Siva Raja1, Thomas W Rice2, John Ehrlinger3, John R Goldblum4, Lisa A Rybicki3, Sudish C Murthy2, David Adelstein5, Gregory Videtic6, Michael P McNamara5, Eugene H Blackstone7. 1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: rajas@ccf.org. 2. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Department of Pathology, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To (1) assess the continuous distribution of the percentage of residual primary cancer in resection specimens after induction therapy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma, (2) determine the effects of residual primary cancer on survival after esophagectomy, (3) ascertain interplay between residual primary cancer and classical classifications of response to induction therapy (ypTNM), and (4) identify predictors of residual primary cancer. METHODS: From January 2006 to November 2012, 188 patients (78%) underwent accelerated chemoradiotherapy, and 52 patients (22%) underwent chemotherapy alone followed by esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma. Mean age was 61 ± 9.2 years, and 89% were male. Residual primary cancer, assessed as the percentage of residual primary cancer cells in resection specimens, was quantified histologically by a gastrointestinal pathologist. Random Forest technology was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five specimens (10%) had no residual primary cancer (ypT0), 79 (33%) had 1% to 25% residual cancer, 91 (38%) had 26% to 75%, and 45 (19%) had >75%. Survival was worse with increasing residual primary cancer, plateauing at 75%. Greater residual primary cancer was associated with worse survival across the spectrum of higher ypTN. Higher ypT, larger number of positive nodes, and use of induction chemotherapy rather than induction chemoradiotherapy were associated with greater residual primary cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Less residual primary cancer in response to preoperative therapy is associated with a linear increase in survival after esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma; however, survival is poorer than for resected early-stage cancers. Therefore, for patients with poor prognostic indicators, including higher percentage of residual primary cancer, the role of adjuvant therapy needs to be further examined in an attempt to improve survival.
OBJECTIVES: To (1) assess the continuous distribution of the percentage of residual primary cancer in resection specimens after induction therapy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma, (2) determine the effects of residual primary cancer on survival after esophagectomy, (3) ascertain interplay between residual primary cancer and classical classifications of response to induction therapy (ypTNM), and (4) identify predictors of residual primary cancer. METHODS: From January 2006 to November 2012, 188 patients (78%) underwent accelerated chemoradiotherapy, and 52 patients (22%) underwent chemotherapy alone followed by esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma. Mean age was 61 ± 9.2 years, and 89% were male. Residual primary cancer, assessed as the percentage of residual primary cancer cells in resection specimens, was quantified histologically by a gastrointestinal pathologist. Random Forest technology was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five specimens (10%) had no residual primary cancer (ypT0), 79 (33%) had 1% to 25% residual cancer, 91 (38%) had 26% to 75%, and 45 (19%) had >75%. Survival was worse with increasing residual primary cancer, plateauing at 75%. Greater residual primary cancer was associated with worse survival across the spectrum of higher ypTN. Higher ypT, larger number of positive nodes, and use of induction chemotherapy rather than induction chemoradiotherapy were associated with greater residual primary cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Less residual primary cancer in response to preoperative therapy is associated with a linear increase in survival after esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma; however, survival is poorer than for resected early-stage cancers. Therefore, for patients with poor prognostic indicators, including higher percentage of residual primary cancer, the role of adjuvant therapy needs to be further examined in an attempt to improve survival.