OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of pathologic response following preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) on the AJCC esophageal cancer staging system. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Increasing numbers of locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer patients are treated with preoperative CRT prior to surgical resection. METHODS: Five hundred ninety-three pts from 1985 to 2003 with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery with (n = 239) or without CRT (n = 354) were reviewed. Resected esophageal tumors were assessed for pathologic response by determining extent of residual tumor following CRT (P0, 0% residual; P1, 1%-50% residual; P2, >50% residual). RESULTS: After CRT down-staging, pTNM specific survival was similar, irrespective of treatment group (P = 0.98). The pTNM stage distribution was more favorable in the CRT group (P < 0.001) despite a more advanced initial cTNM stage distribution (P < 0.001). Following CRT, the pathologic response (pP) at the primary tumor as defined by extent of residual tumor predicted overall survival (3 years: P0, 0% residual = 74%; P1, 1%-50% residual = 54%; P2, >50% residual = 24%, P < 0.001) and stage specific survival with greater accuracy than pTNM stage alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses demonstrate that following CRT, pTNM continues to predict survival. The extent of pathologic response following CRT is an independent risk factor for survival (pP) and should be incorporated in the pTNM esophageal cancer staging system to better predict patient outcome in esophageal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of pathologic response following preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) on the AJCC esophageal cancer staging system. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Increasing numbers of locoregionally advanced esophageal cancerpatients are treated with preoperative CRT prior to surgical resection. METHODS: Five hundred ninety-three pts from 1985 to 2003 with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery with (n = 239) or without CRT (n = 354) were reviewed. Resected esophageal tumors were assessed for pathologic response by determining extent of residual tumor following CRT (P0, 0% residual; P1, 1%-50% residual; P2, >50% residual). RESULTS: After CRT down-staging, pTNM specific survival was similar, irrespective of treatment group (P = 0.98). The pTNM stage distribution was more favorable in the CRT group (P < 0.001) despite a more advanced initial cTNM stage distribution (P < 0.001). Following CRT, the pathologic response (pP) at the primary tumor as defined by extent of residual tumor predicted overall survival (3 years: P0, 0% residual = 74%; P1, 1%-50% residual = 54%; P2, >50% residual = 24%, P < 0.001) and stage specific survival with greater accuracy than pTNM stage alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses demonstrate that following CRT, pTNM continues to predict survival. The extent of pathologic response following CRT is an independent risk factor for survival (pP) and should be incorporated in the pTNM esophageal cancer staging system to better predict patient outcome in esophageal cancer.
Authors: Stephen G Swisher; Jeremy Erasmus; Mary Maish; Arlene M Correa; Homer Macapinlac; Jaffer A Ajani; James D Cox; Ritsuko R Komaki; David Hong; Hoon K Lee; Joe B Putnam; David C Rice; W Roy Smythe; Linh Thai; Ara A Vaporciyan; Garrett L Walsh; Tsung-Teh Wu; Jack A Roth Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jessica S Donington; Daniel L Miller; Mark S Allen; Claude Deschamps; Francis C Nichols; Peter C Pairolero Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Thomas W Rice; Eugene H Blackstone; Lisa A Rybicki; David J Adelstein; Sudish C Murthy; Malcolm M DeCamp; John R Goldblum Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Jan B F Hulscher; Johanna W van Sandick; Angela G E M de Boer; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Jan G P Tijssen; Paul Fockens; Peep F M Stalmeier; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Herman van Dekken; Huug Obertop; Hugo W Tilanus; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hinrich A Wieder; Björn L D M Brücher; Frank Zimmermann; Karen Becker; Florian Lordick; Ambros Beer; Markus Schwaiger; Ulrich Fink; Jörg Rüdiger Siewert; Hubert J Stein; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Robert J Downey; Tim Akhurst; David Ilson; Robert Ginsberg; Manjit S Bains; Mithat Gonen; Heng Koong; Marc Gollub; Bruce D Minsky; Maureen Zakowski; Alan Turnbull; Steven M Larson; Valerie Rusch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael K Gibson; Susan C Abraham; Tsung-Teh Wu; Barbara Burtness; Richard F Heitmiller; Elisabeth Heath; Arlene Forastiere Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Ritsuko Komaki; Jonathan C Nesbitt; Arlene M Correa; James D Cox; Sandeep Lahoti; Faye Martin; Joe B Putnam; W Roy Smythe; Ara A Vaporciyan; Garrett L Walsh; Jack A Roth Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eugene Y Chang; Xin Li; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Ryan A Priest; C Kristian Enestvedt; Jingang Xu; Charles S Springer; Blair A Jobe Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Yun Shin Chun; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Piyaporn Boonsirikamchai; Dipen M Maru; Scott Kopetz; Martin Palavecino; Steven A Curley; Eddie K Abdalla; Harmeet Kaur; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Evelyne M Loyer Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andreas Andreou; Thomas A Aloia; Antoine Brouquet; Paxton V Dickson; Giuseppe Zimmitti; Dipen M Maru; Scott Kopetz; Evelyne M Loyer; Steven A Curley; Eddie K Abdalla; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P Kelly; V Appleyard; K Murray; F Paulin; D Lamont; L Baker; S Suttie; D Exon; A Thompson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Daniel King Hung Tong; Simon Law; Dora Lai Wan Kwong; Kwok Wah Chan; Alfred King Yin Lam; Kam Ho Wong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 5.344