Literature DB >> 19092334

Response evaluation by endoscopy, rebiopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound does not accurately predict histopathologic regression after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer.

Paul M Schneider1, Ralf Metzger, Hartmut Schaefer, Frank Baumgarten, Daniel Vallbohmer, Jan Brabender, Eva Wolfgarten, Elfriede Bollschweiler, Stephan E Baldus, Hans P Dienes, Arnulf H Hoelscher.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the sensitivity (sens), specificity (spec), positive predictive value (ppv), negative predictive value (npv), and accuracy (acc) for clinical response evaluation by endoscopy, rebiopsy, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to determine histomorphologic regression UICC T-category downstaging after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer.
BACKGROUND: Histomorphologic regression is meanwhile established as objective parameter for response and prognosis after neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within a prospective observation trial, 80 patients with localized esophageal cancers (cT2-4,Nx,M0) received standardized neoadjuvant chemoradiation (cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, 36 Gy) and were resected by transthoracic en bloc esophagectomy and two-field lymphadenectomy. Tumor regression was based on the percentage of vital residual tumor cells and classified in 4 categories as reported previously. Evaluation by endoscopy and EUS was performed based on WHO/UICC criteria before starting chemoradiation and before resection and rebiopsies were taken at the time of re-endoscopy.
RESULTS: Histomorphologic response was of significant (log rank) prognostic importance (P < 0.001), whereas clinical response evaluation by endoscopy (P = 0.1), rebiopsy (P = 0.34), and EUS (P = 0.35) was not. The results of the 3 diagnostic modalities to assess histomorphologic regression by endoscopy and rebiopsy UICC ypT-category downstaging for EUS are summarized: Endoscopy: sens 60%, spec 34%, ppv 49%, npv 44%, acc 47%. Rebiopsy: sens 36%, spec 100%, ppv 100%, npv 24%, acc 47%. EUS: sens 7%, spec 79%, ppv 18%, npv 57%, acc 50%.
CONCLUSIONS: Histomorphologic regression is an objective response parameter of significant prognostic importance. The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy, rebiopsy, and EUS is inadequate for objective response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and can be omitted for this purpose in the clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19092334     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31818f3afb

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  46 in total

1.  The role of endoscopic ultrasound in assessing tumor response and staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Subhasis Misra; Mark Choi; Alan S Livingstone; Dido Franceschi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The role of qualitative and quantitative analysis of F18-FDG positron emission tomography in predicting pathologic response following chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Tracy Klayton; Tianyu Li; Jian Q Yu; Lanea Keller; Jonathan Cheng; Steven J Cohen; Neal J Meropol; Walter Scott; Meng Xu-Welliver; Andre Konski
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2012-12

3.  Interim endoscopy results during neoadjuvant therapy for gastric cancer correlate with histopathological response and prognosis.

Authors:  Ulrike Heger; Franz Bader; Florian Lordick; Maria Burian; Rupert Langer; Martin Dobritz; Susanne Blank; Thomas Bruckner; Karen Becker; Ken Herrmann; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert; Katja Ott
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 7.370

Review 4.  [Squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus].

Authors:  K Ott; L Sisic; M Büchler
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 5.  Neoadjuvant treatment for advanced esophageal cancer: response assessment before surgery and how to predict response to chemoradiation before starting treatment.

Authors:  Elfriede Bollschweiler; Arnulf H Hölscher; Matthias Schmidt; Ute Warnecke-Eberz
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.087

6.  Predictions of Pathological Features and Recurrence Based on FDG-PET Findings of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma after Trimodal Therapy.

Authors:  Yoichi Hamai; Manabu Emi; Yuta Ibuki; Yuji Murakami; Ikuno Nishibuchi; Yasushi Nagata; Takaoki Furukawa; Tomoaki Kurokawa; Manato Ohsawa; Toru Yoshikawa; Morihito Okada
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Multimodal Imaging of Pathologic Response to Chemoradiation in Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Penny Fang; Benjamin C Musall; Jong Bum Son; Amy C Moreno; Brian P Hobbs; Brett W Carter; Bryan M Fellman; Osama Mawlawi; Jingfei Ma; Steven H Lin
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Impact of PET-CT on primary staging and response control on multimodal treatment of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Kirsten Thurau; Daniel Palmes; Christiane Franzius; Evgeny Minin; Norbert Senninger; Kai Uwe Juergens; Matthias Bruewer
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Diagnostic evaluation, surgical technique, and perioperative management after esophagectomy: consensus statement of the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group.

Authors:  Daniel Palmes; Matthias Brüwer; Franz G Bader; Michael Betzler; Heinz Becker; Hans-Peter Bruch; Markus Büchler; Heinz Buhr; Beta Michael Ghadimi; Ulrich T Hopt; Ralf Konopke; Katja Ott; Stefan Post; Jörg-Peter Ritz; Ulrich Ronellenfitsch; Hans-Detlev Saeger; Norbert Senninger
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.445

10.  Evaluation of early response to concomitant chemoradiotherapy by interim 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in patients with locally advanced oesophageal carcinomas.

Authors:  Xavier Cuenca; Christophe Hennequin; Elif Hindié; Sofia Rivera; Laetitia Vercellino; Valérie Baruch-Hennequin; Jean-Marc Gornet; Pierre Cattan; Mircea Chirica; Laurent Quéro
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.