| Literature DB >> 32087687 |
Wenjie Ni1, Jinsong Yang2, Wei Deng3, Zefen Xiao4, Zongmei Zhou1, Hongxing Zhang1, Dongfu Chen1, Qinfu Feng1, Jun Liang1, Jima Lv1, Xiaozhen Wang1, Xin Wang1, Tao Zhang1, Nan Bi1, Lei Deng1, Wenqing Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information on the optimal salvage regimen for recurrent esophageal cancer is scarce. We aimed to assess the patterns of locoregional failure, and evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of salvage therapy along with the prognostic factors in recurrent thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (TESCC) after radical esophagectomy.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal neoplasm; Recurrence; Salvage treatment; Survival
Year: 2020 PMID: 32087687 PMCID: PMC7036235 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-6622-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Patient demographic and clinical characteristics
| Number 193(%) | SCRT 48(%) | SRT 119(%) | No RT 36(%) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.139 | ||||
| Male | 165 (85.5) | 45 (93.8) | 89 (81.7) | 31 (86.1) | |
| Female | 28 (14.5) | 3 (6.3) | 20 (18.3) | 5 (13.9) | |
| Age, years | 0.054 | ||||
| ≤ 60 | 100 (51.8) | 32 (66.7) | 50 (45.9) | 18 (50.0) | |
| >60 | 93 (48.2) | 16 (33.3) | 59 (54.1) | 18 (50.0) | |
| Location of the primary tumor | 0.645 | ||||
| Upper | 27 (14.0) | 8 (16.7) | 14 (12.8) | 5 (13.9) | |
| Middle | 91 (47.2) | 25 (52.1) | 52 (47.7) | 14 (38.9) | |
| Lower | 75 (38.9) | 15 (31.3) | 43 (39.4) | 17 (47.2) | |
| Surgery method | <0.001 | ||||
| Sweet approach | 148 (76.7) | 10 (37.0) | 67 (73.6) | 71 (94.7) | |
| Ivor-Lewis approach | 45 (23.3) | 17 (63..0) | 24 (26.4) | 4 (5.3) | |
| Differentiation degree | 0.488 | ||||
| Well | 25 (13.0) | 6 (12.5) | 15 (13.8) | 4 (11.1) | |
| Median | 113 (58.5) | 26 (54.2) | 66 (60.6) | 21 (58.3) | |
| Poor | 54 (28.0) | 16 (33.3) | 28 (25.7) | 10 (27.8) | |
| Unknown | 1 (0.5) | – | – | – | |
| Pathological T stage* | 0.097 | ||||
| T1 | 5 (2.6) | 1 (2.1) | 2 (1.8) | 2 (5.6) | |
| T2 | 35 (18.1) | 10 (20.8) | 20 (18.3) | 5 (13.9) | |
| T3 | 149 (77.2) | 37 (77.1) | 86 (78.9) | 26 (72.2) | |
| T4a | 4 (2.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.9) | 2 (8.3) | |
| Pathological N stage* | <0.001 | ||||
| N0 | 106 (54.9) | 35 (72.9) | 64 (58.7) | 7 (19.4) | |
| N1 | 43 (22.3) | 5 (10.4) | 24 (22.0) | 14 (38.9) | |
| N2 | 30 (15.5) | 4 (8.3) | 16 (14.7) | 10 (27.8) | |
| N3 | 14 (7.3) | 4 (8.3) | 5 (4.6) | 5 (13.9) | |
| Pathological TNM stage* | 0.001 | ||||
| IB | 26 (13.5) | 7 (14.6) | 17 (15.6) | 2 (5.6) | |
| IIA | 80 (41.5) | 28 (58.3) | 47 (43.1) | 5 (13.9) | |
| IIB | 10 (5.2) | 2 (4.2) | 4 (3.7) | 4 (11.1) | |
| IIIA | 36 (18.7) | 4 (8.3) | 21 (19.3) | 11 (30.6) | |
| IIIB | 25 (13.0) | 3 (6.3) | 15 (13.8) | 7 (19.4) | |
| IIIC | 16 (8.3) | 4 (8.3) | 5 (4.6) | 7 (19.4) | |
| Radiation dose | 0.030 | ||||
| <60Gy | 52 (33.5) | 22 (45.8) | 30 (28.0) | – | |
| ≥ 60Gy | 103 (66.5) | 26 (54.2) | 77 (72.0) | – |
* 7th UICC
Fig. 1a Distribution of lymph node resection (LNM: lymph node metastases); b Distribution of recurrent lymph nodes
Patterns of recurrence in the locoregional lymph nodes
| Site of lymph node recurrence | Number | % |
|---|---|---|
| Supraclavicular LN | 32 | 16.6 |
| Mediastinal LN | 90 | 46.6 |
| Upper abdominal LN | 17 | 8.8 |
| Supraclavicular and mediastinal LN | 37 | 19.2 |
| Supraclavicular and upper abdominal LN | 3 | 1.6 |
| Mediastinal and abdominal LN | 11 | 5.7 |
| Supraclavicular, mediastinal, and upper abdominal LN | 3 | 1.6 |
Fig. 2The overall survival rates after recurrence according to different salvage regimens
Fig. 3The overall survival rates after recurrence, stratified by the dose of radiation
Fig. 4a The overall survival rates after recurrence according to the site of recurrence in relation to the diaphragm; b The overall survival rates after recurrence based on the number of recurrent LN regions
Univariate and multivariate analysis for overall survival after recurrence
| Factors | Number | Univariate | Multivariate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR(95%CI) | HR(95%CI) | ||||
| Pathological N stage | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| pN0 | 106 | 1 | 1 | ||
| pN+ | 87 | 1.984(1.438–2.737) | 0.507(0.360–0.714) | ||
| Pathological TNM stage | <0.001 | – | – | ||
| I/II | 116 | 1 | |||
| III | 77 | 2.353(1.697–3.263) | |||
| Salvage treatment | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| SCRT | 48 | 1 | 1 | ||
| SRT | 109 | 1.510(1.002–2.276) | 0.049 | 1.419(0.940–2.142) | 0.096 |
| No RT | 36 | 4.175(2.529–6.891) | <0.001 | 3.246(1.931–5.458) | <0.001 |
| Site of recurrence | 0.002 | – | – | ||
| Above the diaphragm | 139 | 1 | |||
| Along with upper abdominal LN recurrence | 24 | 1.967(1.234–3.136) | 0.004 | ||
| Along with hematogenous metastases | 30 | 1.816(1.177–2.804) | 0.007 | ||
| Number of LN recurrence regions | 0.042 | – | – | ||
| Single region | 83 | 1 | |||
| Multiple regions | 110 | 1.408(1.012–1.958) | |||
Fig. 5Target contouring and planning design for elective field radiotherapy after recurrence. GTVnd (pink area), CTV (blue area), PGTVnd (sky blue area), PTV (green area). The prescribed dose (SIB-IMRT) for 95% PTV was 50.4 Gy/1.8 Gy/28 f, and for 95% PGTVnd was 61.88 Gy/2.21 Gy/28 f. The concurrent chemotherapy regimen included liposomal paclitaxel (135 mg/m2 IV) on day 1 and nedaplatin (50 mg/m2 IV) on day 1, which were cycled every 21 days. A total of 2 cycles were delivered
Fig. 6Target contouring and planning design for involved field irradiation. GTVnd (pink area), CTV (blue area), PTV (green area). The prescribed dose (IMRT) for 95% PTV was 56 Gy/2 Gy/28 f