Importance of residual primary cancer after induction therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES To (1) assess the continuous distribution of the percentage of residual primary cancer in resection specimens after induction therapy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma, (2) determine the effects of residual primary cancer on survival after esophagectomy, (3) ascertain interplay between residual primary cancer and classical classifications of response to induction therapy (ypTNM), and (4) identify predictors of residual primary cancer. METHODS From January 2006 to November 2012, 188 patients (78%) underwent accelerated chemoradiotherapy, and 52 patients (22%) underwent chemotherapy alone followed by esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma. Mean age was 61 ± 9.2 years, and 89% were male. Residual primary cancer, assessed as the percentage of residual primary cancer cells in resection specimens, was quantified histologically by a gastrointestinal pathologist. Random Forest technology was used for data analysis. RESULTS Twenty-five specimens (10%) had no residual primary cancer (ypT0), 79 (33%) had 1% to 25% residual cancer, 91 (38%) had 26% to 75%, and 45 (19%) had >75%. Survival was worse with increasing residual primary cancer, plateauing at 75%. Greater residual primary cancer was associated with worse survival across the spectrum of higher ypTN. Higher ypT, larger number of positive nodes, and use of induction chemotherapy rather than induction chemoradiotherapy were associated with greater residual primary cancer. CONCLUSIONS Less residual primary cancer in response to preoperative therapy is associated with a linear increase in survival after esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma; however, survival is poorer than for resected early-stage cancers. Therefore, for patients with poor prognostic indicators, including higher percentage of residual primary cancer, the role of adjuvant therapy needs to be further examined in an attempt to improve survival.

[1]  J. Ajani,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. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  A. Fakiris,et al.  Quantifying the benefit of a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer. , 2011, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  H. Deere,et al.  Histopathologic examination and reporting of esophageal carcinomas following preoperative neoadjuvant therapy: practical guidelines and current issues. , 2008, American journal of clinical pathology.

[4]  J. Ajani,et al.  Clinical parameters model for predicting pathologic complete response following preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[5]  T. Rice,et al.  A Phase II Trial of Accelerated Multimodality Therapy for Locoregionally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: The Impact of Clinical Heterogeneity , 2007, American journal of clinical oncology.

[6]  J. Ajani,et al.  Significance of post-chemoradiation biopsy in predicting residual esophageal carcinoma in the surgical specimen. , 2004, Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

[7]  N. Altorki,et al.  Complete metabolic response is not uniformly predictive of complete pathologic response after induction therapy for esophageal cancer. , 2013, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[8]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Bagging Predictors , 1996, Machine Learning.

[9]  J. Friedman Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[10]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[11]  H. Ishwaran,et al.  A novel approach to cancer staging: application to esophageal cancer. , 2009, Biostatistics.

[12]  P. Pairolero,et al.  Tumor response to induction chemoradiation: influence on survival after esophagectomy. , 2003, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[13]  T. Rice,et al.  A Phase II Trial of Induction Epirubicin, Oxaliplatin, and Fluorouracil, Followed by Surgery and Postoperative Concurrent Cisplatin and Fluorouracil Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Locoregionally Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction , 2014, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[14]  Hemant Ishwaran,et al.  Random Survival Forests , 2008, Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.

[15]  J. Hagen,et al.  En bloc esophagectomy reduces local recurrence and improves survival compared with transhiatal resection after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. , 2008, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[16]  Udaya B. Kogalur,et al.  Random Survival Forests for R , 2007 .

[17]  J. Goldblum,et al.  N1 esophageal carcinoma: the importance of staging and downstaging. , 2001, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[18]  Anne I. Goldman,et al.  Eventcharts: Visualizing Survival and other Timed-Events Data , 1992 .

[19]  J. Ajani,et al.  The number of lymph nodes with metastasis predicts survival in patients with esophageal or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma who receive preoperative chemoradiation , 2006, Cancer.

[20]  J. Roth,et al.  The Influence of Histopathologic Tumor Viability on Long-term Survival and Recurrence Rates Following Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma , 2013, Annals of surgery.

[21]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

[22]  Udaya B. Kogalur,et al.  High-Dimensional Variable Selection for Survival Data , 2010 .

[23]  Wei-Yin Loh,et al.  Classification and regression trees , 2011, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..