INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before surgery is an option in the treatment of locally advanced resectable oesophageal cancer (EC). However toxicity is substantial and the improvement in overall survival (OS) with this approach is controversial. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-centre study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy with CDDP and 5-FU and 50.4 Gy of external radiotherapy before possible radical surgery in patients with locally advanced resectable EC. If surgery was not possible, a second-phase radiotherapy boost of 10 Gy and one cycle of modified dose chemotherapy were used. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients included between 1998 and 2007: 96% males, median age 61, 83% squamous cell carcinomas, 23% lower third tumours, 36% stage II and 54% stage III and 47% local lymph node involvement. Eighty-six percent completed the combined protocol. Main grade 3-4 toxicities: mucositis (19%) and infections (8%); 4 toxic deaths. Clinical response rates: complete response 54%, partial response 27%, stable disease 8%. Twenty-five patients proceeded to surgery, with radical resection in 24. Pathological response rate: complete response 32%, partial response 52%, progression 16%. There were 7 postoperative deaths and 16 of 34 patients that did not have surgery received the second-phase RT boost. Survival analysis: Median follow-up of 64 months (range 6-134 months). Median OS of 10.33 months. 2-year and 5-year OS of 22 and 16%. The only significant prognostic factor in OS is the clinical complete response rate: 13.9 vs. 7.7 months (p=0.0049). CONCLUSIONS: Our protocol offers a high rate of clinical activity although it is relatively toxic and seems to increase the postoperative mortality, which would blunt any small improvement in survival. The achievement of a complete response is a powerful prognostic factor.
INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy before surgery is an option in the treatment of locally advanced resectable oesophageal cancer (EC). However toxicity is substantial and the improvement in overall survival (OS) with this approach is controversial. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-centre study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy with CDDP and 5-FU and 50.4 Gy of external radiotherapy before possible radical surgery in patients with locally advanced resectable EC. If surgery was not possible, a second-phase radiotherapy boost of 10 Gy and one cycle of modified dose chemotherapy were used. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients included between 1998 and 2007: 96% males, median age 61, 83% squamous cell carcinomas, 23% lower third tumours, 36% stage II and 54% stage III and 47% local lymph node involvement. Eighty-six percent completed the combined protocol. Main grade 3-4 toxicities: mucositis (19%) and infections (8%); 4 toxic deaths. Clinical response rates: complete response 54%, partial response 27%, stable disease 8%. Twenty-five patients proceeded to surgery, with radical resection in 24. Pathological response rate: complete response 32%, partial response 52%, progression 16%. There were 7 postoperative deaths and 16 of 34 patients that did not have surgery received the second-phase RT boost. Survival analysis: Median follow-up of 64 months (range 6-134 months). Median OS of 10.33 months. 2-year and 5-year OS of 22 and 16%. The only significant prognostic factor in OS is the clinical complete response rate: 13.9 vs. 7.7 months (p=0.0049). CONCLUSIONS: Our protocol offers a high rate of clinical activity although it is relatively toxic and seems to increase the postoperative mortality, which would blunt any small improvement in survival. The achievement of a complete response is a powerful prognostic factor.
Authors: Marinke Westerterp; Henderik L van Westreenen; Johannes B Reitsma; Otto S Hoekstra; Jaap Stoker; Paul Fockens; Pieter L Jager; Berthe L F Van Eck-Smit; John T M Plukker; J Jan B van Lanschot; Gerrit W Sloof Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T Nishimaki; O Tanaka; N Ando; H Ide; H Watanabe; M Shinoda; W Takiyama; H Yamana; K Ishida; K Isono; M Endo; T Ikeuchi; T Mitomi; H Koizumi; M Imamura; T Iizuka Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: G Zuccaro; T W Rice; J Goldblum; S V Medendorp; M Becker; R Pimentel; L Gitlin; D J Adelstein Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: J F Bosset; M Gignoux; J P Triboulet; E Tiret; G Mantion; D Elias; P Lozach; J C Ollier; J J Pavy; M Mercier; T Sahmoud Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bryan H Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; Val Gebski; Lara Fitzgerald; R John Simes; Peter Devitt; Stephen Ackland; David C Gotley; David Joseph; Jeremy Millar; John North; Euan T Walpole; James W Denham Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M Yamamoto; Y Doki; H Shiozaki; M Yano; H Miyata; S Tamura; Y Fujiwara; T Yasuda; E Tanaka; T Inoue; M Monden Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2000 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Juliana Yang; Ali A Siddiqui; Thomas E Kowalski; David E Loren; Ammara Khalid; Ayesha Soomro; Syed M Mazhar; Julian Rosé; Laura Isby; Michel Kahaleh; Ankush Kalra; Alex M Sarkisian; Nikhil A Kumta; Jose Nieto; Reem Z Sharaiha Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 4.584