OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine pretreatment pathological tumor extent in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and to assess its prognostic value in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: Patients with esophageal cancer, treated with nCRT plus surgery were included (2003-2011). Pretreatment pathological T-stage (prepT-stage) and N-stage (prepN-stage) were estimated based on the extent of regressional changes and residual tumor cells in the resection specimen. Interobserver agreement was determined between 3 pathologists. The prognostic performance of prepT-stage and prepN-stage was scored using the difference in Akaike information criterion (ΔAIC). PrepN-stage and posttreatment pathological N-stage (ypN-stage) were combined to determine the effect of nodal sterilization on prognosis. RESULTS: Overall concordance for prepT-stage and prepN-stage was 0.69 and 0.84, respectively. Prognostic strength of prepT-stage was similar to clinical T-stage and worse compared with ypT-stage (ΔAIC 1.3 versus 2.0 and 8.9, respectively). In contrast, prognostic strength of prepN-stage was better than cN-stage and similar to ypN-stage (ΔAIC 17.9 versus 6.2 and 17.2, respectively). PrepN+ patients who become ypN0 after nCRT have a worse survival compared with prepN0 patients, with a five year overall survival of 51% versus 68%, P = 0.019, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PrepT-stage and prepN-stage can be estimated reproducibly. Prognostic strength of prepT-stage is comparable with clinical T-stage, whereas prepN-stage is better than cN-stage. PrepN+ patients who become ypN0 after nCRT have a worse survival compared with prepN0 patients. Pretreatment pathological staging should be considered useful as a new staging parameter for esophageal cancer and could also be of interest for other tumor types.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine pretreatment pathological tumor extent in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and to assess its prognostic value in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS:Patients with esophageal cancer, treated with nCRT plus surgery were included (2003-2011). Pretreatment pathological T-stage (prepT-stage) and N-stage (prepN-stage) were estimated based on the extent of regressional changes and residual tumor cells in the resection specimen. Interobserver agreement was determined between 3 pathologists. The prognostic performance of prepT-stage and prepN-stage was scored using the difference in Akaike information criterion (ΔAIC). PrepN-stage and posttreatment pathological N-stage (ypN-stage) were combined to determine the effect of nodal sterilization on prognosis. RESULTS: Overall concordance for prepT-stage and prepN-stage was 0.69 and 0.84, respectively. Prognostic strength of prepT-stage was similar to clinical T-stage and worse compared with ypT-stage (ΔAIC 1.3 versus 2.0 and 8.9, respectively). In contrast, prognostic strength of prepN-stage was better than cN-stage and similar to ypN-stage (ΔAIC 17.9 versus 6.2 and 17.2, respectively). PrepN+ patients who become ypN0 after nCRT have a worse survival compared with prepN0 patients, with a five year overall survival of 51% versus 68%, P = 0.019, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PrepT-stage and prepN-stage can be estimated reproducibly. Prognostic strength of prepT-stage is comparable with clinical T-stage, whereas prepN-stage is better than cN-stage. PrepN+ patients who become ypN0 after nCRT have a worse survival compared with prepN0 patients. Pretreatment pathological staging should be considered useful as a new staging parameter for esophageal cancer and could also be of interest for other tumor types.
Authors: Alexander P Stark; Mariela M Blum; Yi-Ju Chiang; Prajnan Das; Bruce D Minsky; Jeannelyn S Estrella; Jaffer A Ajani; Brian D Badgwell; Paul Mansfield; Naruhiko Ikoma Journal: J Gastric Cancer Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 3.720
Authors: Bo Jan Noordman; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Jurjen J Boonstra; Peter Paul L O Coene; Jan Willem T Dekker; Michael Doukas; Ate van der Gaast; Joos Heisterkamp; Ewout A Kouwenhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Jean-Pierre E N Pierie; Camiel Rosman; Johanna W van Sandick; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Meindert N Sosef; Manon C W Spaander; Roelf Valkema; Edwin S van der Zaag; Ewout W Steyerberg; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Lucas Goense; Peter S N van Rossum; Mian Xi; Dipen M Maru; Brett W Carter; Gert J Meijer; Linus Ho; Richard van Hillegersberg; Wayne L Hofstetter; Steven H Lin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S A Rahman; R C Walker; M A Lloyd; B L Grace; G I van Boxel; B F Kingma; J P Ruurda; R van Hillegersberg; S Harris; S Parsons; S Mercer; E A Griffiths; J R O'Neill; R Turkington; R C Fitzgerald; T J Underwood Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Jesse Fest; Rikje Ruiter; Marlies Mulder; Bas Groot Koerkamp; M Arfan Ikram; Bruno H Stricker; Casper H J van Eijck Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Xiaobin Zhang; Ben M Eyck; Yang Yang; Jun Liu; Yin-Kai Chao; Ming-Mo Hou; Tsung-Min Hung; Qingsong Pang; Zhen-Tao Yu; Hongjing Jiang; Simon Law; Ian Wong; Ka-On Lam; Berend J van der Wilk; Ate van der Gaast; Manon C W Spaander; Roelf Valkema; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Bas P L Wijnhoven; J Jan B van Lanschot; Zhigang Li Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 4.430