BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer leads to major histopathological response in less than 30 % of patients. Data on interim endoscopic response assessment do not exist. This exploratory prospective study evaluates early endoscopy after 50 % of the chemotherapy as predictor for later response and prognosis. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients were included (45 resected; 33 R0 resections). All patients received baseline endoscopy and CT scans, after 50 % of their chemotherapy (EGD-1, CT-1) and after completion of chemotherapy (EGD-2, CT-2). Interim endoscopic response (EGD-1) was assessed after having received 50 % (6 weeks) of the planned 12 weeks of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Post-chemotherapy response was clinically assessed by a combination of CT scan (CT-2) and endoscopy (EGD-2). Histopathological response was determined by a standardized scoring system (Becker criteria). Endoscopic response was defined as a reduction of >75 % of the tumor mass. RESULTS: Twelve patients were responders at EGD-1 and 13 at EGD-2. Nine patients (19.1 %) were clinical responders and 7 patients (15.6 %) were histopathological responders after chemotherapy. Specificity, accuracy, and negative predictive value of the interim EGD-1 for subsequent histopathological response were 31/38 (82 %), 36/47 (76 %), and 31/33 (93 %); and for recurrence or death, 28/30 (93.3 %), 38/47 (80.9 %), and 28/35 (80.0 %). Response at EGD-1 was significantly associated with histopathological response (p = 0.010), survival (p < 0.001), and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Interim endoscopy after 6 weeks predicts response and prognosis. Therefore, tailoring treatment according to interim endoscopic assessment could be feasible, but the findings of this study should be validated in a larger patient cohort.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer leads to major histopathological response in less than 30 % of patients. Data on interim endoscopic response assessment do not exist. This exploratory prospective study evaluates early endoscopy after 50 % of the chemotherapy as predictor for later response and prognosis. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients were included (45 resected; 33 R0 resections). All patients received baseline endoscopy and CT scans, after 50 % of their chemotherapy (EGD-1, CT-1) and after completion of chemotherapy (EGD-2, CT-2). Interim endoscopic response (EGD-1) was assessed after having received 50 % (6 weeks) of the planned 12 weeks of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Post-chemotherapy response was clinically assessed by a combination of CT scan (CT-2) and endoscopy (EGD-2). Histopathological response was determined by a standardized scoring system (Becker criteria). Endoscopic response was defined as a reduction of >75 % of the tumor mass. RESULTS: Twelve patients were responders at EGD-1 and 13 at EGD-2. Nine patients (19.1 %) were clinical responders and 7 patients (15.6 %) were histopathological responders after chemotherapy. Specificity, accuracy, and negative predictive value of the interim EGD-1 for subsequent histopathological response were 31/38 (82 %), 36/47 (76 %), and 31/33 (93 %); and for recurrence or death, 28/30 (93.3 %), 38/47 (80.9 %), and 28/35 (80.0 %). Response at EGD-1 was significantly associated with histopathological response (p = 0.010), survival (p < 0.001), and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Interim endoscopy after 6 weeks predicts response and prognosis. Therefore, tailoring treatment according to interim endoscopic assessment could be feasible, but the findings of this study should be validated in a larger patient cohort.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M van Heijl; S S K S Phoa; M I van Berge Henegouwen; J M T Omloo; B M Mearadji; G W Sloof; P M M Bossuyt; M C C M Hulshof; D J Richel; J J G H M Bergman; F J W Ten Kate; J Stoker; J J B van Lanschot Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Katja Ott; Ken Herrmann; Florian Lordick; Hinrich Wieder; Wolfgang A Weber; Karen Becker; Andreas K Buck; Martin Dobritz; Ulrich Fink; Kurt Ulm; Tibor Schuster; Markus Schwaiger; Jörg-Rüdiger Siewert; Bernd J Krause Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Paul M Schneider; Ralf Metzger; Hartmut Schaefer; Frank Baumgarten; Daniel Vallbohmer; Jan Brabender; Eva Wolfgarten; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Stephan E Baldus; Hans P Dienes; Arnulf H Hoelscher Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J A Ajani; D M Ota; J M Jessup; F C Ames; C McBride; A Boddie; B Levin; D E Jackson; M Roh; D Hohn Journal: Cancer Date: 1991-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David P Kelsen; Katryn A Winter; Leonard L Gunderson; Joanne Mortimer; Norman C Estes; Daniel G Haller; Jaffer A Ajani; Walter Kocha; Bruce D Minsky; Jack A Roth; Christopher G Willett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Bollschweiler; R Metzger; U Drebber; S Baldus; D Vallböhmer; M Kocher; A H Hölscher Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-10-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Daryl K A Chia; Raghav Sundar; Guowei Kim; Jia Jun Ang; Jeffrey H Y Lum; Min En Nga; Giap Hean Goh; Ju Ee Seet; Cheng Ean Chee; Hon Lyn Tan; Jingshan Ho; Natalie Y L Ngoi; Matilda X W Lee; Vaishnavi Muthu; Gloria H J Chan; Angela S L Pang; Yvonne L E Ang; Joan R E Choo; Joline S J Lim; Jun Liang Teh; Aung Lwin; Yuen Soon; Asim Shabbir; Jimmy B Y So; Wei Peng Yong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Patricia Martin-Romano; Belén P Solans; David Cano; Jose Carlos Subtil; Ana Chopitea; Leire Arbea; Maria Dolores Lozano; Eduardo Castanon; Iosune Baraibar; Diego Salas; Jose Luis Hernandez-Lizoain; Iñaki F Trocóniz; Javier Rodriguez Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 3.240
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