2 ≥4.6 (p=.03). Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate that changes in NLR and PLR throughout trimodality therapy for esophageal cancer correlate with OS, PFS, and pCR. Further evaluation is warranted to better define which of the identified cut-off values are most clinically significant.

P49 A HIATAL HERNIA >3CM IS ASSOCIATED WITH WORSE RESPONSE TO NEOADJUVANT TREATMENT IN ESOPHAGEAL CANCER PATIENTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mantziari Styliani ◽  
St-Amour Penelope ◽  
Winiker Michael ◽  
Drmain Clarisse ◽  
Godat Sebastien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hiatal Hernia ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Disease Free

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to assess whether a preoperative HH≥3cm had an impact on histopathologic tumor response after neoadjuvant treatment, as well as on overall and disease-free survival. Background & Methods Hiatal hernia (HH) and long-term gastroesophageal reflux are known risk factors for esophageal cancer. Previous data suggest a negative impact of large hiatal hernias on survival after esophagectomy, as well as an increased toxicity after neoadjuvant treatment (1), although evidence remains scarce and the mechanism is not fully elucidated. All consecutive patients who underwent surgical esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma or squamous cell cancer of the esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction from 2012-2018 were assessed. Baseline oesogastroduodenoscopy reports and CT-scan images were retrospectively reviewed to identify the presence of a HH of ≥3cm (2). Response to neoadjuvant treatment as assessed by the Mandard score (3), postoperative outcomes and survival were compared between HH and non-HH patients (defined as HH<3cm or no HH at all). Categorical variables were compared with the x2 or Fisher’s test, whereas continuous ones with the Mann-Whitney-U test. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for survival analyses. Results Among the 174 included patients, 44 (25.3%) had a HH≥3cm upon diagnosis. HH patients compared to the non-HH had significantly more Barrett’s metaplasia (52.3% vs 20%, p<0.001), although no differences in baseline stage were observed. HH patients presented a worse response to neoadjuvant treatment compared to non-HH patients (TRG 4-5 in 40.5% vs 21.3%, p=0.033). Among HH patients, perioperative chemotherapy compared to radiochemotherapy showed a trend to higher complete response rates (TRG 1 in 25% vs 11.5%, p=0.059). In the radiochemotherapy subgroup (n=112), HH patients had worse complete response rates than non-HH patients (TRG 1 in 11.5% vs 26.7% respectively, p=0.050). However, no differences in overall or disease-free survival were observed between HH and non-HH patients in the whole cohort or in subgroup analyses. Conclusion A HH≥3cm is frequently encountered in esophageal cancer patients. The presence of HH was associated with worse response to neoadjuvant treatment, especially radiochemotherapy. However, the presence HH did not have an impact on long-term survival and recurrence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document