Factors Associated with Local–Regional Failure After Definitive Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer
- 603 Downloads
Locally advanced esophageal cancer is often treated with a trimodality approach. While a substantial proportion of such patients initially achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) after chemoradiation, only a small proportion achieve durable control. We analyzed patients who reached cCR after definitive chemoradiation for esophageal cancer to identify clinical predictors of local disease recurrence.
We identified 141 patients who obtained initial cCR after definitive chemoradiation without surgery for esophageal cancer from 2002 through 2009. The initial response to treatment was assessed by endoscopic evaluation and biopsy results, with cCR defined as having no evidence of disease present. Patterns of failure were categorized as in-field (within the planned treatment volume [PTV]), outside the radiation treatment field, or both.
At a median follow-up of 22 months (range, 6–87 months), 77 patients (55 %) had experienced disease recurrence (local or both). Of first failures, 32 (23 %) were outside the radiation field, followed by 30 (21 %) within the field, and 15 (11 %) were both. By multivariate analysis, in-field failure after cCR was associated with a pretreatment standardized uptake value on positron emission tomography of >10 (subhazard ratio [SHR] 3.31, p = 0.023) and poorly differentiated tumors (SHR 3.69, p = 0.031). All failures, in-field and out-of-field, correlated with non-Caucasian ethnicity (SHR 2.55, p = 0.001), N1 disease (SHR 2.05, p = 0.034), T3/T4 disease (SHR 3.56, p = 0.011), and older age (SHR 0.96, p = 0.008).
Our data suggest that selected clinical characteristics can be used to predict failure patterns after definitive chemoradiation. Such risk-assessment strategies can help individualize therapy.
KeywordsEsophageal Cancer Standardize Uptake Value Gross Tumor Volume Receive Induction Chemotherapy Intensity Modulate Proton Therapy
Research supported in part by donations from the Family of M. Adan Hamed, Dallas, Park, Sultan, and Smith families; the Carlos H. Cantu Family foundation; the Rivercreek and Schecter Private Foundations; the Kevin M. and Debra L. Frazier Foundation.
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.
- 2.Kelsen D, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, Mortimer J, Estes NC, Haller DG, et al. Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113): a random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3719–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Swisher SG, Winter KA, Komaki RU, Ajani JA, Wu TT, Hofstetter WL, et al. A phase II study of a paclitaxel-based chemoradiation regimen with selective surgical salvage for resectable locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer: initial reporting of RTOG 0246. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:1967–72.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1994;236:376–84.Google Scholar
- 17.Suzuki A, Xiao L, Hayashi Y, Macapinlac HA, Welsh J, Lin SH, et al. Prognostic significance of baseline positron emission tomography and importance of clinical complete response in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Cancer. 2011;117:4823–33.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Minsky BD, Pajak TF, Ginsberg RJ, Pisansky TM, Martenson J, Komaki R, et al. INT 0123 (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 94-05) phase III trial of combined-modality therapy for esophageal cancer: high-dose versus standard-dose radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1167–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar