Daniel Solomon1,2, Muhammad Abbas1,2, Yael Feferman1,2, Riad Haddad3, Gali Perl4,2, Yulia Kundel4,2, Sara Morgenstern5,2, Nikolai Menasherov1,2, Hanoch Kashtan6,7. 1. Department of Surgery, Rabin Medical Center - Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel. 2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Department of Surgery, Carmel Carmel Medical Center, Affiliated with the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Haifa, Israel. 4. Davidoff Cancer Center, Rabin Medical Center - Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel. 5. Department of Pathology, Rabin Medical Center - Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel. 6. Department of Surgery, Rabin Medical Center - Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel. hkashtan@clalit.org.il. 7. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. hkashtan@clalit.org.il.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the prognosis of patients with locoregional esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has improved in the neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) era, high-grade histology (G3) is still associated with a limited treatment response. We sought to investigate oncologic outcomes in patients after esophagectomy for G3 EAC and to identify predictors of poor survival among these patients. METHODS: Patients with EAC who underwent resection with curative intent in 2011-2018 were divided by histologic grade (G3, G1/2) and compared for overall survival (OS). Cox regression was performed to analyze the response to NAT and the predictive role of signet ring cell (SRC) features. RESULTS: The cohort included 163 patients, 94 (57.7%) with G3 histology. NAT was administered to 69 (73.4%) patients. Following resection, OS in the G3 EAC group was 30 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.9-36.1). On univariate analysis, G3 disease (p = 0.050) and SRC features (p = 0.019) predicted low OS. Median survival in the G3 EAC group was worse in patients with SRC histology (18 months, 95% CI 8.6-27.4) than those without (30 months, 95% CI 23.8-36.1; p = 0.041). No patients with SRC histology were alive at 5 years of follow-up. Among all patients administered NAT, 88.2% of those with SRC showed minimal or no pathologic response and only 27.8% were downstaged. CONCLUSIONS: High-grade histology was found in most patients with EAC and predicted poor survival and treatment response. SRC features in patients with G3 disease were associated with lower OS. The benefit of NAT for G3 EAC in patients with SRC histology appears limited.
BACKGROUND: While the prognosis of patients with locoregional esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has improved in the neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) era, high-grade histology (G3) is still associated with a limited treatment response. We sought to investigate oncologic outcomes in patients after esophagectomy for G3 EAC and to identify predictors of poor survival among these patients. METHODS:Patients with EAC who underwent resection with curative intent in 2011-2018 were divided by histologic grade (G3, G1/2) and compared for overall survival (OS). Cox regression was performed to analyze the response to NAT and the predictive role of signet ring cell (SRC) features. RESULTS: The cohort included 163 patients, 94 (57.7%) with G3 histology. NAT was administered to 69 (73.4%) patients. Following resection, OS in the G3 EAC group was 30 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.9-36.1). On univariate analysis, G3 disease (p = 0.050) and SRC features (p = 0.019) predicted low OS. Median survival in the G3 EAC group was worse in patients with SRC histology (18 months, 95% CI 8.6-27.4) than those without (30 months, 95% CI 23.8-36.1; p = 0.041). No patients with SRC histology were alive at 5 years of follow-up. Among all patients administered NAT, 88.2% of those with SRC showed minimal or no pathologic response and only 27.8% were downstaged. CONCLUSIONS: High-grade histology was found in most patients with EAC and predicted poor survival and treatment response. SRC features in patients with G3 disease were associated with lower OS. The benefit of NAT for G3 EAC in patients with SRC histology appears limited.
Authors: Harry H Yoon; Maliha Khan; Qian Shi; Stephen D Cassivi; Tsung-Teh Wu; J Fernando Quevedo; Patrick A Burch; Frank A Sinicrope; Robert B Diasio Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Pooja R Rohatgi; Stephen G Swisher; Arlene M Correa; Tsung T Wu; Zhongxing Liao; Ritsuko Komaki; Garrett L Walsh; Ara A Vaporciyan; David C Rice; Robert S Bresalier; Jack A Roth; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joel Shapiro; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R C Busch; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Herman van Dekken; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Katharina Biermann; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: J A Ajani; A M Correa; W L Hofstetter; D C Rice; M A Blum; A Suzuki; T Taketa; J Welsh; S H Lin; J H Lee; M S Bhutani; W A Ross; D M Maru; H A Macapinlac; J Erasmus; R Komaki; R J Mehran; A A Vaporciyan; S G Swisher Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 32.976