Jon M Davison1, Michael S Landau2, James D Luketich3, Kevin M McGrath4, Tyler J Foxwell4, Douglas P Landsittel5, Michael K Gibson6, Katie S Nason7. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: davisonjm@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: nasonks@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is important to identify superficial (T1) gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC) that are most or least likely to metastasize to lymph nodes, to select appropriate therapy. We aimed to develop a risk stratification model for metastasis of superficial EAC to lymph nodes using pathologic features of the primary tumor. METHODS: We collected pathology data from 210 patients with T1 EAC who underwent esophagectomy from 1996 through 2012 on factors associated with metastasis to lymph nodes (tumor size, grade, angiolymphatic invasion, and submucosal invasion). Using these variables, we developed a multivariable logistic model to generate 4 categories for estimated risk of metastasis (<5% risk, 5%-10% risk, 15%-20% risk, or >20% risk). The model was validated in a separate cohort of 39 patients who underwent endoscopic resection of superficial EAC and subsequent esophagectomy, with node stage analysis. RESULTS: We developed a model based on 4 pathologic factors that determined risk of metastasis to range from 2.9% to 60% for patients in the first cohort. In the endoscopic resection validation cohort, higher risk scores were associated with increased detection of lymph node metastases at esophagectomy (P = .021). Among patients in the first cohort who did not have lymph node metastases detected before surgery (cN0), those with high risk scores (>20% risk) had 11-fold greater odds for having lymph node metastases at esophagectomy compared with patients with low risk scores (95% confidence interval, 2.3-52 fold). Increasing risk scores were associated with reduced patient survival time (P < .001) and shorter time to tumor recurrence (P < .001). Patients without lymph node metastases (pT1N0) but high risk scores had reduced times of survival (P < .001) and time to tumor recurrence (P = .001) after esophagectomy than patients with pT1N0 tumors and lower risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic features of primary superficial EACs can be used, along with the conventional node staging system, to identify patients at low risk for metastasis, who can undergo endoscopic resection, or at high risk, who may benefit from induction or adjuvant therapy.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is important to identify superficial (T1) gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC) that are most or least likely to metastasize to lymph nodes, to select appropriate therapy. We aimed to develop a risk stratification model for metastasis of superficial EAC to lymph nodes using pathologic features of the primary tumor. METHODS: We collected pathology data from 210 patients with T1 EAC who underwent esophagectomy from 1996 through 2012 on factors associated with metastasis to lymph nodes (tumor size, grade, angiolymphatic invasion, and submucosal invasion). Using these variables, we developed a multivariable logistic model to generate 4 categories for estimated risk of metastasis (<5% risk, 5%-10% risk, 15%-20% risk, or >20% risk). The model was validated in a separate cohort of 39 patients who underwent endoscopic resection of superficial EAC and subsequent esophagectomy, with node stage analysis. RESULTS: We developed a model based on 4 pathologic factors that determined risk of metastasis to range from 2.9% to 60% for patients in the first cohort. In the endoscopic resection validation cohort, higher risk scores were associated with increased detection of lymph node metastases at esophagectomy (P = .021). Among patients in the first cohort who did not have lymph node metastases detected before surgery (cN0), those with high risk scores (>20% risk) had 11-fold greater odds for having lymph node metastases at esophagectomy compared with patients with low risk scores (95% confidence interval, 2.3-52 fold). Increasing risk scores were associated with reduced patient survival time (P < .001) and shorter time to tumor recurrence (P < .001). Patients without lymph node metastases (pT1N0) but high risk scores had reduced times of survival (P < .001) and time to tumor recurrence (P = .001) after esophagectomy than patients with pT1N0 tumors and lower risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic features of primary superficial EACs can be used, along with the conventional node staging system, to identify patients at low risk for metastasis, who can undergo endoscopic resection, or at high risk, who may benefit from induction or adjuvant therapy.
Authors: Lawrence Lee; Ulrich Ronellenfitsch; Wayne L Hofstetter; Gail Darling; Timo Gaiser; Christiane Lippert; Sebastien Gilbert; Andrew J Seely; David S Mulder; Lorenzo E Ferri Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Andrew P Barbour; Mark Jones; Ian Brown; David C Gotley; Ian Martin; Janine Thomas; Andrew Clouston; B Mark Smithers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jeannelyn S Estrella; Wayne L Hofstetter; Arlene M Correa; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Susan C Abraham; Asif Rashid; Dipen M Maru Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Jessica M Leers; Steven R DeMeester; Arzu Oezcelik; Nancy Klipfel; Shahin Ayazi; Emmanuele Abate; Jörg Zehetner; John C Lipham; Linda Chan; Jeffrey A Hagen; Tom R DeMeester Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Siva Raja; Thomas W Rice; John R Goldblum; Lisa A Rybicki; Sudish C Murthy; David P Mason; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Putao Cen; Wayne L Hofstetter; Arlene M Correa; Tsung-Teh Wu; Jeffery H Lee; William A Ross; Marta Davilla; Stephen G Swisher; Norio Fukami; Asif Rashid; Dipen Maru; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rami J Badreddine; Ganapathy A Prasad; Jason T Lewis; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kelly T Dunagan; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Christina Oetzmann von Sochaczewski; Thomas Haist; Michael Pauthner; Markus Mann; Susanne Braun; Christian Ell; Dietmar Lorenz Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Thomas W Rice; Hemant Ishwaran; Eugene H Blackstone; Wayne L Hofstetter; David P Kelsen; Carolyn Apperson-Hansen Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 3.429