Literature DB >> 33575213

Prognostic Value of CT Imaging-Based Tumor Volume in Patients With Non-Surgical Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Ning Kang1,2,3, Yeying Fang1, Huijun Zhu2, Zhiling Shi4, Liuyin Chen4, YuShuang Lu4, Housheng Wang1, Jiamei Lu1, Wenqi Liu2, Kai Hu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Joint Committee on Cancer-Tumor (AJCC-T) staging system for esophageal carcinoma patients, which is based on the depth of tumor invasion, is not applicable in some cases. This study aims to assess the prognostic value of CT imaging-based tumor volume and its usefulness for T staging in patients with non-surgical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 158 ESCC patients undergoing definitive (chemo) radiotherapy from two hospitals. Tumor volume based on the CT imaging was calculated using the formula: V = πabc / 6. Three cutoff points for tumor volume were obtained with the X-tile software. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The -2 log-likelihood ratio and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value were evaluated to compare the AJCC-T staging system with the proposed T staging method.
RESULTS: The median tumor volume was 19.8 cm³ (range from 1.0 to 319.5 cm³). The three optimal cutoff points of tumor volume were 12.7, 22.8, and 51.9 cm³, and the patients were divided into four groups named as proposed T1-T4 stages. The 3-year OS rates in patients with proposed T1 to T4 stages were 67.9%, 30.6%, 21.3%, and 5.3%, respectively. The -2 log-likelihood ratios of the AJCC-T stage and proposed T stage were 1,068.060 and 1,047.418, respectively. The difference in the AIC value between the two T staging systems was 18.642.
CONCLUSION: CT imaging-based tumor volume was superior to the depth of tumor invasion for T staging in predicting the prognosis of non-surgical ESCC patient.
Copyright © 2021 Kang, Fang, Zhu, Shi, Chen, Lu, Wang, Lu, Liu and Hu.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CT imaging; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; non-surgical; prognosis; tumor volume

Year:  2021        PMID: 33575213      PMCID: PMC7871982          DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.602681

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Oncol        ISSN: 2234-943X            Impact factor:   6.244


  26 in total

1.  Prostate volume estimation using the ellipsoid formula consistently underestimates actual gland size.

Authors:  Esequiel Rodriguez; Douglas Skarecky; Navneet Narula; Thomas E Ahlering
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Changing cancer survival in China during 2003-15: a pooled analysis of 17 population-based cancer registries.

Authors:  Hongmei Zeng; Wanqing Chen; Rongshou Zheng; Siwei Zhang; John S Ji; Xiaonong Zou; Changfa Xia; Kexin Sun; Zhixun Yang; He Li; Ning Wang; Renqiang Han; Shuzheng Liu; Huizhang Li; Huijuan Mu; Yutong He; Yanjun Xu; Zhentao Fu; Yan Zhou; Jie Jiang; Yanlei Yang; Jianguo Chen; Kuangrong Wei; Dongmei Fan; Jian Wang; Fangxian Fu; Deli Zhao; Guohui Song; Jianshun Chen; Chunxiao Jiang; Xin Zhou; Xiaoping Gu; Feng Jin; Qilong Li; Yanhua Li; Tonghao Wu; Chunhua Yan; Jianmei Dong; Zhaolai Hua; Peter Baade; Freddie Bray; Ahmedin Jemal; Xue Qin Yu; Jie He
Journal:  Lancet Glob Health       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 26.763

3.  Treatment of clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Wayne Hofstetter
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-26       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the staging and follow-up of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Charles J Lightdale; Ketan G Kulkarni
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-07-10       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Tumor volume as outcome determinant in patients treated with chemoradiation for locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Gilles Créhange; Mathieu Bosset; Fabrice Lorchel; Lorchel Fabrice; Joëlle Buffet-Miny; Jean Luc Dumas; Mariette Mercier; Marc Puyraveau; Philippe Maingon; Jean François Bosset
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.339

6.  Gross tumor volume is the prognostic factor for squamous cell esophageal cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy.

Authors:  Yun Chen; Zhen Zhang; Guoliang Jiang; Kuaile Zhao
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Endoscopic ultrasound predicts outcomes for patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction.

Authors:  Andrew P Barbour; Nabil P Rizk; Hans Gerdes; Manjit S Bains; Valerie W Rusch; Murray F Brennan; Daniel G Coit
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2007-07-20       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Gross tumor volume is an independent prognostic factor in patients with postoperative locoregional recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Yu Shi; Xiaolin Ge; Zhenzhen Gao; Shenxiang Liu; Xinchen Sun; Jinhua Luo
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 2.967

9.  Prognostic value of tumor length and diameter for esophageal squamous cell cancer patients treated with definitive (chemo)radiotherapy: Potential indicators for nonsurgical T staging.

Authors:  Hongyao Xu; Shengxi Wu; Hesan Luo; Chuyun Chen; Lianxing Lin; Hecheng Huang; Renliang Xue
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 4.452

10.  Endoscopic Ultrasound for Preoperative Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Lin-Na Luo; Long-Jun He; Xiao-Yan Gao; Xin-Xin Huang; Hong-Bo Shan; Guang-Yu Luo; Yin Li; Shi-Yong Lin; Guo-Bao Wang; Rong Zhang; Guo-Liang Xu; Jian-Jun Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Can lymphovascular invasion be predicted by contrast-enhanced CT imaging features in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? A preliminary retrospective study.

Authors:  Yang Li; Haiyan Su; Li Yang; Meng Yue; Mingbo Wang; Xiaolong Gu; Lijuan Dai; Xiangming Wang; Xiaohua Su; Andu Zhang; Jialiang Ren; Gaofeng Shi
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 2.795

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.