Pretreatment Esophageal Wall Thickness Associated with Response to Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer



A multimodality approach using concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by esophagectomy has been the standard treatment in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Computed tomography (CT) is widely utilized to evaluate esophageal cancer before and after CRT. This study evaluated the utility of pretreatment maximal esophageal wall thickness on CT scans to predict treatment outcomes after CRT in patients with locally advanced ESCC.


Eighty-one patients with T3 locally advanced ESCC, whom were treated completely with CRT with and without surgery, and had available CT scans before and after CRT at a university hospital between 2005 and 2015, were retrospectively reviewed.


Twenty patients (24.7%) had esophagectomy after neoadjuvant CRT and sixty-one patients (75.3%) had definitive CRT. The maximal esophageal wall thicknesses were measured retrospectively and correlated with the response and survival after treatment. A total of 40% of neoadjuvant CRT patients achieved a pCR. There was a significant difference in pretreatment maximal esophageal wall thickness between the pCR and non-pCR groups (mean 11.9 ± 5.3 mm versus 16.9 ± 3 mm; p = 0.01). Pretreatment maximal esophageal wall thickness < 10 mm was significantly related to better overall survival than ≥ 10 mm (median survival 79 months versus 15 months; HR 3.21, 95%CI 1.14–9; p = 0.02). The neoadjuvant CRT group had significantly better survival than the definitive CRT group (median survival 51 months versus 14.5 months; HR 0.46; 95%CI 0.25–0.85; p = 0.01).


In our study, pretreatment esophageal wall thickness of T3 locally advanced ESCC is a useful indicator for predicting survival and pCR after treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2.


  1. 1.

    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E359–86.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology; esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers. Version 1.2019 available from Accessed May 1, 2019. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc.

  3. 3.

    Kuwano H, Nishimura Y, Oyama T, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of carcinoma of the esophagus April 2012 edited by the Japan Esophageal Society. Esophagus. 2015;12:1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Martin-Richard M, Díaz Beveridge R, Arrazubi V, Alsina M, Galan Guzmán M, Custodio AB, et al. SEOM Clinical Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer (2016). Clin Transl Oncol. 2016;18:1179–86.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof MCCM, et al. CROSS study group. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1090–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Herskovic A, Russell W, Liptay M, et al. Esophageal carcinoma advances in treatment results for locally advanced disease: review. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1095–103.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, van Berge Henegouwen M, Wijnhoven BP, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Klevebro F, Alexandersson von Döbeln G, Wang N, Johnsen G, et al. A randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:660–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Berger AC, Farma J, Scott WJ, Freedman G, Weiner L, Cheng JD, et al. Complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma is associated with significantly improved survival. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4330–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Donohoe CL, Reynolds JV. Neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal and junctional cancer: the evidence-base, current key questions and clinical trials. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:S697–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Stahl M, Stuschke M, Lehmann N, et al. Chemoradiation with and without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2310–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bedenne L, Michel P, Bouche O, et al. Chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with chemoradiation alone in squamous cancer of the esophagus: FFCD 9102. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1160–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Li SH, Rau KM, Lu HI, et al. Pre-treatment maximal oesophageal wall thickness is independently associated with response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with T3–4 oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42:958–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Rice TW. Clinical staging of esophageal carcinoma: CT, EUS, and PET. Chest Surg Clin N Am. 2000;10:471–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al., editors. AJCC cancer Staging Manual. 7th edn. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 103–15.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rizk NP, Seshan VE, Bains MS, et al. Prognostic factors after combined modality treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:1117–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Nomura M, Oze I, Kodaira T, Abe T, Komori A, Narita Y, et al. Comparison between surgery and definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score analysis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016;21:890–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Sathornviriyapong S, Matsuda A, Miyashita M, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on short-term outcomes for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:3632–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kumbasar B. Carcinoma of esophagus: radiologic diagnosis and staging. Eur J Radiol. 2002;42:170–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kim TJ, Kim HY, Lee KW, et al. Multimodality assessment of esophageal cancer: preoperative staging and monitoring of response to therapy. Radiographics. 2009;29:403–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank David Patterson of the Faculty of Medicine Office of International Relations for his assistance with the English in the manuscript, and Jureerat Saengthong of the Research Unit for helping with statistical analysis in the study.


This study was supported by the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Somkiat Sunpaweravong.

Ethics declarations

This retrospective study was approved by Institutional Ethical Commission Review Board.

Conflict of interests

The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wongwaiyut, K., Ruangsin, S., Laohawiriyakamol, S. et al. Pretreatment Esophageal Wall Thickness Associated with Response to Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer. J Gastrointest Canc 51, 947–951 (2020).

Download citation


  • Chemoradiotherapy
  • Computed tomography (CT)
  • Esophageal cancer
  • Esophagectomy
  • Wall thickness