BACKGROUND: Chemoradiation followed by surgery is the preferred treatment of localized gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). Surgery causes considerable life-altering consequences and achievement of clinical complete response (clinCR; defined as postchemoradiation [but presurgery] endoscopic biopsy negative for cancer and positron emission tomographic (PET) scan showing physiologic uptake) is an enticement to avoid/delay surgery. We examined the association between clinCR and pathologic complete response (pathCR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eighty-four patients with GEC underwent chemoradiation and esophagectomy. The chi-square test, Fisher exact test, t-test, Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test were used. RESULTS: Of 284 patients, 218 (77%) achieved clinCR. However, only 67 (31%) of the 218 achieved pathCR. The sensitivity of clinCR for pathCR was 97.1% (67/69), but the specificity was low (29.8%; 64/215). Of the 66 patients who had less than a clinCR, only 2 (3%) had a pathCR. Thus, the rate of pathCR was significantly different in patients with clinCR than in those with less than a clinCR (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: clinCR is not highly associated with pathCR; the specificity of clinCR for pathCR is too low to be used for clinical decision making on delaying/avoiding surgery. Surgery-eligible GEC patients should be encouraged to undergo surgery following chemoradiation despite achieving a clinCR.
BACKGROUND: Chemoradiation followed by surgery is the preferred treatment of localized gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). Surgery causes considerable life-altering consequences and achievement of clinical complete response (clinCR; defined as postchemoradiation [but presurgery] endoscopic biopsy negative for cancer and positron emission tomographic (PET) scan showing physiologic uptake) is an enticement to avoid/delay surgery. We examined the association between clinCR and pathologic complete response (pathCR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eighty-four patients with GEC underwent chemoradiation and esophagectomy. The chi-square test, Fisher exact test, t-test, Kaplan-Meier method, and log-rank test were used. RESULTS: Of 284 patients, 218 (77%) achieved clinCR. However, only 67 (31%) of the 218 achieved pathCR. The sensitivity of clinCR for pathCR was 97.1% (67/69), but the specificity was low (29.8%; 64/215). Of the 66 patients who had less than a clinCR, only 2 (3%) had a pathCR. Thus, the rate of pathCR was significantly different in patients with clinCR than in those with less than a clinCR (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: clinCR is not highly associated with pathCR; the specificity of clinCR for pathCR is too low to be used for clinical decision making on delaying/avoiding surgery. Surgery-eligible GEC patients should be encouraged to undergo surgery following chemoradiation despite achieving a clinCR.
Authors: Lalitha K Shankar; John M Hoffman; Steve Bacharach; Michael M Graham; Joel Karp; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Steven Larson; David A Mankoff; Barry A Siegel; Annick Van den Abbeele; Jeffrey Yap; Daniel Sullivan Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.057
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: Takashi Taketa; Arlene M Correa; Akihiro Suzuki; Mariela A Blum; Pamela Chien; Jeffrey H Lee; James Welsh; Steven H Lin; Dipen M Maru; Jeremy J Erasmus; Manoop S Bhutani; Brian Weston; David C Rice; Ara A Vaporciyan; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Oncology Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Joel Tepper; Mark J Krasna; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna Hollis; Carolyn E Reed; Richard Goldberg; Krystyna Kiel; Christopher Willett; David Sugarbaker; Robert Mayer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Le Prise; P L Etienne; B Meunier; G Maddern; M Ben Hassel; D Gedouin; D Boutin; J P Campion; B Launois Journal: Cancer Date: 1994-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lawrence S Engel; Wong-Ho Chow; Thomas L Vaughan; Marilie D Gammon; Harvey A Risch; Janet L Stanford; Janet B Schoenberg; Susan T Mayne; Robert Dubrow; Heidrun Rotterdam; A Brian West; Martin Blaser; William J Blot; Mitchell H Gail; Joseph F Fraumeni Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-09-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ryan C Broderick; Arielle M Lee; Rachel R Blitzer; Beiqun Zhao; Jenny Lam; Joslin N Cheverie; Bryan J Sandler; Garth R Jacobsen; Mark W Onaitis; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Michael Bouvet; Santiago Horgan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J A Ajani; X Wang; S Song; A Suzuki; T Taketa; K Sudo; R Wadhwa; W L Hofstetter; R Komaki; D M Maru; J H Lee; M S Bhutani; B Weston; V Baladandayuthapani; Y Yao; S Honjo; A W Scott; H D Skinner; R L Johnson; D Berry Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Nastaran Neishaboori; Roopma Wadhwa; Graciela M Nogueras-González; Elena Elimova; Hironori Shiozaki; Kazuki Sudo; Nikolaos Charalampakis; Adarsh Hiremath; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Brian Weston; Mariela A Blum; Jane E Rogers; Jeana L Garris; David C Rice; Ritsuko Komaki; Stephen G Swisher; Heath D Skinner; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Oncology Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Ming Zeng; Fernando N Aguila; Taral Patel; Mark Knapp; Xue-Qiang Zhu; Xi-Lin Chen; Phillip D Price Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2016-05-15