Literature DB >> 29519558

Preoperative prediction of a pathologic complete response of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Yoichi Hamai1, Jun Hihara2, Manabu Emi2, Takaoki Furukawa2, Yuji Murakami3, Ikuno Nishibuchi3, Yasushi Nagata3, Yuta Ibuki2, Ichiko Yamakita2, Tomoaki Kurokawa2, Morihito Okada2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The accurate prediction of a pathologic complete response (ypT0N0M [LYM] 0 ypStage 0) before operation is essential for selecting appropriate strategies for treating esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
METHODS: We reviewed 130 consecutive patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who were evaluated preoperatively using upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, computed tomography, and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and subsequently underwent esophagectomy. Our aim was to determine the diagnostic abilities of computed tomography, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, and endoscopy to predict preoperatively a pathologic complete response of the primary site of the locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and associated lymph nodes to trimodal neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Associations between clinical complete response (ycT0N0M [LYM] 0 ycStage 0) and pathologic complete response were investigated preoperatively.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine (22.3%) and 43 (33.1%) patients, respectively, achieved clinical complete response and pathologic complete response, which were associated (P=.001). The sensitivity and specificity, as well as the positive and negative predictive values of clinical complete response to define pathologic complete response were 39.5%, 86.2%, 58.6%, and 74.3%, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses selected clinical complete response as the sole independent preoperative predictor of pathologic complete response (clinical complete responses versus non-clinical complete responses: odds ratio: 0.26, 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.65, P=.004). Recurrence-free and overall survival (OS) rates were better in patients with than in those without clinical complete response (5-year recurrence-free and overall survival: 69.0% vs 41.4% and 75.9% vs 45.0%, respectively, both P=.02). Furthermore, clinical complete response was an independent preoperative predictor of recurrence-free survival (clinical complete response versus nonclinical complete response: hazard ratio: 2.20, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.45, P=.03).
CONCLUSION: Although pathologic complete response was predictable preoperatively to some extent, the accuracy was somewhat low. Considerable caution should be exercised when selecting the watch-and-wait approach with operation as needed and omitting planned operative intervention even for patients who achieve clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29519558     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.01.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  3 in total

1.  Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is associated with better survival outcomes in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Naoya Yoshida; Hideo Baba
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Moderately differentiated esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has a poor prognosis after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Wenwu He; Tianqin Mao; Jiaxin Yan; Xuefeng Leng; Xuyang Deng; Qin Xie; Lin Peng; Qiong Liao; Marco Scarpa; Yongtao Han
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-04

3.  Prediction of Locoregional Recurrence-Free Survival of Oesophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Chemoradiotherapy Based on an Enhanced CT-Based Radiomics Model.

Authors:  Jie Kong; Shuchai Zhu; Gaofeng Shi; Zhikun Liu; Jun Zhang; Jialiang Ren
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 6.244

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.