Literature DB >> 25765719

Distribution of Resistant Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in the Resected Specimens of Clinical Stage III Patients after Chemoradiation: Its Clinical Implications.

Nastaran Neishaboori1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We have limited knowledge of the geographic distribution of resistant esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in resected specimens, but its clinical importance can be enormous.
METHOD: We selected patients with baseline stage III EAC who had had chemoradiation followed by surgery and had residual EAC (resistant cases only). Outcomes were correlated with various endpoints (percentage of resistant EAC and anatomic distribution).
RESULTS: A total of 100 clinical stage III patients were studied; 90% had an R0 resection, and 99% had either moderate or poorly differentiated EAC. Twelve percent had >50% residual cancer, 31% had 11-50% residual cancer, 53% had 1-10% residual cancer, and 3% had positive nodes only. Each compartment was frequently involved: mucosa/submucosa (66%), muscularis propria (76%), and serosa (62%); all compartments were involved in 35% of the cases. Lack of EAC (meaning response) was observed in the mucosa/submucosa (34%), muscularis propria (24%), serosa (38%), and nodes (42%). Although the endoscopic biopsies prior to surgery showed no EAC in 79% of the patients, in the surgical specimens, resistant EAC was frequently occurring in the mucosa/submucosa (66%).
CONCLUSION: Contrary to our hypothesis that resistant EAC would be frequent in the nodes, our data show that its distribution is heterogeneous and unpredictable. Most importantly, the postchemoradiation biopsies are misleading, and a decision to delay/avoid surgery based on negative biopsies can be detrimental for the patients.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25765719      PMCID: PMC4498973          DOI: 10.1159/000371889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncology        ISSN: 0030-2414            Impact factor:   2.935


  15 in total

1.  7th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: esophagus and esophagogastric junction.

Authors:  Thomas W Rice; Eugene H Blackstone; Valerie W Rusch
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Posttherapy pathologic stage predicts survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma receiving preoperative chemoradiation.

Authors:  Lucian R Chirieac; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Ritsuko R Komaki; Arlene M Correa; Jeffrey S Morris; Jack A Roth; Asif Rashid; Stanley R Hamilton; Tsung-Teh Wu
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Excellent interobserver agreement on grading the extent of residual carcinoma after preoperative chemoradiation in esophageal and esophagogastric junction carcinoma: a reliable predictor for patient outcome.

Authors:  Tsung-Teh Wu; Lucian R Chirieac; Susan C Abraham; Alyssa M Krasinskas; Huamin Wang; Asif Rashid; Arlene M Correa; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jaffer A Ajani; Stephen G Swisher
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 6.394

4.  Prognostic value of endoscopic biopsy findings after induction chemoradiotherapy with and without surgery for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Hiroshi Miyata; Makoto Yamasaki; Shuji Takiguchi; Kiyokazu Nakajima; Yoshiyuki Fujiwara; Koji Konishi; Eiichi Morii; Masaki Mori; Yuichiro Doki
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 5.  Complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma is associated with significantly improved survival.

Authors:  Adam C Berger; Jeffrey Farma; Walter J Scott; Gary Freedman; Louis Weiner; Jonathan D Cheng; Hao Wang; Melvyn Goldberg
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-03-21       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system does not accurately predict survival in patients receiving multimodality therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Nabil P Rizk; Ennapadam Venkatraman; Manjit S Bains; Bernard Park; Raja Flores; Laura Tang; David H Ilson; Bruce D Minsky; Valerie W Rusch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations.

Authors:  A M Mandard; F Dalibard; J C Mandard; J Marnay; M Henry-Amar; J F Petiot; A Roussel; J H Jacob; P Segol; G Samama
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1994-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Post-treatment endoscopic biopsy is a poor-predictor of pathologic response in patients undergoing chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Inderpal S Sarkaria; Nabil P Rizk; Manjit S Bains; Laura H Tang; David H Ilson; Bruce I Minsky; Valerie W Rusch
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Significance of post-chemoradiation biopsy in predicting residual esophageal carcinoma in the surgical specimen.

Authors:  Q Yang; K R Cleary; J C Yao; S G Swisher; J A Roth; P M Lynch; R Komaki; J A Ajani; A Rashid; S R Hamilton; T-T Wu
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.429

10.  Histopathologic assessment of tumor regression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Stefanie Sassen; Barbara Schmalfeldt; Norbert Avril; Walther Kuhn; Raymonde Busch; Heinz Höfler; Falko Fend; Jörg Nährig
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 3.466

View more
  1 in total

1.  Radiation field size and dose determine oncologic outcome in esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Cengiz Gemici; Gokhan Yaprak; Hasan Fevzi Batirel; Mahmut Ilhan; Alpaslan Mayadagli
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 2.754

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.