Combined Modality Therapy of Localized Gastric and Esophageal Cancers

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prajnan Das ◽  
Norio Fukami ◽  
Jaffer A. Ajani

Gastric and esophageal cancers continue to be a significant health problem. The incidence of proximal gastric and distal esophageal cancers has been increasing, especially in white men. Gastric and esophageal cancers have high rates of locoregional and distant failure, resulting in poor overall survival. Therefore, patients with gastric and esophageal cancer may benefit from combined modality therapy. Adjuvant chemoradiation has been shown to improve survival in gastric and gastroesophageal cancers in a phase III trial. In esophageal cancer, most randomized trials have not shown a survival benefit for preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiation, although these approaches are widely used. This article reviews the role of staging, surgery, and adjuvant and preoperative therapies in the management of localized gastric and esophageal cancers.

1998 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Tordiglione ◽  
Maurizio Kalli ◽  
Vittorio Vavassori ◽  
Roberto Luraghi

We have performed a review of recent literature about combined modality therapy in esophageal cancer. Radiobiological principles and radio-chemotherapy interactions modalities in clinical experiences have been considered. Therapeutic schedules, modalities of implementation, and the most relevant clinical results obtained by the major clinical research groups have been emphasized. We also comment on the current role of surgery and on the clinical questions arising in combined radio-chemotherapy treatment.


1997 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles D. Blanke ◽  
Hak Choy ◽  
Steven D. Leach

Author(s):  
R.C. Miller ◽  
P.J. Atherton ◽  
B. Kabat ◽  
M. Fredericksen ◽  
C. Deschamps ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 1603-1603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranjana Advani ◽  
Fangxin Hong ◽  
Leo I. Gordon ◽  
Randy D. Gascoyne ◽  
Henry Wagner ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1603 Background: We have previously reported similar outcomes for patients with bulky stage I or II mediastinal HL treated with combined modality therapy either with ABVD + radiotherapy or the Stanford V regimen in the North American Intergroup trial E2496 (Advani et al, ASH 2010 abstract 416). In the current analysis, we compare the patterns of failure between the two groups. Methods: Patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL (maximum mediastinal mass width > 1/3 of intrathoracic diameter) were randomized to receive chemotherapy (CT) on either Arm A (ABVD x 6–8 cycles administered q 28 days) or Arm B (12 weeks of Stanford V administered weekly). Two-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy all patients received modified involved field radiotherapy (RT) (36 Gy) delivered to the mediastinum, hila, and supraclavicular regions. Patients on Stanford V arm also received involved field RT to any other sites ≥ 5 cm at diagnosis. Patients were assessed 3, 6 and 12 months after completing RT with computed tomography scanning and then every 6 months for 5 years. The primary end points were failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS). Disease progression was defined as 'in-field', 'distant' or both relative to the radiation fields prescribed in the E2496 protocol. Distant sites of failure were further characterized as intra-thoracic, intra-abdominal or other (bone, bone marrow and axillae, if not previously irradiated). Results: Two hundred and sixty-seven patients were randomized: 136 on the ABVD arm and 131 on the Stanford V arm. Patient characteristics were well matched with no differences between two arms in overall response rates (ORR), FFS and OS. (Advani et al ASH 2010 abstract 416). At a median follow up of 5.5 years 40 patients have relapsed with no difference in ABVD (n=18, 13%) versus Stanford V (n=22, 17%) (p=0.49). Central review of RT fields available in 37/40 patients found major violations with under treatment of tumor noted in 7/37 (19%). Patterns of failure are shown in Table 1. There were no differences in patterns of relapse for the two study arms. In-field relapses occurred in <10% in both study arms. Conclusion: For patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL, combined modality therapy with either ABVD +RT or the Stanford V regimen results in excellent disease control. In-field relapse was uncommon. These results set a benchmark for assessing ongoing trials omitting RT in patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL. Future research efforts should focus on risk stratification to identify the small subset of patients who are likely to fail standard upfront therapy. US cooperative group efforts in this subset of patients are ongoing that use interim PET-CT imaging based risk-adapted strategies. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 99-99
Author(s):  
Cedric Chevalier ◽  
Noemie Vulquin ◽  
Mélanie Gauthier ◽  
Aurelie Petitfils ◽  
Etienne Martin ◽  
...  

99 Background: Nearly half of the patients (pts) with an esophageal cancer (EC) have a locoregional failure (LRF) after exclusive chemoradiation (eCRT). eCRT delivering 50Gy remains the standard of care for non operable pts. We aim to evaluate the patterns of LRF with respect to planned dose and/or the incidental (unplanned) dose that covered LRF. Methods: Twenty-two pts with EC who failed locally and/or regionally in their follow-up were exclusively reviewed. All the pts have been initially treated (t0) in a curative intent with eCRT. Co-image registration of CT or PET-CT at time of failure and planning CT at t0 was used for image fusion. Each nodal failure (Nf) and each local failure of the primary tumor (Lf) has been outlined, as well as each nodal station (NS) including Nf according to the RTOG classification. Dosimetric parameters in relation with Lf, Nf and involved NS were derived from the initial dosimetric plan. Results: All the patients underwent eCRT including a 5-FU based chemotherapy regimen. Eighteen patients were treated with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) whereas 4 pts did not. The median dose delivered was 50Gy [50Gy-64Gy]. In the follow-up period, 14 pts were in complete response, 3 pts in partial response, 4 pts had a progressive disease (1pt unknown). The median delay between the start of radiotherapy and LRF was 14.3 months [4.27-48.46]. 13 pts had a Lf (included in “planned-dose”), 9 pts had a Nf, 2 pts had a Lf with Nf and 7 pts had a concomittant distant failure. Among pts with Nf, 8 failures were in-field whereas 3 pts had an out-field relapse. Re-calculated doses for NS delineated on the CT performed at t0 were significantly less important than the planned dose (see Table). Conclusions: Our results suggest that an inadequate dose to both the primary tumor and NS could explain high LRF rates observed in EC. A French randomized phase III trial (NCT 01348217) is currently testing a higher dose to the primary tumor and/or ENI with IMRT in an attempt to improve locoregional control. [Table: see text]


2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 228-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sibyl E. Anderson ◽  
Bruce D. Minsky ◽  
Manjit Bains ◽  
David P. Kelsen ◽  
David H. Ilson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document