BACKGROUND: EUS response assessment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer undergoingneoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is limited by disintegration of the involved anatomic structures. OBJECTIVE: Predictive and prognostic values of a prospectively defined maximum tumor thickness (MTT). DESIGN: Prospective open-label phase ll study (SAKK 75/02). SETTING: Multicenter, nationwide. PATIENTS: Of 66 patients with primary CRT, 56 underwent en bloc esophagectomy. INTERVENTIONS: EUS-measured MTT before and 2-5 weeks after CRT (yMTT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cutoffs: (1) absolute thickness (yMTT) after CRT < or = 6 mm; (2) relative reduction compared with baseline (ratio yMTT/MTT) < or = 50%. Correlation between EUS measurements and histopathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS:Sixteen of 56 patients were not included for EUS evaluation (10 severe stenosis, 5 MTT not measured, 1 intolerance to second EUS). Characteristics (n = 40) were as follow: median age, 60 years; squamous cell carcinoma, 42%; and adenocarcinoma (AC), 58%. Initial stage was: 10 T2N1, 3 T3N0, 26 T3N1, 1 T3Nx; 14 of 23 AC Siewert type 1. Wilcoxon rank sum test showed significant correlation of TRG1 with yMTT < or = 6 mm (P = .008) and yMTT/MTT < or = 50% (P = .003). The effect of yMTT on TRG1 was significant (P = .0193; odds ratio, 0.687 [95% CI, 0.502-0.941]). The predefined cutoff of < or = 6 mm for yMTT was predictive for TRG1 (P = .0037; Fisher exact test). After a median follow-up of 28.6 months, there was a clear trend for benefit in OS with yMTT < or = 6 mm and yMTT/MTT < or = 50%. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSION: In a multicenter setting, MTT measured by EUS after CRT was highly predictive for response and showed a clear trend for predicting survival. Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: EUS response assessment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is limited by disintegration of the involved anatomic structures. OBJECTIVE: Predictive and prognostic values of a prospectively defined maximum tumor thickness (MTT). DESIGN: Prospective open-label phase ll study (SAKK 75/02). SETTING: Multicenter, nationwide. PATIENTS: Of 66 patients with primary CRT, 56 underwent en bloc esophagectomy. INTERVENTIONS: EUS-measured MTT before and 2-5 weeks after CRT (yMTT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cutoffs: (1) absolute thickness (yMTT) after CRT < or = 6 mm; (2) relative reduction compared with baseline (ratio yMTT/MTT) < or = 50%. Correlation between EUS measurements and histopathologic tumor regression grade (TRG) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Sixteen of 56 patients were not included for EUS evaluation (10 severe stenosis, 5 MTT not measured, 1 intolerance to second EUS). Characteristics (n = 40) were as follow: median age, 60 years; squamous cell carcinoma, 42%; and adenocarcinoma (AC), 58%. Initial stage was: 10 T2N1, 3 T3N0, 26 T3N1, 1 T3Nx; 14 of 23 AC Siewert type 1. Wilcoxon rank sum test showed significant correlation of TRG1 with yMTT < or = 6 mm (P = .008) and yMTT/MTT < or = 50% (P = .003). The effect of yMTT on TRG1 was significant (P = .0193; odds ratio, 0.687 [95% CI, 0.502-0.941]). The predefined cutoff of < or = 6 mm for yMTT was predictive for TRG1 (P = .0037; Fisher exact test). After a median follow-up of 28.6 months, there was a clear trend for benefit in OS with yMTT < or = 6 mm and yMTT/MTT < or = 50%. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSION: In a multicenter setting, MTT measured by EUS after CRT was highly predictive for response and showed a clear trend for predicting survival. Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
Authors: Bo Jan Noordman; Joel Shapiro; Manon Cw Spaander; Kausilia K Krishnadath; Hanneke Wm van Laarhoven; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Grard Ap Nieuwenhuijzen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Meindert N Sosef; Ewout W Steyerberg; Bas Pl Wijnhoven; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2015-06-29
Authors: S E Vollenbrock; F E M Voncken; J M van Dieren; D M J Lambregts; M Maas; G J Meijer; L Goense; S Mook; K J Hartemink; P Snaebjornsson; L C Ter Beek; M Verheij; B M P Aleman; R G H Beets-Tan; A Bartels-Rutten Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Susanne Blank; Phillip Knebel; Georg-Martin Haag; Thomas Bruckner; Ulla Klaiber; Maria Burian; Anja Schaible; Leila Sisic; Thomas Schmidt; Markus K Diener; Katja Ott Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2016-04-04
Authors: Xiaobin Zhang; Ben M Eyck; Yang Yang; Jun Liu; Yin-Kai Chao; Ming-Mo Hou; Tsung-Min Hung; Qingsong Pang; Zhen-Tao Yu; Hongjing Jiang; Simon Law; Ian Wong; Ka-On Lam; Berend J van der Wilk; Ate van der Gaast; Manon C W Spaander; Roelf Valkema; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Bas P L Wijnhoven; J Jan B van Lanschot; Zhigang Li Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 4.430