Richard Li1, Ashwin Shinde1, Scott Glaser1, Joseph Chao2, Jae Kim3, Sana D Karam4, Karyn Goodman4, Yi-Jen Chen1, Arya Amini1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal neoadjuvant radiation therapy (RT) dose prior to esophagectomy is unknown. We compared patients receiving lower-dose RT (LD-RT) of 41.4-45 Gy versus those receiving higher-dose RT (HD-RT) of 50-54 Gy. METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) followed by esophagectomy were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and divided into LD-RT and HD-RT groups. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of HD-RT utilization and propensity score matching. Overall survival (OS) was compared between HD-RT and LD-RT groups using Cox regression. Logistic regression was performed with respect to pathologic complete response (pCR), positive surgical margins, postoperative mortality, and readmission rates. RESULTS: We identified 7,996 patients meeting inclusion criteria, of which 5,732 (71.7%) received HD-RT. At median follow-up of 3.3 years, 3-year OS was 48.7% for HD-RT versus 48.4% for LD-RT (P=0.734). pCR rates were 20.3% with HD-RT versus 16.3% with LD-RT [odds ratio (OR) 1.24; 95% CI: 1.06-1.44; P=0.006]. There were no statistically significant differences between HD-RT and LD-RT with respect to positive margins, 90-day postoperative mortality, or readmission rates. In a separate analysis of patients treated with CRT alone and no subsequent esophagectomy, HD-RT was associated with improved OS (HR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78-0.88; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that 41.4-45 and 50-54 Gy dose regimens are similar in survival and postoperative outcomes. However, in cases of equivocal resectability, a higher RT dose of 50-54 Gy may be preferred.
BACKGROUND: The optimal neoadjuvant radiation therapy (RT) dose prior to esophagectomy is unknown. We compared patients receiving lower-dose RT (LD-RT) of 41.4-45 Gy versus those receiving higher-dose RT (HD-RT) of 50-54 Gy. METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) followed by esophagectomy were identified using the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and divided into LD-RT and HD-RT groups. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of HD-RT utilization and propensity score matching. Overall survival (OS) was compared between HD-RT and LD-RT groups using Cox regression. Logistic regression was performed with respect to pathologic complete response (pCR), positive surgical margins, postoperative mortality, and readmission rates. RESULTS: We identified 7,996 patients meeting inclusion criteria, of which 5,732 (71.7%) received HD-RT. At median follow-up of 3.3 years, 3-year OS was 48.7% for HD-RT versus 48.4% for LD-RT (P=0.734). pCR rates were 20.3% with HD-RT versus 16.3% with LD-RT [odds ratio (OR) 1.24; 95% CI: 1.06-1.44; P=0.006]. There were no statistically significant differences between HD-RT and LD-RT with respect to positive margins, 90-day postoperative mortality, or readmission rates. In a separate analysis of patients treated with CRT alone and no subsequent esophagectomy, HD-RT was associated with improved OS (HR 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78-0.88; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that 41.4-45 and 50-54 Gy dose regimens are similar in survival and postoperative outcomes. However, in cases of equivocal resectability, a higher RT dose of 50-54 Gy may be preferred.
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vera Oppedijk; Ate van der Gaast; Jan J B van Lanschot; Pieter van Hagen; Rob van Os; Caroline M van Rij; Maurice J van der Sangen; Jannet C Beukema; Heidi Rütten; Patty H Spruit; Janny G Reinders; Dick J Richel; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Maarten C C M Hulshof Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Zhen Zhang; Zhongxing Liao; Jing Jin; Jaffer Ajani; Joe Y Chang; Melenda Jeter; Thomas Guerrero; Craig W Stevens; Stephen Swisher; Linus Ho; James Yao; Pamela Allen; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bruce D Minsky; Thomas F Pajak; Robert J Ginsberg; Thomas M Pisansky; James Martenson; Ritsuko Komaki; Gordon Okawara; Seth A Rosenthal; David P Kelsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joel Tepper; Mark J Krasna; Donna Niedzwiecki; Donna Hollis; Carolyn E Reed; Richard Goldberg; Krystyna Kiel; Christopher Willett; David Sugarbaker; Robert Mayer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kim Hay Be; Richard Khor; Daryl Lim Joon; Ben Starvaggi; Michael Chao; Sweet Ping Ng; Michael Ng; Leonardo Zorron Cheng Tao Pu; Marios Efthymiou; Rhys Vaughan; Sujievvan Chandran Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742