Jae Y Kim1, Rebecca A Nelson1, Joseph Kim1, Dan Raz1. 1. 1 Department of Surgery, City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, CA 91010, USA ; 2 Division of Biostatistics, Department of Information Science, City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, CA 91010, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer staging systems are designed to predict survival and stratify patients. The 7(th) edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC7) staging system for esophageal cancer was modeled using survival data on patients who underwent esophagectomy without induction or adjuvant therapy. In the United States, the standard of care for patients with locally advanced tumors often includes neoadjuvant therapy. The prognostic value of the pathologic stage for these patients is unknown. METHODS: Data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) were used to identify 1,243 patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus who underwent surgery after neoadjuvant therapy from 1988-2009. Included in the analysis were pathologically-staged, non-metastatic patients who had radiation as part of their neoadjuvant therapy. The AJCC7 staging system and an alternate system were modeled using Kaplan-Meier survival methods. The two systems were compared using log-rank chi-squared statistics, with large chi-squared values indicating accuracy in survival prediction. RESULTS: The AJCC staging system was able to predict survival for patients who had neoadjuvant therapy (P<0.001, chi-squared =81.8); however, there was little distinction between stage subgroups. Patients with neoadjuvant radiotherapy had improved survival for pathologic stage II and III disease. An alternative, simpler staging system was better able to stratify patients with neoadjuvant therapy (P<0.001, chi-squared =100.5). CONCLUSIONS: The current AJCC staging system is able to predict survival in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, however, there is less distinction among stage subgroups. An alternative, simpler stage grouping may better stratify patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.
BACKGROUND:Cancer staging systems are designed to predict survival and stratify patients. The 7(th) edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC7) staging system for esophageal cancer was modeled using survival data on patients who underwent esophagectomy without induction or adjuvant therapy. In the United States, the standard of care for patients with locally advanced tumors often includes neoadjuvant therapy. The prognostic value of the pathologic stage for these patients is unknown. METHODS: Data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) were used to identify 1,243 patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus who underwent surgery after neoadjuvant therapy from 1988-2009. Included in the analysis were pathologically-staged, non-metastatic patients who had radiation as part of their neoadjuvant therapy. The AJCC7 staging system and an alternate system were modeled using Kaplan-Meier survival methods. The two systems were compared using log-rank chi-squared statistics, with large chi-squared values indicating accuracy in survival prediction. RESULTS: The AJCC staging system was able to predict survival for patients who had neoadjuvant therapy (P<0.001, chi-squared =81.8); however, there was little distinction between stage subgroups. Patients with neoadjuvant radiotherapy had improved survival for pathologic stage II and III disease. An alternative, simpler staging system was better able to stratify patients with neoadjuvant therapy (P<0.001, chi-squared =100.5). CONCLUSIONS: The current AJCC staging system is able to predict survival in esophageal adenocarcinomapatients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, however, there is less distinction among stage subgroups. An alternative, simpler stage grouping may better stratify patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Esophageal cancer; Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program; esophageal neoplasms/pathology; neoadjuvant therapy; radiotherapy
Authors: Stephen G Swisher; Wayne Hofstetter; Ritsuko Komaki; Arlene M Correa; Jeremy Erasmus; Jeffrey H Lee; Zhongxing Liao; Dipen Maru; Reza Mehran; Shital Patel; David C Rice; Jack A Roth; Ara A Vaporciyan; Garrett L Walsh; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brendon M Stiles; Farooq Mirza; Anthony Coppolino; Jeffrey L Port; Paul C Lee; Subroto Paul; Nasser K Altorki Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Val Gebski; Bryan Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; Kerwyn Foo; John Zalcberg; John Simes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 41.316
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
Authors: C K Enestvedt; K A Perry; C Kim; P W McConnell; B S Diggs; A Vernon; R W O'Rourke; J D Luketich; J G Hunter; B A Jobe Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 3.429
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