Comparison of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens in patients with potentially curable esophageal carcinoma.

The implementation of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in esophageal cancer (EC) patients has led to improved survival rates. Worldwide, different CRT regimens are applied. It is unknown how these regimens relate to each other regarding efficacy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the preferred regimen regarding toxicity of, response to CRT, and long-term survival after esophagectomy in EC patients. EC patients in two centers who underwent CRT with different regimens prior to surgery were included in this study. CRT consisted of 50.4Gy combined with two cycles of cisplatin and 5-FU(center A), or 41.4Gy combined with five cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel (center B). Toxicity, response to therapy and long-term survival were compared between groups. One hundred sisty-five patients were included. Forty-one percent of patients in center A developed ≥1 toxicity ≥ grade 3 versus 25% in center B (P = 0.025). CRT with a cisplatin-based regimen was an independent predictor for development of toxicity ≥ grade 3 (P = 0.043). There were no differences in response between both regimens (P = 0.904). Three-year survival was 61% (A) versus 57% (B) (P = 0.725). The carboplatin/paclitaxel/41.4Gy regimen causes less toxicity compared to the cisplatin/5-FU/50.4Gy regimen with nonsignificant differences in response rates and long-term survival; therefore our results support this regimen to be the preferred regimen for EC patients.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy does not increase morbidity in patients over 70.

Esophagectomy in elderly esophageal carcinoma patients is correlated with a high morbidity and even mortality. Studies on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NT) in elderly patients are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of advanced age in combination with NT in esophageal carcinoma patients who underwent an esophagectomy. Patients who underwent NT prior to esophagectomy between 1993 and 2010 were divided into three groups: <70, 70-74, and ≥75 years. Toxicity of NT and postoperative morbidity were compared between groups. Primary endpoints were toxicity, complication rate, and survival. Two hundred thirteen patients underwent NT during the study period, 26 were aged 70-74 years, and 17 were ≥70 years. Toxicity of NT was comparable for younger and elderly patients (46% vs. 54% vs. 47%, P = 0.263). Overall complications occurred in 62% of younger patients versus 73% and 71% among patients aged 70-74 years and ≥75 years, respectively (P = 0.836). Cardiac complications occurred in 14% of younger patients versus 27% and 41% of elderly patients (P = 0.021). Three-year survival rates were 59% versus 44% versus 31% among patients aged <70, 70-74, and ≥75 years, respectively (P = 0.237). Higher age (odds ratio 1.750, P < 0.001) was an independent risk factor for development of cardiac complications. Toxicity of NT and postoperative complications are comparable for patients aged <70, 70-74, and ≥75 years, with the exception of cardiac complications. Therefore, we consider NT followed by esophagectomy in elderly patients a safe treatment modality in our center.

Patient preferences in screening for recurrent disease after potentially curative esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Routine imaging (RI) as part of follow-up after potentially curative esophagectomy is currently not widely accepted. If detected recurrent disease could be adequately treated, it remains unclear whether patients would want to take part in a screening program. The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which patients who underwent esophagectomy prefer follow-up with or without RI. METHODS: Patients who underwent esophagectomy for carcinoma without evidence of recurrent disease were included. An interview-administered questionnaire was used to assess fear of recurrence and elicit patient preferences for the frequency and duration of follow-up and hypothetical changes of survival chances (1-10%). RESULTS: 45/54 eligible patients (83%) participated in this study. The majority of patients preferred follow-up with RI (67%) even if screening would not provide a survival benefit; this proportion increased up to 93% if the proposed chances of survival improved. Younger patients and patients with a lower histopathological tumor stage were more likely to desire follow-up with RI. CONCLUSION: Most patients who underwent esophagectomy preferred RI as part of follow-up over outpatient clinic visits only, even if such screening would not provide a survival benefit. Further research is needed to determine the most accurate screening modality and most efficient follow-up interval.

A high body mass index in esophageal cancer patients does not influence postoperative outcome or long-term survival.

BACKGROUND: The body mass index (BMI) in the general population has increased over the past decades. A high BMI is a known risk factor for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Several studies on the influence of a high BMI on the postoperative course and survival after esophagectomy have shown contradictory results. The aim of the present study was to determine the influence of a high BMI on postoperative complications and survival among a large cohort of esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent an esophagectomy between 1993 and 2010 were divided into three groups according to their BMI: normal weight (<25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25-30 kg/m(2)) or obese (≥ 30 kg/m(2)). Severity of complications was scored according to the Dindo classification, which was divided into three categories: no complications, minor to moderate complications, and severe complications. Long-term survival was determined according to the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 736 esophagectomy patients were divided into three groups: normal weight (n = 352), overweight (n = 308), and obese (n = 72). Complications rates were similar for all groups (65-72%, P = 0.241). The incidence of anastomotic leakage was higher among obese patients compared to the other groups (20% vs. 10-12% respectively, P = 0.019), but there was no significant difference between the three groups regarding the severity of complications according to the Dindo classification (P = 0.660) or in 5-year survival rates (P = 0.517). CONCLUSIONS: A high BMI is not associated with an increased incidence or severity of complications after esophagectomy; however, anastomotic leakage occurred more frequently in obese patients. Five-year survival rates were not influenced by the preoperative BMI. A high BMI is therefore ought not be an exclusion criterion for esophagectomy.

External ultrasonography of the neck does not add diagnostic value to integrated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scanning in the diagnosis of cervical lymph node metastases in patients with esophageal carcinoma.

One of the objectives of preoperative imaging in esophageal cancer patients is the detection of cervical lymph node metastases. Traditionally, external ultrasonography of the neck has been combined with computed tomography (CT) in order to improve the detection of cervical metastases. In general, integrated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) has been shown to be superior to CT or PET regarding staging and therefore may limit the role of external ultrasonography of the neck. The objective of this study was to determine the additional value of external ultrasonography of the neck to PET-CT. This study included all patients referred our center for treatment of esophageal carcinoma. Diagnostic staging was performed to determine treatment plan. Cervical lymph nodes were evaluated by external ultrasonography of the neck and PET-CT. In case of suspect lymph nodes on external ultrasonography or PET-CT, fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed. Between 2008 and 2010, 170 out of 195 referred patients underwent both external ultrasonography of the neck and PET-CT. Of all patients, 84% were diagnosed with a tumor at or below the distal esophagus. In 140 of 170 patients, the cervical region was not suspect; no FNA was performed. Seven out of 170 patients had suspect nodes on both PET-CT and external ultrasonography. Five out of seven patients had cytologically confirmed malignant lymph nodes, one of seven had benign nodes, in one patient FNA was not performed; exclusion from esophagectomy was based on intra-abdominal metastases. In one out of 170 patients, PET-CT showed suspect nodes combined with a negative external ultrasonography; cytology of these nodes was benign. Twenty-two out of 170 patients had a negative PET-CT with suspect nodes on external ultrasonography. In 18 of 22 patients, cervical lymph nodes were cytologically confirmed benign; in four patients, FNA was not possible or inconclusive. At a median postoperative follow-up of 15 months, only 1% of patients developed cervical lymph node metastases. This study shows no additional value of external ultrasonography to a negative PET-CT. According to our results, it can be omitted in the primary workup. However, suspect lymph nodes on PET-CT should be confirmed by FNA to exclude false positives if it would change treatment plan.

The value of post-neoadjuvant therapy PET-CT in the detection of interval metastases in esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: PET-CT scanning is increasingly applied in the primary work-up of esophageal cancer patients. The additional value of a second PET-CT after completion of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) prior to surgery is presently unclear. Therefore, a consecutive series of esophageal cancer patients underwent PET-CT scanning after completion of NT for evaluation of metastatic disease that became manifest under NT. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients planned for curative esophagectomy who underwent a PET-CT prior to and after NT were included in this study. Neoadjuvant therapy consisted of 5FU and cisplatinum combined with 50.4Gy radiotherapy. The first PET-CT was performed as part of the diagnostic work-up, the second PET-CT was performed after completion of NT and prior to surgery. Median interval between NT and second PETCT was 6 weeks. In case of metastatic disease on the post-neoadjuvant therapy PET-CT confirmed by a biopsy, patients were excluded from surgical resection. RESULTS: Between November 2008 and July 2010 a total of 50 patients underwent first and second PET-CT scanning. 80% of patients was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma, 18% with squamous cell carcinoma. Confirmed metastatic disease on the second PET-CT was present in 4/50 patients (8%). These patients were excluded from resection. A false-positive diagnosis concerning a pulmonary lesion was present in 1 patient (2%); this infiltrate had disappeared on follow up imaging. DISCUSSION: This study showed development of metastatic disease during NT detected by PET-CT in 8% of esophageal cancer patients, suggesting an additional value of a second PET-CT in order to prevent unnecessary surgical resections.

Acute Pancreatitis in the Postoperative Course after Esophagectomy: A Major Complication Described in 4 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatitis is a rare but devastating complication after esophageal surgery. It has been described in connection with abdominal surgery but the etiology in connection with esophageal surgery has never been evaluated. The present study describes 4 cases of postoperative pancreatitis, and a hypothesis about the etiology is formed. METHODS: We performed a search for patients with postoperative pancreatitis after esophagectomy using our prospective database including all patients that underwent esophageal resection at our institution between 1993 and 2008. Pancreatitis was described as abdominal pain, hyperamylasemia, signs of pancreatitis on CT scan or findings during laparotomy or autopsy. RESULTS: A total of 950 patients underwent esophagectomy at our institution, 4 patients developed postoperative pancreatitis (incidence 0.4%). Two out of four patients died. Discussion: Pancreatitis following esophageal surgery is a serious, potentially lethal complication. Diagnosis can be difficult as clear clinical or laboratory findings might be lacking. Peroperative manipulation of the pancreas, mobilization of the duodenum or compromized vascularization have been suggested as etiological factors; although in the described patients, none of these factors were identified as the cause of pancreatitis. In conclusion, pancreatitis following esophageal surgery is a serious but rare complication that should always be considered in patients who deteriorate postoperatively.