BACKGROUND: To determine whether individualized radiation dose escalation after planned chemoradiation based on the decrease in tumor and normal tissue constraints can improve survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: From August 2005 to December 2010, 112 patients with squamous esophageal carcinoma were treated with radical concurrent chemoradiation. Patients received positron emission tomography-computer tomography scan twice, before radiation and after radiation dose of 50.4 Gy. All patients were noncomplete metabolic response groups according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in solid tumors. Only 52 patients with noncomplete metabolic response received individualized dose escalation based on tumor and normal tissue constraints. Survival and treatment failure were observed and analyzed using SPSS (13.0). RESULTS: The rate of complete metabolic response for patients with noncomplete metabolic response after dose escalation reached 17.3% (9 of 52). The 2-year overall survival rates for patients with noncomplete metabolic response in the conventional and dose-escalation groups were 20.5% and 42.8%, respectively( P = .001). The 2-year local control rates for patients were 35.7% and 76.2%, respectively ( P = .002). When patients were classified into partial metabolic response and no metabolic response, 2-year overall survival rates for patients with partial metabolic response were significantly different in conventional and dose-escalation groups (33.8% vs 78.4%; P = .000). The 2-year overall survival rates for patients with no metabolic response in two groups (8.6% vs 15.1%) did not significantly differ ( P = .917). CONCLUSION: Individualized radiation dose escalation has the potential to improve survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma according to increased rate of complete metabolic response. However, further trials are needed to confirm this and to identify patients who may benefit from dose escalation.
BACKGROUND: To determine whether individualized radiation dose escalation after planned chemoradiation based on the decrease in tumor and normal tissue constraints can improve survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: From August 2005 to December 2010, 112 patients with squamous esophageal carcinoma were treated with radical concurrent chemoradiation. Patients received positron emission tomography-computer tomography scan twice, before radiation and after radiation dose of 50.4 Gy. All patients were noncomplete metabolic response groups according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in solid tumors. Only 52 patients with noncomplete metabolic response received individualized dose escalation based on tumor and normal tissue constraints. Survival and treatment failure were observed and analyzed using SPSS (13.0). RESULTS: The rate of complete metabolic response for patients with noncomplete metabolic response after dose escalation reached 17.3% (9 of 52). The 2-year overall survival rates for patients with noncomplete metabolic response in the conventional and dose-escalation groups were 20.5% and 42.8%, respectively( P = .001). The 2-year local control rates for patients were 35.7% and 76.2%, respectively ( P = .002). When patients were classified into partial metabolic response and no metabolic response, 2-year overall survival rates for patients with partial metabolic response were significantly different in conventional and dose-escalation groups (33.8% vs 78.4%; P = .000). The 2-year overall survival rates for patients with no metabolic response in two groups (8.6% vs 15.1%) did not significantly differ ( P = .917). CONCLUSION: Individualized radiation dose escalation has the potential to improve survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma according to increased rate of complete metabolic response. However, further trials are needed to confirm this and to identify patients who may benefit from dose escalation.
Authors: Yoon Hee Chun; Sang Hoon Ahn; Jun Yong Park; Do Young Kim; Kwang-Hyub Han; Chae Yoon Chon; Sun Jeong Byun; Seung Up Kim Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Bruce D Minsky; Thomas F Pajak; Robert J Ginsberg; Thomas M Pisansky; James Martenson; Ritsuko Komaki; Gordon Okawara; Seth A Rosenthal; David P Kelsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bernd Klaeser; Egbert Nitzsche; Jan C Schuller; Dieter Köberle; Lucas Widmer; Sabine Balmer-Majno; Thomas Hany; Corinne Cescato-Wenger; Peter Brauchli; Michael Zünd; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Clemens Caspar; Susanne Albrecht; Roger von Moos; Thomas Ruhstaller Journal: Onkologie Date: 2009-11-09
Authors: Daniel King Hung Tong; Simon Law; Dora Lai Wan Kwong; Kwok Wah Chan; Alfred King Yin Lam; Kam Ho Wong Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Min Kyoung Kim; Jin-Sook Ryu; Sung-Bae Kim; Jin Hee Ahn; Soo Young Kim; Seung-Ii Park; Yong Hee Kim; Ho Yong Song; Ji Hoon Shin; Hwoon Yong Jung; Gin Hyug Lee; Kee Don Choi; Kyung-Ja Cho; Jong Hoon Kim Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Heta Javeri; Lianchun Xiao; Eric Rohren; Jeffrey H Lee; Zhongxing Liao; Wayne Hofstetter; Dipen Maru; Manoop S Bhutani; Stephen G Swisher; Homer Macapinlac; Xuemei Wang; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860