Impact of Radiotherapy, Chemotherapy and Surgery in Multimodal Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Objectives: It was the aim of this study to assess our institutional experience with definitive chemoradiation (CRT) versus induction chemotherapy followed by CRT with or without surgery (C-CRT/S) in esophageal cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 129 institutional patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who had been treated by either CRT in analogy to the RTOG 8501 trial (n = 78) or C-CRT/S (n = 51). Results: The median, 2-and 5-year overall survival (OS) of the entire collective was 17.6 months, 42 and 24%, respectively, without a significant difference between the CRT and C-CRT/S groups. In C-CRT/S patients, surgery statistically improved the locoregional control (LRC) rates (2-year LRC 73.6 vs. 21.2%; p = 0.003); however, this was translated only into a trend towards improved OS (p = 0.084). The impact of escalated radiation doses (>= 60.0 vs. <60.0 Gy) on LRC was detectable only in T1-3 N0-1 M0 patients of the CRT group (2-year LRC 77.8 vs. 42.3%; p = 0.036). Conclusion: Definitive CRT and a trimodality approach including surgery (C-CRT/S) had a comparable outcome in this unselected patient collective. Surgery and higher radiation doses improve LRC rates in subgroups of patients, respectively, but without effect on OS. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (FFCD 2000-05): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than the sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1 ratio) with advanced, measurable, non-resectable colorectal cancer and WHO performance status 0-2 to receive either first-line treatment with bolus (400 mg/m(2)) and infusional (2400 mg/m(2)) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (400 mg/m(2)) (simplified LV5FU2 regimen), second-line LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) (FOLFOX6), and third-line LV5FU2 plus irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)) (FOLFIRI) or first-line FOLFOX6 and second-line FOLFIRI. Chemotherapy was administered every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation (minimisation factors were WHO performance status, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, number of disease sites, and centre). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after two lines of treatment. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00126256. FINDINGS: 205 patients were randomly assigned to the sequential group and 205 to the combination group. 161 (79%) patients in the sequential group and 161 (79%) in the combination group died during the study. Median progression-free survival after two lines was 10·5 months (95% CI 9·6-11·5) in the sequential group and 10·3 months (9·0-11·9) in the combination group (hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·77-1·16; p=0·61). All six deaths caused by toxic effects of treatment occurred in the combination group. During first-line chemotherapy, significantly fewer severe (grade 3-4) haematological adverse events (12 events in 203 patients in sequential group vs 83 events in 203 patients in combination group; p&lt;0·0001) and non-haematological adverse events (26 events vs 186 events; p&lt;0·0001) occurred in the sequential group than in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: Upfront combination chemotherapy is more toxic and is not more effective than the sequential use of the same cytotoxic drugs in patients with advanced, non-resectable colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis France

Phase II randomised trial of chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX4 or cisplatin plus fluorouracil in oesophageal cancer

International audienceBackground: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is a valuable treatment option for localised oesophageal cancer (EC), but improvement is still needed. A randomised phase II trial was initiated to assess the feasibility and efficacy in terms of the endoscopic complete response rate (ECRR) of radiotherapy with oxaliplatin, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFOX4) or cisplatin/fluorouracil. Methods: Patients with unresectable EC (any T, any N, M0 or M1a), or medically unfit for surgery, were randomly assigned to receive either six cycles (three concomitant and three post-radiotherapy) of FOLFOX4 (arm A) or four cycles (two concomitant and two post-radiotherapy) of cisplatin/fluorouracil (arm B) along with radiotherapy 50 Gy in both arms. Responses were reviewed by independent experts. Results: A total of 97 patients were randomised (arm A/B, 53/44) and 95 were assessable. The majority had squamous cell carcinoma (82%; arm A/B, 42/38). Chemoradiotherapy was completed in 74 and 66%. The ECRR was 45 and 29% in arms A and B, respectively. Median times to progression were 15.2 and 9.2 months and the median overall survival was 22.7 and 15.1 months in arms A and B, respectively. Conclusion: Chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX4, a well-tolerated and convenient combination with promising efficacy, is now being tested in a phase III trial

Prognostic significance of anti-p53 and anti-KRas circulating antibodies in esophageal cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>P53 mutations are an adverse prognostic factor in esophageal cancer. P53 and KRas mutations are involved in chemo-radioresistance. Circulating anti-p53 or anti-KRas antibodies are associated with gene mutations. We studied whether anti-p53 or anti-KRas auto-antibodies were prognostic factors for response to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or survival in esophageal carcinoma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Serum p53 and KRas antibodies (abs) were measured using an ELISA method in 97 consecutive patients treated at Saint Louis University Hospital between 1999 and 2002 with CRT for esophageal carcinoma (squamous cell carcinoma (SCCE) 57 patients, adenocarcinoma (ACE) 27 patients). Patient and tumor characteristics, response to treatment and the follow-up status of 84 patients were retrospectively collected. The association between antibodies and patient characteristics was studied. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were conducted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-four patients (28%) had anti-p53 abs. Abs were found predominantly in SCCE (p = 0.003). Anti-p53 abs were associated with a shorter overall survival in the univariate analysis (HR 1.8 [1.03-2.9], p = 0.04). In the multivariate analysis, independent prognostic factors for overall and progression-free survival were an objective response to CRT, the CRT strategy (alone or combined with surgery [preoperative]) and anti-p53 abs. None of the long-term survivors had p53 abs. KRas abs were found in 19 patients (23%, no difference according to the histological type). There was no significant association between anti-KRas abs and survival neither in the univariate nor in the multivariate analysis. Neither anti-p53 nor anti-KRas abs were associated with response to CRT.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Anti-p53 abs are an independent prognostic factor for esophageal cancer patients treated with CRT. Individualized therapeutic approaches should be evaluated in this population.</p

Curative treatment of oesophageal carcinoma: current options and future developments

Since the 1980s major advances in surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy have established multimodal approaches as curative treatment options for oesophageal cancer. In addition the introduction of functional imaging modalities such as PET-CT created new opportunities for a more adequate patient selection and therapy response assessment

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in digestive oncology trials: which candidates? A questionnaires survey among clinicians and methodologists

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard for the demonstration of a clinical benefit in cancer trials. Replacement of OS by a surrogate endpoint allows to reduce trial duration. To date, few surrogate endpoints have been validated in digestive oncology. The aim of this study was to draw up an ordered list of potential surrogate endpoints for OS in digestive cancer trials, by way of a survey among clinicians and methodologists. Secondary objective was to obtain their opinion on surrogacy and quality of life (QoL).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 2007 and 2008, self administered sequential questionnaires were sent to a panel of French clinicians and methodologists involved in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In the first questionnaire, panellists were asked to choose the most important characteristics defining a surrogate among six proposals, to give advantages and drawbacks of the surrogates, and to answer questions about their validation and use. Then they had to suggest potential surrogate endpoints for OS in each of the following tumour sites: oesophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, biliary tract, lymphoma, colon, rectum, and anus. They finally gave their opinion on QoL as surrogate endpoint. In the second questionnaire, they had to classify the previously proposed candidate surrogates from the most (position #1) to the least relevant in their opinion.</p> <p>Frequency at which the endpoints were chosen as first, second or third most relevant surrogates was calculated and served as final ranking.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Response rate was 30% (24/80) in the first round and 20% (16/80) in the second one. Participants highlighted key points concerning surrogacy. In particular, they reminded that a surrogate endpoint is expected to predict clinical benefit in a well-defined therapeutic situation. Half of them thought it was not relevant to study QoL as surrogate for OS.</p> <p>DFS, in the neoadjuvant settings or early stages, and PFS, in the non operable or metastatic settings, were ranked first, with a frequency of more than 69% in 20 out of 22 settings. PFS was proposed in association with QoL in metastatic primary liver and stomach cancers (both 81%). This composite endpoint was ranked second in metastatic oesophageal (69%), colorectal (56%) and anal (56%) cancers, whereas QoL alone was also suggested in most metastatic situations.</p> <p>Other endpoints frequently suggested were R0 resection in the neoadjuvant settings (oesophagus (69%), stomach (56%), pancreas (75%) and biliary tract (63%)) and response. An unexpected endpoint was metastatic PFS in non operable oesophageal (31%) and pancreatic (44%) cancers. Quality and results of surgical procedures like sphincter preservation were also cited as eligible surrogate endpoints in rectal (19%) and anal (50% in case of localized disease) cancers. Except for alpha-FP kinetic in hepatocellular carcinoma (13%) and CA19-9 decline (6%) in pancreas, few endpoints based on biological or tumour markers were proposed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The overall results should help prioritise the endpoints to be statistically evaluated as surrogate for OS, so that trialists and clinicians can rely on endpoints that ensure relevant clinical benefit to the patient.</p

High-dose chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone in esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We aimed to assess whether high-dose preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves outcome in esophageal cancer patients compared to surgery alone and to define possible prognostic factors for overall survival.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Hundred-and-seven patients with disease stage IIA - III were treated with either surgery alone (n = 45) or high-dose preoperative CRT (n = 62). The data were collected retrospectively. Sixty-seven patients had adenocarcinomas, 39 squamous cell carcinomas and one undifferentiated carcinoma. CRT was given as three intensive chemotherapy courses by cisplatin 100 mg/m²on day 1 and 5-fluorouracil 1000 mg/m²/day, from day 1 through day 5 as continuous infusion. One course was given every 21 days. The last two courses were given concurrent with high-dose radiotherapy, 2 Gy/fraction and a median dose of 66 Gy. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log rank test was used to obtain survival data and Cox Regression multivariate analysis was used to define prognostic factors for overall survival.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Toxicity grade 3 of CRT occurred in 30 (48.4%) patients and grade 4 in 24 (38.7%) patients of 62 patients. One patient died of neutropenic infection (grade 5). Fifty percent (31 patients) in the CRT group did undergo the planned surgery. Postoperative mortality rate was 9% and 10% in the surgery alone and CRT+ surgery groups, respectively (p = 1.0). Median overall survival was 11.1 and 31.4 months in the surgery alone and CRT+ surgery groups, respectively (log rank test, p = 0.042). In the surgery alone group one, 3 and 5 year survival rates were 44%, 24% and 16%, respectively and in the CRT+ surgery group they were 68%, 44% and 29%, respectively. By multivariate analysis we found that age of patient, performance status, alcoholism and > = 4 pathological positive lymph nodes in resected specimen were significantly associated with overall survival, whereas high-dose preoperative CRT was not.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We found no significant survival advantage in esophageal cancer stage IIA-III following preoperative high-dose CRT compared to surgery alone. Patient's age, performance status, alcohol abuse and number of positive lymph nodes were prognostic factors for overall survival.</p

Oesophageal cancer: Exploring controversies overview of experts' opinions of Austria, Germany, France, Netherlands and Switzerland

Background: Oesophageal carcinoma is a rare disease with often dismal prognosis. Despite multiple trials addressing specific issues, currently, many questions in management remain unanswered. This work aimed to specifically address areas in the management of oesophageal cancer where high level evidence is not available, performing trials is very demanding and for many questions high-level evidence will not be available in the forseeable future. Methods: Two experts of each national, oesophageal cancer research group from Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland were asked to provide statements to controversial issues. After an initial survey, further questions were formulated and answered by all experts. The answers were then discussed and qualitatively analysed for consensus and controversy. Results: Topics such as indications for PET-CT, reasons for induction chemotherapy, radiotherapy dose, the choice of definitive chemo-radiotherapy versus surgery in squamous cell cancer, the role of radiotherapy in adenocarcinoma and selected surgical issues were identified as topics of interest and discussed. Conclusion: Areas of significant controversy exist in the management of oesophageal cancer, mostly due to high-level evidence. This is not expected to change in the upcoming years

Feasibility of intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND:In this study the feasibility of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and tomotherapy-based image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer was assessed.METHODS:A retrospective study of ten patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who underwent concurrent chemotherapy with IMRT (1) and IGRT (9) was conducted. The gross tumor volume was treated to a median dose of 70Gy (62.4-75Gy).RESULTS:At a median follow-up of 14months (1-39 months), three patients developed local failures, six patients developed distant metastases, and complications occurred in two patients (1 tracheoesophageal fistula, 1 esophageal stricture requiring repeated dilatations). No patients developed grade 3-4 pneumonitis or cardiac complications.CONCLUSIONS:IMRT and IGRT may be effective for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer with acceptable complications.This item is part of the UA Faculty Publications collection. For more information this item or other items in the UA Campus Repository, contact the University of Arizona Libraries at [email protected]