PURPOSE: The celiac lymph node axis acts as a gateway for metastatic systemic spread. The need for prophylactic celiac nodal coverage in chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer is controversial. Given the improved ability to evaluate lymph node status before treatment via positron emission tomography (PET) and endoscopic ultrasound, we hypothesized that prophylactic celiac node irradiation may not be needed for patients with localized esophageal carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the radiation treatment volumes for 131 patients who underwent definitive chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. Patients with celiac lymph node involvement at baseline were excluded. Median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy. The location of all celiac node failures was compared with the radiation treatment plan to determine whether the failures occurred within or outside the radiation treatment field. RESULTS: At a median follow-up time of 52.6 months (95% CI 46.1-56.7 months), 6 of 60 patients (10%) without celiac node coverage had celiac nodal failure; in 5 of these patients, the failures represented the first site of recurrence. Of the 71 patients who had celiac coverage, only 5 patients (7%) had celiac region relapse. In multivariate analyses, having a pretreatment-to-post-treatment change in standardized uptake value on PET >52% (odds ratio [OR] 0.198, p = 0.0327) and having failure in the clinical target volume (OR 10.72, p = 0.001) were associated with risk of celiac region relapse. Of those without celiac coverage, the 6 patients that later developed celiac failure had a worse median overall survival time compared with the other 54 patients who did not fail (median overall survival time: 16.5 months vs. 31.5 months, p = 0.041). Acute and late toxicities were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although celiac lymph node failures occur in approximately 1 of 10 patients, the lack of effective salvage treatments and subsequent low morbidity may justify prophylactic treatment in distal esophageal cancer patients.
PURPOSE: The celiac lymph node axis acts as a gateway for metastatic systemic spread. The need for prophylactic celiac nodal coverage in chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer is controversial. Given the improved ability to evaluate lymph node status before treatment via positron emission tomography (PET) and endoscopic ultrasound, we hypothesized that prophylactic celiac node irradiation may not be needed for patients with localized esophageal carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed the radiation treatment volumes for 131 patients who underwent definitive chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. Patients with celiac lymph node involvement at baseline were excluded. Median radiation dose was 50.4 Gy. The location of all celiac node failures was compared with the radiation treatment plan to determine whether the failures occurred within or outside the radiation treatment field. RESULTS: At a median follow-up time of 52.6 months (95% CI 46.1-56.7 months), 6 of 60 patients (10%) without celiac node coverage had celiac nodal failure; in 5 of these patients, the failures represented the first site of recurrence. Of the 71 patients who had celiac coverage, only 5 patients (7%) had celiac region relapse. In multivariate analyses, having a pretreatment-to-post-treatment change in standardized uptake value on PET >52% (odds ratio [OR] 0.198, p = 0.0327) and having failure in the clinical target volume (OR 10.72, p = 0.001) were associated with risk of celiac region relapse. Of those without celiac coverage, the 6 patients that later developed celiac failure had a worse median overall survival time compared with the other 54 patients who did not fail (median overall survival time: 16.5 months vs. 31.5 months, p = 0.041). Acute and late toxicities were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although celiac lymph node failures occur in approximately 1 of 10 patients, the lack of effective salvage treatments and subsequent low morbidity may justify prophylactic treatment in distal esophageal cancerpatients.
Authors: M A Eloubeidi; M B Wallace; C E Reed; N Hadzijahic; D N Lewin; A Van Velse; M B Leveen; B Etemad; K Matsuda; R S Patel; R H Hawes; B J Hoffman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: M A Eloubeidi; M B Wallace; B J Hoffman; M B Leveen; A Van Velse; R H Hawes; C E Reed Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: M Giovannini; G Monges; J F Seitz; V Moutardier; D Bernardini; P Thomas; G Houvenaeghel; J R Delpero; R Giudicelli; P Fuentes Journal: Endoscopy Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: M Hiele; P De Leyn; P Schurmans; A Lerut; S Huys; K Geboes; A M Gevers; P Rutgeerts Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray; Melissa M Center; Jacques Ferlay; Elizabeth Ward; David Forman Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Bruce D Minsky; Thomas F Pajak; Robert J Ginsberg; Thomas M Pisansky; James Martenson; Ritsuko Komaki; Gordon Okawara; Seth A Rosenthal; David P Kelsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Abraham J Wu; Walter R Bosch; Daniel T Chang; Theodore S Hong; Salma K Jabbour; Lawrence R Kleinberg; Harvey J Mamon; Charles R Thomas; Karyn A Goodman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jingya Wang; Denái R Milton; Liru He; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Christopher H Crane; Bruce D Minsky; Peter F Thall; Steven H Lin Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Kazuki Sudo; Lianchun Xiao; Roopma Wadhwa; Hironori Shiozaki; Elena Elimova; Takashi Taketa; Mariela A Blum; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Brian Weston; William A Ross; Ritsuko Komaki; David C Rice; Stephen G Swisher; Wayne L Hofstetter; Dipen M Maru; Heath D Skinner; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sjoerd M Lagarde; Martinus C J Anderegg; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Sybren L Meijer; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Jacques J G H M Bergman; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 2.895