Berend Jan van der Wilk1, Ben M Eyck2, Manon C W Spaander3, Roelf Valkema4, Sjoerd M Lagarde2, Bas P L Wijnhoven2, J Jan B van Lanschot2. 1. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, b.vanderwilk@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance after neoadjuvant therapies has emerged among several malignancies. During active surveillance, frequent assessments are performed to detect residual disease and surgery is only reserved for those patients in whom residual disease is proven or highly suspected without distant metastases. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), nearly one-third of esophageal cancer patients achieve a pathologically complete response (pCR). Both patients that achieve a pCR and patients that harbor subclinical disseminated disease after nCRT could benefit from an active surveillance strategy. SUMMARY: Esophagectomy is still the cornerstone of treatment in patients with esophageal cancer. Non-surgical treatment via definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is currently reserved only for patients not eligible for esophagectomy. Since salvage esophagectomy after dCRT (50-60 Gy) results in increased complications, morbidity and mortality compared to surgery after nCRT (41.4 Gy), the latter seems preferable in the setting of active surveillance. Clinical response evaluations can detect substantial (i.e., tumor regression grade [TRG] 3-4) tumors after nCRT with a sensitivity of 90%, minimizing the risk of development of non-resectable recurrences. Current scarce and retrospective literature suggests that active surveillance following nCRT might not jeopardize overall survival and postponed surgery could be performed safely. Key Message: Before an active surveillance approach could be considered standard treatment, results of phase III randomized trials should be awaited.
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance after neoadjuvant therapies has emerged among several malignancies. During active surveillance, frequent assessments are performed to detect residual disease and surgery is only reserved for those patients in whom residual disease is proven or highly suspected without distant metastases. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), nearly one-third of esophageal cancerpatients achieve a pathologically complete response (pCR). Both patients that achieve a pCR and patients that harbor subclinical disseminated disease after nCRT could benefit from an active surveillance strategy. SUMMARY: Esophagectomy is still the cornerstone of treatment in patients with esophageal cancer. Non-surgical treatment via definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is currently reserved only for patients not eligible for esophagectomy. Since salvage esophagectomy after dCRT (50-60 Gy) results in increased complications, morbidity and mortality compared to surgery after nCRT (41.4 Gy), the latter seems preferable in the setting of active surveillance. Clinical response evaluations can detect substantial (i.e., tumor regression grade [TRG] 3-4) tumors after nCRT with a sensitivity of 90%, minimizing the risk of development of non-resectable recurrences. Current scarce and retrospective literature suggests that active surveillance following nCRT might not jeopardize overall survival and postponed surgery could be performed safely. Key Message: Before an active surveillance approach could be considered standard treatment, results of phase III randomized trials should be awaited.
Authors: Sophie E Heethuis; Lucas Goense; Peter S N van Rossum; Alicia S Borggreve; Stella Mook; Francine E M Voncken; Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten; Berthe M P Aleman; Richard van Hillegersberg; Jelle P Ruurda; Gert J Meijer; Jan J W Lagendijk; Astrid L H M W van Lier Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Romy E D Lamers; Maarten Cuypers; Marieke de Vries; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; J L H Ruud Bosch; Paul J M Kil Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: A Herskovic; K Martz; M al-Sarraf; L Leichman; J Brindle; V Vaitkevicius; J Cooper; R Byhardt; L Davis; B Emami Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-06-11 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Bo Jan Noordman; Manon C W Spaander; Roelf Valkema; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Joël Shapiro; Katharina Biermann; Ate van der Gaast; Richard van Hillegersberg; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Kausilia K Krishnadath; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Liekele E Oostenbrug; Peter D Siersema; Erik J Schoon; Meindert N Sosef; Ewout W Steyerberg; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: J M Blazeby; S Strong; J L Donovan; C Wilson; W Hollingworth; T Crosby; J Nicklin; S J Falk; C P Barham; A D Hollowood; C G Streets; D Titcomb; R Krysztopik; S M Griffin; S T Brookes Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jonathan Spoor; Ben M Eyck; Peggy N Atmodimedjo; Maurice P H M Jansen; Jean C A Helmijr; John W M Martens; Berend J van der Wilk; J Jan B van Lanschot; Winand N M Dinjens Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-08
Authors: Sophie E Vollenbrock; Jolanda M van Dieren; Francine E M Voncken; Sietze T van Turenhout; Liudmila L Kodach; Koen J Hartemink; Johanna W van Sandick; Berthe M P Aleman; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Annemarieke Bartels-Rutten Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S E Vollenbrock; F E M Voncken; J M van Dieren; D M J Lambregts; M Maas; G J Meijer; L Goense; S Mook; K J Hartemink; P Snaebjornsson; L C Ter Beek; M Verheij; B M P Aleman; R G H Beets-Tan; A Bartels-Rutten Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Magnus Nilsson; Halla Olafsdottir; Gabriella Alexandersson von Döbeln; Fernanda Villegas; Giovanna Gagliardi; Mats Hellström; Qiao-Li Wang; Hemming Johansson; Val Gebski; Jakob Hedberg; Fredrik Klevebro; Sheraz Markar; Elizabeth Smyth; Pernilla Lagergren; Ghazwan Al-Haidari; Lars Cato Rekstad; Eirik Kjus Aahlin; Bengt Wallner; David Edholm; Jan Johansson; Eva Szabo; John V Reynolds; C S Pramesh; Naveen Mummudi; Amit Joshi; Lorenzo Ferri; Rebecca Ks Wong; Chris O'Callaghan; Jelena Lukovic; Kelvin Kw Chan; Trevor Leong; Andrew Barbour; Mark Smithers; Yin Li; Xiaozheng Kang; Feng-Ming Kong; Yin-Kai Chao; Tom Crosby; Christiane Bruns; Hanneke van Laarhoven; Mark van Berge Henegouwen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Riccardo Rosati; Guillaume Piessen; Giovanni de Manzoni; Florian Lordick Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 5.738