NEOadjuvant therapy monitoring with PET and CT in Esophageal Cancer (NEOPEC-trial)

Contains fulltext : 70883.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the preferred treatment of potentially curable esophageal cancer. To improve long term patient outcome, many institutes apply neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In a large proportion of patients no response to chemoradiotherapy is achieved. These patients suffer from toxic and ineffective neoadjuvant treatment, while appropriate surgical therapy is delayed. For this reason a diagnostic test that allows for accurate prediction of tumor response early during chemoradiotherapy is of crucial importance. CT-scan and endoscopic ultrasound have limited accuracy in predicting histopathologic tumor response. Data suggest that metabolic changes in tumor tissue as measured by FDG-PET predict response better. This study aims to compare FDG-PET and CT-scan for the early prediction of non-response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: Prognostic accuracy study, embedded in a randomized multicenter Dutch trial comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for 5 weeks followed by surgery versus surgery alone for esophageal cancer. This prognostic accuracy study is performed only in the neoadjuvant arm of the randomized trial. In 6 centers, 150 consecutive patients will be included over a 3 year period. FDG-PET and CT-scan will be performed before and 2 weeks after the start of the chemoradiotherapy. All patients complete the 5 weeks regimen of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, regardless the test results. Pathological examination of the surgical resection specimen will be used as reference standard. Responders are defined as patients with < 10% viable residual tumor cells (Mandard-score).Difference in accuracy (area under ROC curve) and negative predictive value between FDG-PET and CT-scan are primary endpoints. Furthermore, an economic evaluation will be performed, comparing survival and costs associated with the use of FDG-PET (or CT-scan) to predict tumor response with survival and costs of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy without prediction of response (reference strategy). DISCUSSION: The NEOPEC-trial could be the first sufficiently powered study that helps justify implementation of FDG-PET for response-monitoring in patients with esophageal cancer in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45750457

Expense and benefit of neoadjuvant treatment in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of neoadjuvant treatment (NT) prior to resection of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE) in terms of prolonged survival has not been proven by randomized trials. Facing considerable financial expenses and with concerns regarding the consumption of the patient's remaining survival time, this study aims to provide rationales for pretreating resection candidates. METHODS: From March 1986 to March 1999, patients undergoing resection for SCCE were documented prospectively. Since 1989, NT was offered to patients with mainly upper and middle third T3 or T4 tumors or T2 N1 stage who were fit for esophagectomy. Until 1993, NT consisted of chemotherapy. Since that time chemoradiation has also been applied. The parameters for expense and benefit of NT are costs, pretreatment time required, postoperative morbidity and mortality, clinical and histopathological response, and actuarial survival. RESULTS: Two hundred and three patients were treated, 170 by surgery alone and 33 by NT + surgery. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were 52% to 30% and 12% to 6%, respectively (p = n.s.). The response to NT was detected in 23 patients (70%). In 11 instances (33%), the primary tumor lesion was histopathologically eradicated. Survival following NT + surgery was significantly prolonged in node-positive patients with a median survival of 12 months to 19 months (p = 0.0193). The average pretreatment time was 113 ± 43 days, and reimbursement for NT to the hospital amounted to Euro 9.834. CONCLUSIONS: NT did not increase morbidity and mortality. Expenses for pretreatment, particularly time and costs, are considerable. However, taking into account that the results are derived from a non-randomized study, patients with regionally advanced tumor stages seem to benefit, as seen by their prolonged survival

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery versus surgery alone for patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (CROSS)

textabstractBackground. A surgical resection is currently the preferred treatment for esophageal cancer if the tumor is considered to be resectable without evidence of distant metastases (cT1-3 N0-1 M0). A high percentage of irradical resections is reported in studies using neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone and in trials in which patients are treated with surgery alone. Improvement of locoregional control by using neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy might therefore improve the prognosis in these patients. We previously reported that after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with weekly administrations of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel combined with concurrent radiotherapy nearly always a complete R0-resection could be performed. The concept that this neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimen improves overall survival has, however, to be proven in a randomized phase III trial. Methods/design. The CROSS trial is a multicenter, randomized phase III, clinical trial. The study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer, with inclusion of 175 patients per arm. The objectives of the CROSS trial are to compare median survival rates and quality of life (before, during and after treatment), pathological responses, progression free survival, the number of R0 resections, treatment toxicity and costs between patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone for surgically resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma. Over a 5 week period concurrent chemoradiotherapy will be applied on an outpatient basis. Paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) and Carboplatin (Area-Under-Curve = 2) are administered by i.v. infusion on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29. External beam radiation with a total dose of 41.4 Gy is given in 23 fractions of 1.8 Gy, 5 fractions a week. After completion of the protocol, patients will be followed up every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the second year, and then at the end of each year until 5 years after treatment. Quality of life questionnaires will be filled out during the first year of follow-up. Discussion. This study will contribute to the evidence on any benefits of neoadjuvant treatment in esophageal cancer patients using a promising chemoradiotherapy regimen. Trial registration. ISRCTN80832026

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin for patients with oesophageal cancer: a phase II study

This study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of preoperative chemoradiation consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel and concurrent radiotherapy for patients with resectable (T2-3N0-1M0) oesophageal cancer. Treatment consisted of paclitaxel 50 mg m−2 and carboplatin AUC=2 on days 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 and concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week), followed by oesophagectomy. All 54 entered patients completed the chemoradiation without delay or dose-reduction. Grade 3–4 toxicities were: neutropaenia 15%, thrombocytopaenia 2%, and oesophagitis 7.5%. After completion of the chemoradiotherapy 63% had a major endoscopical response. Fifty-two patients (96%) underwent a resection. The postoperative mortality rate was 7.7%. All patients had an R0-resection. The pathological complete response rate was 25%, and an additional 36.5% had less than 10% vital residual tumour cells. At a median follow-up of 23.2 months, the median survival time has not yet been reached. The probability of disease-free survival after 30 months was 60%. In conclusion, weekly neoadjuvant paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent radiotherapy is a very tolerable regimen and can be given on an outpatient basis. It achieves considerable down staging and a subsequent 100% radical resection rate in this series. A phase III trial with this regimen is now ongoing

Centralization of Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Does It Improve Clinical Outcome?

Background: The volume-outcome relationship for complex surgical procedures has been extensively studied. Most studies are based on administrative data and use in-hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure. It is still unknown if concentration of these procedures leads to improvement of clinical outcome. The aim of our study was to audit the process and effect of centralizing oesophageal resections for cancer by using detailed clinical data. Methods: From January 1990 until December 2004, 555 esophagectomies for cancer were performed in 11 hospitals in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Center West (CCCW); 342 patients were operated on before and 213 patients after the introduction of a centralization project. In this project patients were referred to the hospitals which showed superior outcomes in a regional audit. In this audit patient, tumor, and operative details as well as clinical outcome were compared between hospitals. The outcome of both cohorts, patients operated on before and after the start of the project, were evaluated. Results: Despite the more severe comorbidity of the patient group, outcome improved after centralizing esophageal resections. Along with a reduction in postoperative morbidity and length of stay, mortality fell from 12% to 4% and survival improved significantly (P = 0.001). The hospitals with the highest procedural volume showed the biggest improvement in outcome. Conclusion: Volume is an important determinant of quality of care in esophageal cancer surgery. Referral of patients with esophageal cancer to surgical units with adequate experience and superior outcomes (outcome-based referral) improves quality of care

Neoadjuvant continuous infusion of weekly 5-fluorouracil and escalating doses of oxaliplatin plus concurrent radiation in locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: results of a phase I/II trial

Oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil have a significant activity in locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell cancer (OSCC). However, their optimal dosage and efficacy when combined with concurrent radiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment are unknown. This non-randomised, phase I/II study aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and assessed the histopathological tumour response rate to neoadjuvant oxaliplatin in weekly escalating doses (40, 45, 50 mg m−2) and continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil (CI-5FU; 225 mg m−2) plus concurrent radiotherapy. Patients had resectable OSCC. Resection was scheduled for 4–6 weeks after chemoradiotherapy. During phase I (dose escalation; n=19), weekly oxaliplatin 45 mg m−2 plus CI-5FU 225 mg m−2 was established as the MTD and was the recommended dosage for phase II. Oesophageal mucositis was the dose-limiting toxicity at higher doses. During phase II, histopathological responses (<10% residual tumour cells within the specimen) were observed in 10 of 16 patients (63%; 95% confidence interval: 39–82%). Overall, 16 of the 25 patients (64%) who underwent resection had a histopathological response; tumour-free resection (R0) was achieved in 80%. Neoadjuvant weekly oxaliplatin 45 mg m−2 plus CI-5FU 225 mg m−2 with concurrent radiotherapy provides promising histological response rates and R0 resection rates in locally advanced OSCC

High-Volume versus Low-Volume for Esophageal Resections for Cancer: The Essential Role of Case-Mix Adjustments based on Clinical Data

Background: Most studies addressing the volume-outcome relationship in complex surgical procedures use hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure and are rarely based on detailed clinical data. The lack of reliable information about comorbidities and tumor stages makes the conclusions of these studies debatable. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for esophageal resections for cancer in low- versus high-volume hospitals, using an extensive set of variables concerning case-mix and outcome measures, including long-term survival. Methods: Clinical data, from 903 esophageal resections performed between January 1990 and December 1999, were retrieved from the original patients' files. Three hundred and forty-two patients were operated on in 11 low-volume hospitals (<7 resections/year) and 561 in a single high-volume center. Results: Mortality and morbidity rates were significantly lower in the high-volume center, which had an in-hospital mortality of 5 vs 13% (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, hospital volume, but also the presence of comorbidity proved to be strong prognostic factors predicting in-hospital mortality (ORs 3.05 and 2.34). For stage I and II disease, there was a significantly better 5-year survival in the high-volume center. (P = .04). Conclusions: Hospital volume and comorbidity patterns are important determinants of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery. Strong clinical endpoints such as in-hospital mortality and survival can be used as performance indicators, only if they are joined by reliable case-mix information

Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma outcomes with transition from devolved to centralised care in a regional Cancer Centre

Background: Previous observations suggest suboptimal ‘real world’ survival outcomes for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We hypothesized that centralisation of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma management would improve chemotherapy treatment and survival from the disease. Methods: The data was prospectively collected on all cases of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma reviewed through Clatterbridge Cancer Centre according to two groups; 1 October 2009–31st Dec 2010 (devolved care) or 1 January 2013–31 March 2014 (centralised care). Analysis included treatment received, 30-day chemotherapy mortality rate and overall survival (OS). Results: More patients received chemotherapy with central care (67.0% (n=115) vs 43.0% (n=121); P=2.2 × 10−4) with no difference in 30-day mortality (20.8% vs 25%; P=0.573) but reduced time to commencement of chemotherapy (18 vs 28 days, P=1.0 × 10−3). More patients received second-line chemotherapy with central care (23.4% vs 1.9%, P=1.4 × 10−4), while OS was significantly increased with central care (median: Five vs three months, HR 0.785, P=0.045). Exploratory analysis suggested that it was those with a poorer performance status, elderly or with metastatic disease who benefited the most from transition to central care. Conclusions: A centralised clinic model for advanced pancreatic cancer management resulted in prompt, safe and higher use of chemotherapy compared with devolved care. This was associated with a modest survival benefit. Prospective studies are required to validate the findings reported and the basis for improved survival with centralised care

Esophagectomy without mortality: What can surgeons do?

Introduction: Surgical resection remains the mainstay treatment for patients with localized esophageal cancer. It is, however, a complex procedure. Mortality rate used to be high, but in recent years, death rate has been reduced to below 5% in specialized centers. Methods: Outcome of esophagectomy can be improved by paying attention to (1) appropriate patient section, (2) choice of surgical techniques and their execution, and (3) optimizing perioperative care. A volume-outcome relationship is also evident. Surgeons can perform esophagectomy without mortality, but a multi-disciplinary team management is essential to achieve this goal. © 2009 The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.postprin