OBJECTIVE: Stage II esophageal carcinomas are a heterogeneous group of uncommon malignant tumors that include both node-negative (IIA; T2 N0 M0 and T3 N0 M0) and node-positive (IIB; T1 N1 M0 and T2 N1 M0) carcinomas. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this heterogeneity and to identify predictors of improved survival. RESULTS: Ninety-four of 345 patients undergoing esophageal resection at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between 1985 and 1994 had stage 11 carcinomas; 70 stage IIA (24 T2 N0 M0 and 46 T3 N0 M0) and 24 stage IIB (9 T1 N1 M0 and 15 T2 N1 M0). Pathologic stage and T and N status were the only identifiable predictors of survival. Stage IIA survival was significantly better than stage IIB (p = 0.01). T2 N0 M0 survival was not different from T1 N0 M0 survival (p = 0.83). T3 N0 M0 survival was significantly worse than T1 N0 M0 (p = 0.03) and intermediate between T2 N0 M0 survival (p = 0.06) and T1 N1 M0 and T2 N1 M0 survivals (p = 0.07). T1 N1 M0 and T2 N1 M0 survival was not significantly different from T3 N1 M0 survival (p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: (1) N1 disease is the principal predictor of reduced survival and N1 is independent of T. Therefore the distinction between T1 N1 M0, T2 N1 M0, and T3 N1 M0 carcinomas is not warranted. (2) N0 disease is the principal predictor of improved survival but N0 is not independent of T. T1 N0 M0 and T2 N0 M0 survivals are similar and therefore distinction between these subgroups is not warranted. T3 N0 M0 survival is intermediate between T1 N0 M0 and T2 N0 M0 carcinomas and between T1 N1 M0, T2 N1 M0, and T3 N1 M0 carcinomas. Therefore stratification by T for N0 carcinomas is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Stage II esophageal carcinomas are a heterogeneous group of uncommon malignant tumors that include both node-negative (IIA; T2 N0 M0 and T3 N0 M0) and node-positive (IIB; T1 N1 M0 and T2 N1 M0) carcinomas. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this heterogeneity and to identify predictors of improved survival. RESULTS: Ninety-four of 345 patients undergoing esophageal resection at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between 1985 and 1994 had stage 11 carcinomas; 70 stage IIA (24 T2 N0 M0 and 46 T3 N0 M0) and 24 stage IIB (9 T1 N1 M0 and 15 T2 N1 M0). Pathologic stage and T and N status were the only identifiable predictors of survival. Stage IIA survival was significantly better than stage IIB (p = 0.01). T2 N0 M0 survival was not different from T1 N0 M0 survival (p = 0.83). T3 N0 M0 survival was significantly worse than T1 N0 M0 (p = 0.03) and intermediate between T2 N0 M0 survival (p = 0.06) and T1 N1 M0 and T2 N1 M0 survivals (p = 0.07). T1 N1 M0 and T2 N1 M0 survival was not significantly different from T3 N1 M0 survival (p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: (1) N1 disease is the principal predictor of reduced survival and N1 is independent of T. Therefore the distinction between T1 N1 M0, T2 N1 M0, and T3 N1 M0 carcinomas is not warranted. (2) N0 disease is the principal predictor of improved survival but N0 is not independent of T. T1 N0 M0 and T2 N0 M0 survivals are similar and therefore distinction between these subgroups is not warranted. T3 N0 M0 survival is intermediate between T1 N0 M0 and T2 N0 M0 carcinomas and between T1 N1 M0, T2 N1 M0, and T3 N1 M0 carcinomas. Therefore stratification by T for N0 carcinomas is warranted.
Authors: Amit N Patel; John T Preskitt; Joseph A Kuhn; Robert F Hebeler; Richard E Wood; Harold C Urschel Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2003-07
Authors: Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Wolfgang Matzek; Susanne Baroud; Nina Bastati; Johannes Zacherl; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Michael Hejna; Fritz Wrba; Michael Weber; Christian J Herold; Richard M Gore Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J M Collard; J B Otte; R Fiasse; P F Laterre; M De Kock; J Longueville; D Glineur; R Romagnoli; M Reynaert; P J Kestens Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael Stahl; Hansjochen Wilke; Martin Stuschke; Martin K Walz; Ulrich Fink; Michael Molls; J Rüdiger Siewert; Michael Schroeder; Hans-Bruno Makoski; Ulrich Schmidt; Siegfried Seeber; Udo Vanhoefer Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2004-10-05 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Rami J Badreddine; Ganapathy A Prasad; Jason T Lewis; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kelly T Dunagan; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-11-27 Impact factor: 11.382