BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted standard of care for locally advanced esophagogastric cancer. As only a subgroup benefits, a response-based tailored treatment would be of interest. The aim of our study was the evaluation of the prognostic and predictive value of clinical response in esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Clinical response based on a combination of endoscopy and computed tomography (CT) scan was evaluated retrospectively within a prospective database in center A and then transferred to center B. A total of 686/740 (A) and 184/210 (B) patients, staged cT3/4, cN0/1 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and were then re-staged by endoscopy and CT before undergoing tumor resection. Of 184 patients, 118 (B) additionally had an interim response assessment 4-6 weeks after the start of chemotherapy. RESULTS: In A, 479 patients (70%) were defined as clinical nonresponders, 207 (30%) as responders. Median survival was 38 months (nonresponders: 27 months, responders: 108 months, log-rank, p < 0.001). Clinical and histopathological response correlated significantly (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, clinical response was an independent prognostic factor (HR for death 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.8, p = 0.032). In B, 140 patients (76%) were nonresponders and 44 (24%) responded. Median survival was 33 months, (nonresponders: 27 months, responders: not reached, p = 0.003). Interim clinical response evaluation (118 patients) also had prognostic impact (p = 0.008). Interim, preoperative clinical response and histopathological response correlated strongly (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Preoperative clinical response was an independent prognostic factor in center A, while in center B its prognostic value could only be confirmed in univariate analysis. The accordance with histopathological response was good in both centers, and interim clinical response evaluation showed comparable results to preoperative evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted standard of care for locally advanced esophagogastric cancer. As only a subgroup benefits, a response-based tailored treatment would be of interest. The aim of our study was the evaluation of the prognostic and predictive value of clinical response in esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Clinical response based on a combination of endoscopy and computed tomography (CT) scan was evaluated retrospectively within a prospective database in center A and then transferred to center B. A total of 686/740 (A) and 184/210 (B) patients, staged cT3/4, cN0/1 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and were then re-staged by endoscopy and CT before undergoing tumor resection. Of 184 patients, 118 (B) additionally had an interim response assessment 4-6 weeks after the start of chemotherapy. RESULTS: In A, 479 patients (70%) were defined as clinical nonresponders, 207 (30%) as responders. Median survival was 38 months (nonresponders: 27 months, responders: 108 months, log-rank, p < 0.001). Clinical and histopathological response correlated significantly (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, clinical response was an independent prognostic factor (HR for death 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.8, p = 0.032). In B, 140 patients (76%) were nonresponders and 44 (24%) responded. Median survival was 33 months, (nonresponders: 27 months, responders: not reached, p = 0.003). Interim clinical response evaluation (118 patients) also had prognostic impact (p = 0.008). Interim, preoperative clinical response and histopathological response correlated strongly (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Preoperative clinical response was an independent prognostic factor in center A, while in center B its prognostic value could only be confirmed in univariate analysis. The accordance with histopathological response was good in both centers, and interim clinical response evaluation showed comparable results to preoperative evaluation.
Authors: Jaffer A Ajani; Miguel B Fodor; Sergei A Tjulandin; Vladimir M Moiseyenko; Yee Chao; Sebastiao Cabral Filho; Alejandro Majlis; Sylvie Assadourian; Eric Van Cutsem Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: W A Weber; K Ott; K Becker; H J Dittler; H Helmberger; N E Avril; G Meisetschläger; R Busch; J R Siewert; M Schwaiger; U Fink Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Vladimir M Moiseyenko; Sergei Tjulandin; Alejandro Majlis; Manuel Constenla; Corrado Boni; Adriano Rodrigues; Miguel Fodor; Yee Chao; Edouard Voznyi; Marie-Laure Risse; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Arnaud D Roth; Nicola Fazio; Roger Stupp; Stephen Falk; Jürg Bernhard; Piercarlo Saletti; Dieter Köberle; Markus M Borner; Kaspar Rufibach; Rudolf Maibach; Martin Wernli; Martin Leslie; Robert Glynne-Jones; Lukas Widmer; Matthew Seymour; Filippo de Braud Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Lorenzen; M Hentrich; C Haberl; V Heinemann; T Schuster; T Seroneit; N Roethling; C Peschel; F Lordick Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-07-28 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: R C Fields; V E Strong; M Gönen; K A Goodman; N P Rizk; D P Kelsen; D H Ilson; L H Tang; M F Brennan; D G Coit; M A Shah Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Patricia Martin-Romano; Jose J Sola; Juan A Diaz-Gonzalez; Ana Chopitea; Yohana Iragorri; Fernando Martínez-Regueira; Mariano Ponz-Sarvise; Leire Arbea; Jose C Subtil; David Cano; Lucia Ceniceros; Jairo Legaspi; Jose Luis Hernandez; Javier Rodríguez Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 7.640
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