Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. A clinical practice guideline was developed based on a systematic review investigating neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was developed and clinical recommendations were drafted. External review of the practice guideline report by practitioners in Ontario, Canada was obtained through a mailed survey, and incorporated. Final approval of the practice guideline was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: The systematic review was developed and recommendations were drafted, and the report was mailed to Ontario practitioners for external review. Ninety percent of respondents agreed with both the evidence summary and the draft recommendations, while only 69% approved of the draft recommendations as a practice guideline. Based on the external review, a revised document was created. The revised practice guideline was submitted to the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee for review. All 11 members of the PGCC returned ballots. Eight PGCC members approved the practice guideline report as written and three members approved the guideline conditional on specific concerns being addressed. After these recommended changes were made, the final practice guideline report was approved. CONCLUSION: In consideration of the systematic review, external review, and subsequent Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee revision suggestions, and final approval, the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group recommends the following: For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice

Robot Assisted Ultrasound Imaged Guided Interstitial Lung Brachytherapy in a Porcine Model

We set out to see if permanent interstitial brachytherapy seeds could be safely and reproducibly inserted thoracoscopicaly with the ZEUS Robotic system and intraoperative ultrasound into in-vivo porcine lungs

Cyclosporin versus Tacrolimus for Liver Transplanted Patients

A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) was undertaken to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of immunosuppression with cyclosporin versus tacrolimus for liver transplanted patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central and Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Registers were searched. Using fixed and random effects model, relative risk (RR), values \u3c1 favoring\u3etacrolimus, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Of 717 potentially relevant references, 16 RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Mortality and graft loss at 1 year were significantly reduced in tacrolimus-treated recipients (Death: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99; graft loss: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.86). Tacrolimus reduced the number of recipients with acute rejection (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.88) and steroid-resistant rejection (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.47-0.74) in the first year. Lymphoproliferative disorder or dialysis rates were not different but more de novo diabetes (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.86) occurred with tacrolimus. More patients stopped cyclosporin than tacrolimus (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.66). Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of cyclosporin would avoid rejection and steroid-resistant rejection in nine and seven patients respectively, graft loss and death in five and two patients respectively, but four additional patients would develop diabetes after liver transplantation

The Role of Radiation Therapy on Medically Inoperable Clinically Localized Non-small Cell Lung Patients: London Regional Cancer Program (LRCP) Clinical Experience

Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer death in both men and women in North America. In 2006, an estimated 22,700 Canadians will be diagnosed with lung cancer and 19,300 will die of it (Canadian Cancer Statistics 2006). Approximately 15-20% of NSCLC patients present with early or localized disease. Surgical resection of T1-2N0 NSCLC remains the treatment of choice for this population, and results in a 5-year survival rate of 50-70%. Patients deemed medically inoperable have been treated with non-surgical therapies, such as radiation therapy(RT), while some patients have simply been observed without any tumor therapy because of their co-morbid illnesses. Potential confounding issues in this patient population include some patients who are not referred to our Centre due to co-morbid disease, and some who are referred, but are not offered radical RT due to poor outcome expectations. In addition, patients may refuse treatment when offered. We have reviewed thepast 19 years’ experience at LRCP inmanagement of this group of patients

Post-Operative Extended Volume External Beam Radiation Therapy Is Safe for High Risk Esophageal Cancer Patients

Post-operative radiation therapy (RT) (1) and post-operative chemoradiation (2) have been used for esophageal cancer patients deemed high risk for recurrence after esophagectomy. Defining opitmal RT target volume after esophagectomy is difficult due to significant changes in patient anatomy and function. Some radiationon cologists advocated the inclusion of the anastomotic site within the irradiation volume due to concerns for potential increased relapse risk, while others did not subscribe to this practice due to concerns for increased treatment related toxicity. We have previously reported patient outcome benefit using extended volume RT In management with high risk esophageal cancer patients underwent esopagectomy(3). We have performed a Phase I study to evaluate the safety of subscription to this practice. (1). Folk et al, Surgery, 113:1993 (2). Bedard et al, Cancer, 91;2001 (3). Yu et al, Radiother & Oncol, 73;200

Extended vs. Small Field Irradiation in High Risk Post Esophagectomy Patients Receiving Combined Chemoradiation Therapy: A Decade Experience in Treatment of Esophageal Cancer

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of extended field irradiation with anastomotic coverage on local recurrence in high risk resected esophageal cancerpatients. METHODS: From 1989-1999, high risk resected esophageal cancer cases receiving post-resection chemoradiation were reviewed. Adjuvant chemotherapy consisted of four cycles of fluorouracil-based regimens. Loco-regional irradiation with or without coverage of anastomotic site had radiation a dose range from 45-60 Gyat 1.8-2.0 Gy/fraction given with initial anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior arrangement with either extended (with anastomotic coverage), or small (without anastomotic coverage) field followed by oblique fields for boost. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight charts were reviewed. Seventy-two patients were eligible for post-resection chemoradiation. Three patients had disease progression prior to therapy, and 69 patients were analyzed. The median age was 60 years (range 35-82 years) with 94% T2-3N1 and 65% were adenocarcinoma. As of January 2005 median followup was 30.5 months (range 3-142 months), the two-and five-year overall survival rates were 50% and 31%, respectively. First relapse rate after adjuvant therapy was 71% (n=49) and median time to relapse was about 30 months. Loco-regional relapse with small field was 25/35 (71.4%) and 2/14 (14.2%) with extended field (P\u3c0.001). Recurrence locally to anastomosis or adjacent site was 10/35 (28.6%) with small field and 0/14 (0%) with extended field (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: At a minimum of 5-year followup, there is significant decrease in loco-regional relapse with the use of extended field in high risk resected esophageal cancer patients. This important improvement trend deserves further exploration in prospective randomized clinical trials

Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced. MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate. - Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). - Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials). - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery. - Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice

Chemoradiation-induced superior vena cava syndrome: A case report

A case of a 54-year-old man who developed superior vena cava syndrome secondary to vascular fibrosis, 30 months after radical chemoradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer, is presented. The literature regarding the etiology, diagnosis and treatment of this rare entity is discussed