Jan-Christopher Metzger1, Daniel Wollschläger2, Matthias Miederer3, Peter Vaupel1, Markus Moehler4, Heinz Schmidberger1, Arnulf Mayer5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, University Medical Center, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. 2. Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. 4. Department of Internal Medicine I, University Medical Center, Mainz, Germany. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology and Radiotherapy, University Medical Center, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. arnmayer@uni-mainz.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: PET-CT is widely used for both the staging and planning of primary or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Inclusion of PET-CT information into radiotherapy planning often leads to substantial modifications of the target volume. In the case of detection of distant metastases, it may also result in a switch to a palliative treatment approach. This spares patients from therapy-related toxicities that provide no clinical benefit. However, due to a lack of studies, it is currently unclear whether the advantages of PET-CT also translate into a measurable improvement in patient survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis assessed the survival data of 145 patients with esophageal carcinoma stages I (eight patients; 5%), II (45; 31%), III (79; 55%), IV (8; 5%) and unknown (5; 4%). Patients were treated between 1999 and 2014 either with primary chemoradiation (n = 101) or neoadjuvant chemoradiation at the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, followed by transabdominal or transthoracic tumor resection (n = 44). Of the 145 patients, 64 (44%) had undergone PET-CT. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed the use of PET-CT to be associated with significantly longer local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.006) and tended to translate into a measurable improvement of overall survival (p = 0.071). Since more patients underwent surgery in the group planned using PET-CT (20% vs. 44%; p = 0.002), we carried out a multivariate Cox regression analysis to adjust for this possible confounding factor. Surgery (p = 0.042; HR 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.98) as well as the use of PET-CT (p = 0.048; HR 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.99) nearly halved the risk of local recurrence. It was only in the group of patients with PET-CT that a trend towards a shorter overall survival was evident in lymph node-positive patients (p = 0.16), whereas nodal stage did not impact on survival in patients staged without PET-CT (p = 0.97). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge these data suggest for the first time that the use of PET-CT in the framework of staging and planning of primary or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer has a favorable impact on patient survival.
BACKGROUND: PET-CT is widely used for both the staging and planning of primary or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Inclusion of PET-CT information into radiotherapy planning often leads to substantial modifications of the target volume. In the case of detection of distant metastases, it may also result in a switch to a palliative treatment approach. This spares patients from therapy-related toxicities that provide no clinical benefit. However, due to a lack of studies, it is currently unclear whether the advantages of PET-CT also translate into a measurable improvement in patient survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis assessed the survival data of 145 patients with esophageal carcinoma stages I (eight patients; 5%), II (45; 31%), III (79; 55%), IV (8; 5%) and unknown (5; 4%). Patients were treated between 1999 and 2014 either with primary chemoradiation (n = 101) or neoadjuvant chemoradiation at the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, followed by transabdominal or transthoracic tumor resection (n = 44). Of the 145 patients, 64 (44%) had undergone PET-CT. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed the use of PET-CT to be associated with significantly longer local recurrence-free survival (p = 0.006) and tended to translate into a measurable improvement of overall survival (p = 0.071). Since more patients underwent surgery in the group planned using PET-CT (20% vs. 44%; p = 0.002), we carried out a multivariate Cox regression analysis to adjust for this possible confounding factor. Surgery (p = 0.042; HR 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.98) as well as the use of PET-CT (p = 0.048; HR 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.99) nearly halved the risk of local recurrence. It was only in the group of patients with PET-CT that a trend towards a shorter overall survival was evident in lymph node-positive patients (p = 0.16), whereas nodal stage did not impact on survival in patients staged without PET-CT (p = 0.97). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge these data suggest for the first time that the use of PET-CT in the framework of staging and planning of primary or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer has a favorable impact on patient survival.
Authors: H L van Westreenen; M Westerterp; P M M Bossuyt; J Pruim; G W Sloof; J J B van Lanschot; H Groen; J Th M Plukker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark van Heijl; Jikke M Omloo; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Otto S Hoekstra; Ronald Boellaard; Patrick M Bossuyt; Olivier R Busch; Hugo W Tilanus; Maarten C Hulshof; Ate van der Gaast; Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen; Han J Bonenkamp; John Th Plukker; Miguel A Cuesta; Fiebo J Ten Kate; Jan Pruim; Herman van Dekken; Jacques J Bergman; Gerrit W Sloof; J Jan van Lanschot Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: L M A Schreurs; D M Busz; G M R M Paardekooper; J C Beukema; P L Jager; E J Van der Jagt; G M van Dam; H Groen; J Th M Plukker; J A Langendijk Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: P Flamen; A Lerut; E Van Cutsem; W De Wever; M Peeters; S Stroobants; P Dupont; G Bormans; M Hiele; P De Leyn; D Van Raemdonck; W Coosemans; N Ectors; K Haustermans; L Mortelmans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Werner Kneist; Mathias Schreckenberger; Peter Bartenstein; Frank Grünwald; Katja Oberholzer; Theodor Junginger Journal: World J Surg Date: 2003-08-18 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: E Jimenez-Jimenez; P Mateos; N Aymar; R Roncero; I Ortiz; M Gimenez; J Pardo; J Salinas; S Sabater Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621