M Hart Squires1, Nicole Gower2, Jennifer H Benbow2, Erin E Donahue3, Casey E Bohl4, Roshan S Prabhu5, Joshua S Hill1, Jonathan C Salo6. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. 2. LCI Research Support, Clinical Trials Office, Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. 4. Charlotte Radiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. 5. Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. 6. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. Jonathan.salo@atriumhealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), chemoradiation (ChemoRT) followed by surgery offers the best chance of cure, with a 35-50% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Given the morbidity of esophagectomy and the possibility of pCR with ChemoRT, a 'watch and wait' strategy has been proposed, particularly for squamous cell carcinoma. The ability to accurately predict which patients will have pCR from ChemoRT is critical in treatment decision making. This study assessed positron emission tomography (PET) in predicting pCR after neoadjuvant ChemoRT for ESCC. METHODS: ESCC patients treated with ChemoRT followed by surgery were identified. Maximum standard uptake value (SUV), metabolic tumor volume, total lesion glycolysis, and first-order textual features of standard deviation, kurtosis and skewness were measured from PET. Univariable and multivariable generalized linear method analyses were performed. A metabolic complete response (mCR) was defined as a post-therapy PET scan with maximum SUV < 4.0. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients underwent ChemoRT followed by surgery, with overall pCR seen in 11 (41%) patients and radiographic mCR seen in 12 (44%) patients. Final pathology for these 12 patients revealed pCR (ypT0N0M0) in 5 (42%) patients and persistent disease in 7 (58%) patients. Univariate analysis did not reveal PET parameters predictive of pCR. CONCLUSION: Treatment of ESCC with ChemoRT often results in a robust clinical response. Among patients with an mCR after ChemoRT, disease persistence was found in 58%. The inability of PET to predict pCR is important in the context of a 'watch and wait' strategy for ESCC treated with ChemoRT.
BACKGROUND: For locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), chemoradiation (ChemoRT) followed by surgery offers the best chance of cure, with a 35-50% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Given the morbidity of esophagectomy and the possibility of pCR with ChemoRT, a 'watch and wait' strategy has been proposed, particularly for squamous cell carcinoma. The ability to accurately predict which patients will have pCR from ChemoRT is critical in treatment decision making. This study assessed positron emission tomography (PET) in predicting pCR after neoadjuvant ChemoRT for ESCC. METHODS: ESCC patients treated with ChemoRT followed by surgery were identified. Maximum standard uptake value (SUV), metabolic tumor volume, total lesion glycolysis, and first-order textual features of standard deviation, kurtosis and skewness were measured from PET. Univariable and multivariable generalized linear method analyses were performed. A metabolic complete response (mCR) was defined as a post-therapy PET scan with maximum SUV < 4.0. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients underwent ChemoRT followed by surgery, with overall pCR seen in 11 (41%) patients and radiographic mCR seen in 12 (44%) patients. Final pathology for these 12 patients revealed pCR (ypT0N0M0) in 5 (42%) patients and persistent disease in 7 (58%) patients. Univariate analysis did not reveal PET parameters predictive of pCR. CONCLUSION: Treatment of ESCC with ChemoRT often results in a robust clinical response. Among patients with an mCR after ChemoRT, disease persistence was found in 58%. The inability of PET to predict pCR is important in the context of a 'watch and wait' strategy for ESCC treated with ChemoRT.
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: Jaffer A Ajani; James S Barthel; David J Bentrem; Thomas A D'Amico; Prajnan Das; Crystal S Denlinger; Charles S Fuchs; Hans Gerdes; Robert E Glasgow; James A Hayman; Wayne L Hofstetter; David H Ilson; Rajesh N Keswani; Lawrence R Kleinberg; W Michael Korn; A Craig Lockhart; Mary F Mulcahy; Mark B Orringer; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; James A Posey; Aaron R Sasson; Walter J Scott; Stephen Shibata; Vivian E M Strong; Thomas K Varghese; Graham Warren; Mary Kay Washington; Christopher Willett; Cameron D Wright Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Ben M Eyck; Barbera D Onstenk; Bo J Noordman; Daan Nieboer; Manon C W Spaander; Roelf Valkema; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Bas P L Wijnhoven; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 12.969
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: 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: T W Rice; V W Rusch; C Apperson-Hansen; M S Allen; L-Q Chen; J G Hunter; K A Kesler; S Law; T E M R Lerut; C E Reed; J A Salo; W J Scott; S G Swisher; T J Watson; E H Blackstone Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2009 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Bo Jan Noordman; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Jurjen J Boonstra; Peter Paul L O Coene; Jan Willem T Dekker; Michael Doukas; Ate van der Gaast; Joos Heisterkamp; Ewout A Kouwenhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Jean-Pierre E N Pierie; Camiel Rosman; Johanna W van Sandick; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Meindert N Sosef; Manon C W Spaander; Roelf Valkema; Edwin S van der Zaag; Ewout W Steyerberg; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Bhasker R Koppula; Gabriel C Fine; Ahmed Ebada Salem; Matthew F Covington; Richard H Wiggins; John M Hoffman; Kathryn A Morton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 6.575