Masahiro Adachi1,2, Naoki Aoyama3,4, Motohiro Kojima1,5, Naoya Sakamoto1,5, Saori Miyazaki1, Tetsuro Taki1, Reiko Watanabe1, Kazuto Matsuura6, Daisuke Kotani7, Takashi Kojima7, Takeo Fujita8, Keiji Tabuchi2, Genichiro Ishii1, Shingo Sakashita9,10. 1. Department of Pathology and Clinical Laboratories, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. 5. Division of Pathology, National Cancer Center Exploratory Oncology Research and Clinical Trial Center, 6-5-1, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan. 6. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. 7. Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. 8. Department of Esophageal Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. 9. Department of Pathology and Clinical Laboratories, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan. ssakashi@east.ncc.go.jp. 10. Division of Pathology, National Cancer Center Exploratory Oncology Research and Clinical Trial Center, 6-5-1, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba, 277-8577, Japan. ssakashi@east.ncc.go.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To clarify the utility of the area of residual tumor for patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We enrolled 186 patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer who underwent surgical resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy at our hospital. Using digital images, we measured the area of residual tumor at the maximum plane of the specimen and divided the patient into three groups as follows: 0 (area = 0 mm2), low (area = 0-40 mm2), and high (area ≥ 40 mm2). The clinicopathological factors and prognosis were compared among these groups. RESULTS: The median area of the residual tumor was 15.0 mm2 (range 0-1,448.8 mm2). Compared with the 0 and low group, the high group was significantly associated with poorer recurrence-free survival (all P < .001) and overall survival (P < .001 [vs. 0] and P = .017 [vs low]). The area of residual tumor, ypN, tumor regression grade, and lymphovascular invasion were independent predictors of recurrence-free survival. By dividing the patients using a combination of the area of residual tumor and lymphovascular invasion, the high and/or lymphovascular invasion ( +) group displayed significantly poor recurrence-free survival than the 0 group and low/lymphovascular invasion ( -) group. However, there was no significant difference in the recurrence-free survival between the 0 group and low/lymphovascular invasion ( -) group. CONCLUSION: The area of residual tumor is a promising histopathological prognostic factor for patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Moreover, it is a possible candidate histopathological factor for postoperative chemotherapy selection.
PURPOSE: To clarify the utility of the area of residual tumor for patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We enrolled 186 patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer who underwent surgical resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy at our hospital. Using digital images, we measured the area of residual tumor at the maximum plane of the specimen and divided the patient into three groups as follows: 0 (area = 0 mm2), low (area = 0-40 mm2), and high (area ≥ 40 mm2). The clinicopathological factors and prognosis were compared among these groups. RESULTS: The median area of the residual tumor was 15.0 mm2 (range 0-1,448.8 mm2). Compared with the 0 and low group, the high group was significantly associated with poorer recurrence-free survival (all P < .001) and overall survival (P < .001 [vs. 0] and P = .017 [vs low]). The area of residual tumor, ypN, tumor regression grade, and lymphovascular invasion were independent predictors of recurrence-free survival. By dividing the patients using a combination of the area of residual tumor and lymphovascular invasion, the high and/or lymphovascular invasion ( +) group displayed significantly poor recurrence-free survival than the 0 group and low/lymphovascular invasion ( -) group. However, there was no significant difference in the recurrence-free survival between the 0 group and low/lymphovascular invasion ( -) group. CONCLUSION: The area of residual tumor is a promising histopathological prognostic factor for patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Moreover, it is a possible candidate histopathological factor for postoperative chemotherapy selection.
Authors: Lucian R Chirieac; Stephen G Swisher; Jaffer A Ajani; Ritsuko R Komaki; Arlene M Correa; Jeffrey S Morris; Jack A Roth; Asif Rashid; Stanley R Hamilton; Tsung-Teh Wu Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ronan J Kelly; Jaffer A Ajani; Jaroslaw Kuzdzal; Thomas Zander; Eric Van Cutsem; Guillaume Piessen; Guillermo Mendez; Josephine Feliciano; Satoru Motoyama; Astrid Lièvre; Hope Uronis; Elena Elimova; Cecile Grootscholten; Karen Geboes; Syed Zafar; Stephanie Snow; Andrew H Ko; Kynan Feeney; Michael Schenker; Piotr Kocon; Jenny Zhang; Lili Zhu; Ming Lei; Prianka Singh; Kaoru Kondo; James M Cleary; Markus Moehler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yuichiro Doki; Jaffer A Ajani; Ken Kato; Jianming Xu; Lucjan Wyrwicz; Satoru Motoyama; Takashi Ogata; Hisato Kawakami; Chih-Hung Hsu; Antoine Adenis; Farid El Hajbi; Maria Di Bartolomeo; Maria I Braghiroli; Eva Holtved; Sandra A Ostoich; Hye R Kim; Masaki Ueno; Wasat Mansoor; Wen-Chi Yang; Tianshu Liu; John Bridgewater; Tomoki Makino; Ioannis Xynos; Xuan Liu; Ming Lei; Kaoru Kondo; Apurva Patel; Joseph Gricar; Ian Chau; Yuko Kitagawa Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 176.079