| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6251939 | International Journal of Surgery | 2014 | 6 Pages |
â¢Multimodal therapy has become a corner stone for treatment in locally advanced esophageal cancer.â¢However, methods of response evaluation and guidance of treatment are still controversial.â¢This manuscript provides an analysis of response evaluation and subsequent oncological outcome.â¢Analysis of the existing literature comparing response prediction and oncological outcome.
Introduction: The standard treatment concept in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction is neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by tumor resection in curative intent. Response evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy using histopathological tumor regression grade (TRG) has been shown to be a prognostic factor in patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: We assessed the impact of the various methods of response control and their value in correlation to established prognostic factors in a cohort of patients with adenocarcinoma at the gastroesophageal junction treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Results: After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in 56 consecutive patients with locally advanced (T2/3/4 and/or N0/N1) esophageal adenocarcinoma an oncologic tumor resection for curative intent was performed. Median follow-up was 44 months. Histopathological tumor stages were stage 0 in 10.7%, stage I in 17.9%, stage II in 21.4%, stage III in 41.1% and stage IV 8.9%. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was 30.3%. In univariate analysis, ypN-status, histopathological tumor stage and tumor regression grade correlated significantly with overall survival (p = 0.022, p = 0.001, p = 0.035 respectively). Clinical response evaluation could not predict response and overall survival (p = 0.556, p = 0.254 respectively). Conclusion: After preoperative chemotherapy, outcomes of esophageal carcinoma are best predicted utilizing pathological tumor stage and histologic tumor regression. Clinical response assessments were not useful for guidance of treatment.
