Mian Xi1, Zhongxing Liao2, Wayne L Hofstetter3, Ritsuko Komaki2, Linus Ho4, Steven H Lin5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Centre for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; and. 4. Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas shlin@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine whether 18F-FDG PET response after induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiotherapy can identify patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who may benefit from subsequent esophagectomy. Methods: We identified and analyzed 220 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who had received induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy, with or without surgery, with curative intent; all underwent 18F-FDG PET scanning before and after induction chemotherapy. 18F-FDG PET responders were defined as patients who achieved complete response (CR) after induction chemotherapy (maximum SUV ≤ 3.0). The predictive value of 18F-FDG PET response for patient outcomes was evaluated. Results: Overall, 86 patients had bimodality therapy (BMT; induction chemotherapy + chemoradiotherapy) and 134 had trimodality therapy (TMT; induction chemotherapy + chemoradiotherapy with surgery). Forty-eight patients (21.8%) achieved an 18F-FDG PET CR after induction chemotherapy. 18F-FDG PET CR was found to correlate with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in BMT patients. For TMT patients, 18F-FDG PET CR predicted pathologic response (P = 0.003) but not survival. Among 18F-FDG PET nonresponders, TMT patients had significantly better survival than did BMT patients (P < 0.001). However, among 18F-FDG PET responders, BMT patients had OS (P = 0.201) and PFS (P = 0.269) similar to that of TMT patients. After propensity score-matched analysis, 18F-FDG PET responders treated with BMT versus TMT still had comparable OS and PFS, but TMT was associated with better locoregional control. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET response to induction chemotherapy could be a useful imaging biomarker to identify patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who could benefit from subsequent esophagectomy after chemoradiotherapy. Compared with BMT, TMT can significantly improve survival in 18F-FDG PET nonresponders. However, outcomes for 18F-FDG PET responders were similar after either treatment (BMT or TMT). Prospective validation of these findings is warranted.
This study aimed to determine whether 18F-FDG PET response after induction chemotherapy before concurrent chemoradiotherapy can identify patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who may benefit from subsequent esophagectomy. Methods: We identified and analyzed 220 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who had received induction chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy, with or without surgery, with curative intent; all underwent 18F-FDG PET scanning before and after induction chemotherapy. 18F-FDG PET responders were defined as patients who achieved complete response (CR) after induction chemotherapy (maximum SUV ≤ 3.0). The predictive value of 18F-FDG PET response for patient outcomes was evaluated. Results: Overall, 86 patients had bimodality therapy (BMT; induction chemotherapy + chemoradiotherapy) and 134 had trimodality therapy (TMT; induction chemotherapy + chemoradiotherapy with surgery). Forty-eight patients (21.8%) achieved an 18F-FDG PET CR after induction chemotherapy. 18F-FDG PET CR was found to correlate with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in BMT patients. For TMT patients, 18F-FDG PET CR predicted pathologic response (P = 0.003) but not survival. Among 18F-FDG PET nonresponders, TMT patients had significantly better survival than did BMT patients (P < 0.001). However, among 18F-FDG PET responders, BMT patients had OS (P = 0.201) and PFS (P = 0.269) similar to that of TMT patients. After propensity score-matched analysis, 18F-FDG PET responders treated with BMT versus TMT still had comparable OS and PFS, but TMT was associated with better locoregional control. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET response to induction chemotherapy could be a useful imaging biomarker to identify patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma who could benefit from subsequent esophagectomy after chemoradiotherapy. Compared with BMT, TMT can significantly improve survival in 18F-FDG PET nonresponders. However, outcomes for 18F-FDG PET responders were similar after either treatment (BMT or TMT). Prospective validation of these findings is warranted.
Authors: Arta Monir Monjazeb; Greg Riedlinger; Mebea Aklilu; Kim R Geisinger; Girish Mishra; Scott Isom; Paige Clark; Edward A Levine; A William Blackstock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Helen M Heneghan; Claire Donohoe; Jessie Elliot; Zuhair Ahmed; Vinod Malik; Narayamasamy Ravi; John V Reynolds Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J A Elliott; N J O'Farrell; S King; D Halpenny; V Malik; C Muldoon; C Johnston; J V Reynolds Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Stephen G Swisher; Jennifer Moughan; Ritsuko U Komaki; Jaffer A Ajani; Tsung T Wu; Wayne L Hofstetter; Andre A Konski; Christopher G Willett Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-10-08 Impact factor: 15.609
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: David P Kelsen; Katryn A Winter; Leonard L Gunderson; Joanne Mortimer; Norman C Estes; Daniel G Haller; Jaffer A Ajani; Walter Kocha; Bruce D Minsky; Jack A Roth; Christopher G Willett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544