Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Clinical and pathologic assessment of response to induction chemotherapy

Endoscopic evaluation of the esophageal cancer patient after chemoradiotherapy for persistent/recurrent cancer

Endoscopy has an important role in the pre- and post-treatment staging of esophageal cancer. Complete pathologic response following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy occurs in approximately 25% of patients. However, the ability to accurately detect this preoperatively with currently available endoscopic modalities is limited such that the default pathway is for fit patients to proceed with surgical resection. This article discusses the available endoscopic modalities (primarily Esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD] with mucosal biopsies and endoscopic ultrasonography with or without fine needle aspiration) used for post-treatment staging of esophageal cancer. We present data regarding the benefits and limitations of endoscopic methods in assessing for residual disease. Unfortunately, endoscopic modalities are not accurate enough to identify complete pathological responsers who may avoid surgical resection.

Outcome of Surgery for Oesophageal Carcinoma in a Low Volume Centre, with and without Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy

Aims:

To critically assess the outcome of surgery for oesophageal carcinoma, with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Methods:

Since April 1998 until August 2002 resectable oesophageal cancer patients referred to us have received multimodal treatment, consisting of two courses of fluorouracil, cisplatin and hydroxyurea and 20 Gy of radiotherapy followed by surgery. The outcome of this treatment was compared to the outcome of a historical group of oesophageal cancer patients, treated with surgery alone in the time period 1994 to 1998. The patients represent a consecutive series of 20 resectable oesophageal carcinomas, referred to us since 1994. Four patients (20 %) were treated for squamocellular carcinoma, 16 (80 %) patients for adenocarcinoma.

Results:

Treatment related toxicity was low and there was no death attributable to the chemoradiotherapy. Postoperative hospital mortality (< 30 days) and morbidity rates were 10 % and 50 %, respectively. A complete pathological response (T0) occurred in two of the nine patients in the multimodal group (22 %). Overall median survival was 11 months. Median survival among patients in the multimodal group was 14 months, as compared with 7 months in the group treated with surgery alone (P = 0.041).

Conclusions:

Despite low volume, outcome of surgery for oesophageal carcinoma was acceptable.

Endoscopic biopsy and EUS for the detection of pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Accurate determination of residual cancer status after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal cancer could assist in selecting the optimal treatment strategy. The aim of this study was to review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic biopsy and EUS after nCRT for detecting residual cancer at the primary tumor site (ypT+) and regional lymph nodes (ypN+) as opposed to a pathologic complete response (ypT0 and ypN0).

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched. The analysis included diagnostic studies reporting on the accuracy of endoscopic biopsy or EUS in detecting residual cancer versus complete response after nCRT for esophageal cancer with histopathology as the reference standard. Bivariate random-effects models were used to estimate pooled sensitivities and specificities and examine sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies comprising 12 endoscopic biopsy studies (1281 patients), 11 EUS studies reporting on ypT status (593 patients), and 10 EUS studies reporting on ypN status (602 patients), were included. Pooled estimates for sensitivity of endoscopic biopsy after nCRT for predicting ypT+ were 34.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.0%-44.1%) and for specificity 91.0% (95% CI, 85.6%-94.5%). Pooled estimates for sensitivity of EUS after nCRT were 96.4% (95% CI, 91.7%-98.5%) and for specificity were 10.9% (95% CI, 3.5%-29.0%) for detecting ypT+, and 62.0% (95% CI, 46.0%-75.7%) and 56.7% (95% CI, 41.8%-70.5%) for detecting ypN+, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic biopsy after nCRT is a specific but not sensitive method for detecting residual esophageal cancer. Although EUS after nCRT yields a high sensitivity, only a limited number of patients will have negative findings at EUS with still a substantial false-negative rate. Furthermore, EUS provides only moderate accuracy for detecting residual lymph node involvement. Based on these findings, these endoscopic modalities cannot be used to withhold surgical treatment in test-negative patients after nCRT. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015016527.).

Prediction of survival by tumor area on endosonography after definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

BACKGROUND

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is a reasonable approach for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who are not surgical candidates. This study was performed to investigate whether endosonography (EUS) assessment of tumor area response is a useful prognostic marker in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the esophagus who receive definitive CRT.

METHODS

A total of 33 patients who received definitive CRT for locally advanced esophageal SCC were enrolled. The maximal transverse cross-sectional area of the tumor was measured before and after definitive therapy. EUS response was defined as a ≥50% reduction of the tumor area after definitive CRT.

RESULTS

Based on EUS evaluation, there were 20 nonresponders (60.6%) and 13 responders (39.4%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in EUS responders than EUS nonresponders (p = 0.005). However, there was no statistical significance in overall survival according to EUS response (p = 0.120). During multivariate analysis, EUS response to definitive CRT was the only significant factor associated with PFS (p = 0.045), whereas EUS response to definitive CRT was not associated with overall survival (p = 0.221).

CONCLUSIONS

A reduction of the maximal cross-sectional tumor area measured by EUS correlates with a superior prognosis in patients with locally advanced SCC of the esophagus after definitive CRT.

Positron emission tomography for monitoring response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma

AIMS

The aim of this review is to consolidate our knowledge on an important and rapidly expanding area of expertise. Numerous methods for predicting response (in terms of pathological response and survival) to neoadjuvant therapy (chemotherapy/chemo-radiotherapy) in oesophageal and junctional cancers have been proposed. This review concerns itself only with the use of positron emission tomography for such a purpose. At present there are no standardised criteria amongst PET trials as to what determines a response according to PET, what is the optimal time to perform PET in relation to the timing of neoadjuvant therapy, and what is the ideal method of quantifying PET tracer uptake.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed of PubMed, Ovid and Embase websites to identify studies, in the English language, using the search terms: PET; oesophageal; oesophago-gastric; survival; cancer; response; chemotherapy and chemo-radiotherapy. The reference lists were searched manually to identify further relevant studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were identified, all using (18)FDG as the tracer, using PET to predict response in terms of pathological response and survival following neoadjuvant therapy (chemotherapy/chemo-radiotherapy). PET had a varying degree of success in predicting both pathological response and survival outcomes, with only one study using PET to influence management decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

PET seems a promising technique, but large-scale conclusions are hindered by small study numbers, lack of criteria as to what constitutes a response and markedly differing PET imaging times. A large randomised trial concerning a homogeneous group of patients and tumours is required before PET might be used to influence management.

Management of gastroesophageal tumors

The incidence of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction has increased in recent years. These tumors possess distinct pathophysiologic characteristics. Although the consensus is that an R0 resection (complete microscopic and macroscopic resection) is the goal when operating for curative intent, much controversy remains regarding other aspects of patient management. There is lack of consensus regarding the type of surgery to perform, the role and extent of lymphadenectomy, and the role of neoadjuvant therapy. Utilizing an evidence-based approach, this review article provides an overview of the management of gastroesophageal junction carcinomas with particular emphasis on current areas of controversy.

Endoscopic ultrasound restaging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to evaluate treatment response postneoadjuvant therapy for restaging esophageal cancer prior to surgical resection is uncertain. Accuracy of EUS is lower but potential to predict response to chemoradiation indicates that EUS may be helpful prior to surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To determine staging accuracy of EUS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, predictors of tumor response, and survival in locally advanced esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective evaluation of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer on a prospective chemotherapy study. Patients who underwent EUS without FNA pre- and postchemotherapy were included.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients (43 men and 6 women) were evaluated with EUS pre- and postneoadjuvant chemotherapy. Forty-seven patients had tumor localized at the GE junction and two had mid-esophageal lesions. The median survival time was 53 months. Tumor and nodal staging accuracy postchemotherapy were 60% (27 of 45). T-stage accuracy postchemotherapy was superior in patients without a response to chemotherapy (95.7%vs 26.1%, p<0.0001). More than 50% in reduction of tumor thickness postchemotherapy was associated with tumor downstage and better survival. N0 disease on final pathology was the best predictor of improved survival.

CONCLUSION

Accuracy of EUS postchemotherapy is lower than initial staging accuracy; therefore the ability to predict downstaging based on EUS is marginal. Pathology N1 disease postchemotherapy is the best predictor of survival. EUS staging postneoadjuvant chemotherapy should focus on improving nodal staging accuracy with FNA.

Should preoperative, post-chemoradiotherapy endoscopy be routine for esophageal cancer patients?

Chemoradiation therapy is used widely for locoregional esophageal cancer. Patients with persistent disease may benefit from surgery. Preoperative esophagoscopy can identify persistent tumor but its accuracy is uncertain. The primary objective of this study is to assess the extent of agreement between esophagoscopy and surgical pathology in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation. A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent chemoradiation, preoperative endoscopy and surgery from January 1996 to December 2002 was performed. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to measure the degree of agreement between findings at endoscopic biopsy and surgical pathology. Thirty cases were identified. All patients received chemoradiation followed by surgical resection. There was insufficient agreement between tumor size (kappa 0.25, standard error 0.17, P = 0.07) and appearance (kappa 0.19, standard error 0.18, P = 0.14). Preoperative endoscopy revealed atypia/inflammation in 15 cases and dysplasia in eight. Of these 23 cases, 11 were adenocarcinomas at surgery. Only nine patients had concurrence between surgical pathology and endoscopy. The positive and negative predictive values of esophagoscopy for identifying residual tumor were 100% and 11%, respectively. Our data suggests that after chemoradiation, esophagoscopy is unreliable for excluding residual disease. The roles of other modalities need to be explored.

Current status of neoadjuvant therapy for adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus

Prospective studies dealing with preoperative therapy in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus alone are rare. The interpretation of the preferential phase II trials and a few phase III trials is complicated, as most studies include adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (i.e., Barrett's carcinoma), adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (including cardia carcinoma and subcardia carcinoma), or squamous cell carcinoma. Preoperative chemotherapy, generally well tolerated, cannot decrease the incidence of local failure beyond the level achieved with surgery alone, but it might delay systemic relapse. Preoperative radiotherapy can enhance local control, but it fails to improve overall survival. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was demonstrated in only one randomized trail to have a survival benefit, but survival in the surgery-alone group was unusually low. Generally, survival was ameliorated in patients responding to neoadjuvant treatment. However, preoperative chemoradiation was often accompanied by a remarkable increase in postoperative morbidity and mortality. Nonresponding patients have, in this respect, a worse prognosis than responders after resection. The prediction of responding patients to neoadjuvant therapy as well as the early identification of patients who will not respond is of utmost clinical importance. Today, there is no absolute evidence that neoadjuvant treatment for patients with potentially resectable Barrett's cancer prolongs survival. In patients with locally advanced, presumably not completely resectable adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, preoperative treatment appears to increase the chance for a curative resection and enhance survival in responding patients. Neoadjuvant treatment of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, as a consequence, is currently not the standard treatment and should be performed only within controlled clinical trials.

Resectable esophageal carcinoma: local control with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the usefulness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy before esophagectomy for invasive cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of 154 patients who underwent esophagectomy for invasive cancer between September 1, 1991, and December 31, 1995. The end points evaluated were overall, disease-free, local-regional relapse-free, and systemic relapse-free survival.

RESULTS

Seventy of the 154 patients received neoadjuvant combined-modality therapy (CMT) consisting of concurrent cisplatin and fluorouracil administration and accelerated, hyperfractionated radiation therapy. The remaining 84 patients underwent immediate esophagectomy. With a median follow-up of 34.7 months, the 3-year overall, disease-free, and distant metastatic relapse-free survival rates were 38.0%, 41.9%, and 56.0%, respectively. Although neoadjuvant therapy did not appear to prevent distant metastases, there was a dramatic effect on local control. After CMT, the 5-year local control rate was 90% compared to 64% after surgery (P < .001). Tumors in the GEJ recurred more frequently (P = .01); however, multivariate analysis showed CMT was the only independent predictor of local control. Postoperative mortality was 15.7% after CMT versus 5.9% without CMT (P = .05).

CONCLUSION

Local control of esophageal cancer is excellent following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. However, the effects of CMT on overall and disease-free survival are less clear due to significant differences between the treatment groups.

Endoscopic ultrasound cannot determine suitability for esophagectomy after aggressive chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) provides important information in the initial staging of patients with esophageal cancer. With recent modifications in chemoradiotherapy protocols, a significant number of patients have no residual tumor at esophagectomy. The high surgical morbidity and mortality might be avoided if complete response to chemoradiotherapy could be predicted. Previously published clinical trials, with relatively small patient numbers, have suggested that EUS may accurately stage esophageal cancer after chemoradiotherapy. The aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of EUS in staging esophageal cancer after effective chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

EUS staging was performed before and after concurrent cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and hyperfractionated radiotherapy in 59 patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancer. All patients underwent subsequent esophagectomy and pathological staging. The accuracy of preoperative, postchemoradiotherapy EUS was evaluated in a retrospective fashion by comparison to pathological staging.

RESULTS

After chemoradiotherapy, 18 patients (31%) had no residual disease at pathological staging (T0N0). However, EUS correctly predicted complete response to chemoradiotherapy (T0N0) in only three patients (17%). The accuracy of postchemoradiotherapy EUS for pathological T stage was only 37%, and its sensitivity for N1 disease was only 38%. EUS was unable to distinguish postradiation fibrosis and inflammation from residual tumor.

CONCLUSION

When aggressive preoperative chemoradiotherapy is provided to patients with esophageal cancer, the predictive value of postchemoradiotherapy EUS is inadequate for use in clinical decision making.

High dose chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: results of a phase II study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

To assess the toxicity, local response, and survival associated with multimodality therapy in a cooperative group setting, patients with biopsy-proven clinical Stage I or II adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (staged according to 1983 American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria) or gastroesophageal junction were treated with concomitant radiation and chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy.

METHODS

Radiotherapy was administered in daily 2-gray (Gy) fractions 5 days a week until a total of 60 Gy was reached. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was infused continuously at a dose of 1000 mg/m2/day for 96 hours on Days 2-5 and 28-31. On Day 2, a 10 mg/m2 bolus of mitomycin was injected intravenously. Esophagectomy was performed 4-8 weeks following completion of the radiotherapy.

RESULTS

During the 18-month study period (August 1991 through January 1993), 46 eligible patients were accrued from 21 institutions. Eight patients were Stage I and 38 Stage II. Eighty-seven percent of patients (40 of 46) received 6000 centigray (cGy), and all received >5000 cGy. Seventy-eight percent of patients (36 of 46) received >90% of the planned 5-FU dose. Follow-up ranged from 11 to 36 months (median, 22 months). There were eight treatment-related deaths; two were preoperative (from adult respiratory distress syndrome) and six were postoperative. Complete or partial response prior to esophagectomy was observed in 63% of cases, stable disease in 15%, and progression in 20%. Thirty-three patients underwent esophagectomy (transhiatal, n=14; Ivor Lewis, n=16; other, n=3). No tumor was found in the specimens resected from 8 of these 33 patients; this represented a pathologic complete response rate of 17% overall and 24% for those who underwent esophagectomy. Overall median survival was 16.6 months, 1-year survival 57%, and 2-year survival 27%. Survival was significantly worse for patients with circumferential cancers (median, 18.1 months vs. 8.3 months; P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

High dose radiation therapy with concurrent 5-FU and mitomycin may be administered to patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma with acceptable morbidity. However, in a cooperative group setting, esophagogastrectomy following intensive chemoradiotherapy is associated with excessive morbidity and mortality. Circumferential tumor growth is a significant adverse prognostic factor.

A comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled studies suggest that a combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy improves the survival of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. We conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing surgery alone with combined chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery.

METHODS

Patients assigned to multimodal therapy received two courses of chemotherapy in weeks 1 and 6 (fluorouracil, 15 mg per kilogram of body weight daily for five days, and cisplatin, 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area on day 7) and a course of radiotherapy (40 Gy, administered in 15 fractions over a three-week period, beginning concurrently with the first course of chemotherapy), followed by surgery. The patients assigned to surgery had no preoperative therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 58 patients assigned to multimodal therapy and the 55 assigned to surgery, 10 and 1, respectively, were withdrawn for protocol violations. At the time of surgery, 23 of 55 patients (42 percent) treated with preoperative multimodal therapy who could be evaluated had positive nodes or metastases, as compared with 45 of the 55 patients (82 percent) who underwent surgery alone (P<0.001). Thirteen of the 52 patients (25 percent) who underwent surgery after multimodal therapy had complete responses as determined pathologically. The median survival of patients assigned to multimodal therapy was 16 months, as compared with 11 months for those assigned to surgery alone (P=0.01). At one, two, and three years, 52, 37, and 32 percent, respectively, of patients assigned to multimodal therapy were alive, as compared with 44, 26, and 6 percent of those assigned to surgery, with the survival advantage favoring multimodal therapy reaching significance at three years (P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal treatment is superior to surgery alone for patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.

Stage II esophageal carcinoma: the significance of T and N

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.