Geoffrey Y Ku1, Anuja Kriplani2, Yelena Y Janjigian1, David P Kelsen1, Valerie W Rusch3, Manjit Bains3, Joanne Chou4, Marinela Capanu4, Abraham J Wu5, Karyn A Goodman6, David H Ilson1. 1. Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Thoracic Surgery Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A positron emission tomography (PET) scan after induction chemotherapy before preoperative chemoradiation and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma predicts outcomes. Some patients with progression on PET after induction chemotherapy had long-term overall survival (OS) when they were changed to alternative chemotherapy during radiation. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation before planned surgery; all had undergone a PET scan before and after induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: There were 201 patients, and 113 (56%) were PET responders (≥35% decrease in the maximum standardized uptake value of the tumor). All PET responders received the same chemotherapy during radiation, whereas 38 of the 88 PET nonresponders (43%) changed chemotherapy. Among the 152 patients who underwent surgery, the pathologic complete response rate was 15% for PET responders and 3% for PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy (P = .046). The median progression-free survival (PFS; 18.9 vs 10.0 months, P < 0.01) and OS (37 vs 25.3 months, P = .02) were significantly better for PET responders versus PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy. The median PFS for PET nonresponders who changed chemotherapy was 17.9 months, and it was superior to the median PFS for PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy (P = .01). For PET nonresponders, the 5-year OS rates were 37% for those who changed chemotherapy and 25% for those who did not change chemotherapy (P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: A PET scan after induction chemotherapy predicts outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma patients who undergo chemoradiation and surgery. The median PFS is improved, and trends toward improved OS appear possible in PET nonresponders who change chemotherapy during radiation. The fully accrued Cancer and Leukemia Group B 80803 study (NCT01333033) is evaluating this strategy. Cancer 2016;122:2083-90.
BACKGROUND: A positron emission tomography (PET) scan after induction chemotherapy before preoperative chemoradiation and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma predicts outcomes. Some patients with progression on PET after induction chemotherapy had long-term overall survival (OS) when they were changed to alternative chemotherapy during radiation. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed esophageal adenocarcinomapatients who received induction chemotherapy and chemoradiation before planned surgery; all had undergone a PET scan before and after induction chemotherapy. RESULTS: There were 201 patients, and 113 (56%) were PET responders (≥35% decrease in the maximum standardized uptake value of the tumor). All PET responders received the same chemotherapy during radiation, whereas 38 of the 88 PET nonresponders (43%) changed chemotherapy. Among the 152 patients who underwent surgery, the pathologic complete response rate was 15% for PET responders and 3% for PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy (P = .046). The median progression-free survival (PFS; 18.9 vs 10.0 months, P < 0.01) and OS (37 vs 25.3 months, P = .02) were significantly better for PET responders versus PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy. The median PFS for PET nonresponders who changed chemotherapy was 17.9 months, and it was superior to the median PFS for PET nonresponders who did not change chemotherapy (P = .01). For PET nonresponders, the 5-year OS rates were 37% for those who changed chemotherapy and 25% for those who did not change chemotherapy (P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: A PET scan after induction chemotherapy predicts outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinomapatients who undergo chemoradiation and surgery. The median PFS is improved, and trends toward improved OS appear possible in PET nonresponders who change chemotherapy during radiation. The fully accrued Cancer and Leukemia Group B 80803 study (NCT01333033) is evaluating this strategy. Cancer 2016;122:2083-90.
Authors: J A Ajani; L Xiao; J A Roth; W L Hofstetter; G Walsh; R Komaki; Z Liao; D C Rice; A A Vaporciyan; D M Maru; J H Lee; M S Bhutani; A Eid; J C Yao; A P Phan; A Halpin; A Suzuki; T Taketa; P F Thall; S G Swisher Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: David H Ilson; Bruce D Minsky; Geoffrey Y Ku; Valerie Rusch; Nabil Rizk; Manish Shah; David P Kelsen; Marinela Capanu; Laura Tang; Jenny Campbell; Manjit Bains Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Akihiro Suzuki; Lianchun Xiao; Yuki Hayashi; Homer A Macapinlac; James Welsh; Steven H Lin; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Dipen M Maru; Wayne L Hofstetter; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lawrence P Leichman; Bryan H Goldman; Pierre O Bohanes; Heinz J Lenz; Charles R Thomas; Kevin G Billingsley; Christopher L Corless; Syma Iqbal; Philip J Gold; Jacqueline K Benedetti; Kathleen D Danenberg; Charles D Blanke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lawrence R Kleinberg; Paul J Catalano; Arlene A Forastiere; Steven M Keller; Edith P Mitchel; Pramila Rani Anne; Al B Benson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert J Downey; Tim Akhurst; David Ilson; Robert Ginsberg; Manjit S Bains; Mithat Gonen; Heng Koong; Marc Gollub; Bruce D Minsky; Maureen Zakowski; Alan Turnbull; Steven M Larson; Valerie Rusch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mian Xi; Zhongxing Liao; Wayne L Hofstetter; Ritsuko Komaki; Linus Ho; Steven H Lin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Smita Sihag; Samuel C Nussenzweig; Henry S Walch; Meier Hsu; Kay See Tan; Sergio De La Torre; Yelena Y Janjigian; Steven B Maron; Geoffrey Y Ku; Laura H Tang; Pari M Shah; Abraham Wu; David R Jones; David B Solit; Nikolaus Schultz; Karuna Ganesh; Michael F Berger; Daniela Molena Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Rebecca A Carr; Meier Hsu; Caitlin A Harrington; Kay See Tan; Manjit S Bains; Matthew J Bott; David H Ilson; James M Isbell; Yelena Y Janjigian; Steven B Maron; Bernard J Park; Valerie W Rusch; Smita Sihag; Abraham J Wu; David R Jones; Geoffrey Y Ku; Daniela Molena Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Smita Sihag; Tamar Nobel; Meier Hsu; Sergio De La Torre; Kay See Tan; Yelena Y Janjigian; Geoffrey Y Ku; Laura H Tang; Abraham J Wu; Steven B Maron; Manjit S Bains; David R Jones; Daniela Molena Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 12.969