Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 3009–3014 | Cite as

Which is the Optimal Response Criteria for Evaluating Preoperative Treatment in Esophageal Cancer: RECIST or Histology?

  • Yukinori Kurokawa
  • Taro Shibata
  • Nobutoshi Ando
  • Shiko Seki
  • Hidenori Mukaida
  • Haruhiko Fukuda
Thoracic Oncology

Abstract

Background

Preoperative treatment is a promising strategy for improving long-term outcomes in advanced esophageal cancer. Two tumor response evaluation criteria for preoperative treatment are available: response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) and histological criteria. This prospective study aimed to identify which was a better surrogate end point for survival in the preoperative setting.

Methods

We analyzed all eligible patients (n = 164) from the preoperative treatment group in a phase III trial comparing preoperative versus postoperative 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin for clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer. Intercriteria reliability was evaluated with the proportion of agreement and the kappa coefficient. For validity analyses, hazard ratios (HR) of response to nonresponse and differences in response rates between short- and long-term survivors were evaluated.

Results

The clinical and histological response rates were 37.8 % (62 of 164) and 20.1 % (33 of 164), respectively. The proportion of agreement for response to nonresponse between the 2 criteria was 70.3 %, and the kappa coefficient was 0.34. The HR for death in patients with histological response (0.22, 95 % confidence interval 0.090.55, P < 0.001) was lower than for those with RECIST response (0.55, 95 % confidence interval 0.330.91, P = 0.018). The difference in response rates between short- and long-term survivors according to histological criteria (27 vs. 7 %, P < 0.001) was larger than with RECIST (42 vs. 30 %, P = 0.13).

Conclusions

Intercriteria agreement was relatively low, and histological criteria yielded more valid assessments of response than RECIST. Histological response rate seemed to be the better surrogate end point of survival in the preoperative setting.

Keywords

Esophageal Cancer Preoperative Chemotherapy Histological Criterion Histological Response Viable Cancer Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Harumi Kaba for data management, Junki Mizusawa for statistical support, and Prof. Yuichiro Doki, Dr. Hiroshi Katayama, and Dr. Kenichi Nakamura for their reviews. Supported in part by the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (23-A-16 and 23-A-19), and Grants-in-Aid for Cancer Research (14S-3, 14S-4, 17S-3, 17S-5, 20S-3 and 20S-6).

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    GLOBOCAN 2008. http://globocan.iarc.fr/.
  2. 2.
    Medical Research Council Oesophageal Cancer Working Group. GICAL resection with or without preoperative chemotherapy in oesophageal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1727–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allum WH, Stenning SP, Bancewicz J, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial of surgery with or without preoperative chemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5062–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ando N, Kato H, Igaki H, et al. A randomized trial comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus preoperative chemotherapy for localized advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG9907). Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:68–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sobin LH, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumors. 6th ed. New York: Wiley-Liss; 2002. p. 60–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirao M, Ando N, Tsujinaka T, et al. Influence of preoperative chemotherapy for advanced thoracic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma on perioperative complications. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1735–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Japanese Society for Esophageal Diseases. Guideline for clinical and pathological studies on carcinoma of the esophagus, ninth edition: part II. Esophagus. 2004;1:107–25.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brücher BL, Weber W, Bauer M, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: response evaluation by positron emission tomography. Ann Surg. 2001;233:300–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber WA, Ott K, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction by metabolic imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3058–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Lerut A, et al. Positron emission tomography for assessment of the response to induction radiochemotherapy in locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:361–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Heijl M, Omloo JM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for evaluating early response during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2011;253:56–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Becker K, Fumagalli U, Mueller JD, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: effect on tumor cell microinvolvement of regional lymph nodes. Cancer. 1999;85:1484–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Becker K, Mueller JD, Schulmacher C, et al. Histomorphology and grading of regression in esophageal carcinoma treated with preoperative chemotherapy. Cancer. 2003;98:1521–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ajani JA, Mansfield PF, Janjan N, et al. Multi-institutional trial of preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with potentially resectable esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2774–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ajani JA, Mansfield PF, Crane CH, et al. Paclitaxel-based chemoradiotherapy in localized esophageal carcinoma: degree of pathologic response and not clinical parameters dictated patient outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1237–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bosset JF, Gignoux M, Triboulet JP, et al. Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone in squamous-cell cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:161–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tepper J, Krasna MJ, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Phase III trial of trimodality therapy with cisplatin, fluorouracil, radiotherapy, and surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer: CALGB 9781. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1086–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yukinori Kurokawa
    • 1
  • Taro Shibata
    • 2
  • Nobutoshi Ando
    • 3
  • Shiko Seki
    • 4
  • Hidenori Mukaida
    • 5
  • Haruhiko Fukuda
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Japan Clinical Oncology Group Data CenterNational Cancer CenterTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryTokyo Dental College Ichikawa General HospitalIchikawaJapan
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryNational Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical CenterTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryHiroshima City Asa HospitalHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations