Elective nodal irradiation is not necessary in chemoradiotherapy for postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: The purposes of the present study were to evaluate prognostic factors for patients with postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy by multivariate analysis and to determine which irradiation is better, involved field irradiation or elective nodal irradiation, by matched-pair analysis. METHODS: We reviewed records for 80 patients with postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer treated by chemoradiotherapy between 2000 and 2014. The median follow-up period was 62.0 months. Thirty-one cases were treated with elective nodal irradiation and were randomly matched by risk factors to 49 cases treated with involved field irradiation (1:1). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients had disease recurrence again, and irradiated-field failure was observed in 26 patients. The 5-year overall survival rate was 30.5% with a median survival period of 26.5 months. Grade 3 or higher late toxicity was observed in only one patient. In multivariate analysis, short disease-free interval and anastomotic recurrence were statistically significant unfavorable prognostic factors for overall survival (hazard ratios: 2.1 and 2.5, respectively). Matched-pair analysis including disease-free interval, pattern of recurrence and number of recurrent regions revealed that overall survival rate and irradiated-field control rate in patients treated with involved field irradiation were significantly better than those in patients treated with elective nodal irradiation (P = 0.016 and P = 0.014, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Short disease-free interval and anastomotic recurrence are unfavorable factors and elective nodal irradiation is not necessary in chemoradiotherapy for patients with postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer.

Chemoradiotherapy for T4 and/or M1 lymph node esophageal cancer: experience since 2000 at a high-volume center in Japan.

PURPOSE: To review data for patients with stage T4 and/or M1 lymph node (lym) esophageal cancer who have been treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy since 2000 at a high-volume center in Japan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with T4 and/or M1 lym esophageal cancer who were treated by definitive chemoradiotherapy between 2000 and 2010. The eligibility criteria included (1) histopathologically proven esophageal cancer, (2) T4 and/or M1 lym (UICC 2002), (3) 20-79 years of age, (4) having undergone at least 1 cycle of concomitant chemotherapy, (5) having been irradiated with ≥ 50 Gy, and (6) having no other active malignant tumor during treatment. Toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v3.0). RESULTS: Data from 128 patients (70 with clinical stage III, 58 with clinical stage IV) were used for analysis in this study. The median observation period for survivors was 46.3 months. The 2- and 4-year overall survival rates were 32.8 and 24.4 %, respectively. The overall survival of patients without M1 lym was significantly better than that of patients with Ml lym (4-year, 32.6 vs 11.7 %, log-rank test; p = 0.04). Overall survival in more recent patients (2006-2010) did not show improvement when compared with past patients (2000-2005). Eight patients had late toxicities of grade ≥3. CONCLUSIONS: T4 patients without M1 lym showed a relatively good 4-year survival rate of approximately 33 %; however, the results did not show significant improvement after 2000.

Outcomes after stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung tumors, with emphasis on comparison of primary lung cancer and metastatic lung tumors.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine the prognostic factors associated with an improved overall outcome after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for primary lung cancer and metastatic lung tumors. METHODS: A total of 229 lung tumors in 201 patients were included in the study. SBRT of 45 Gy in 3 fractions, 48 Gy in 4 fractions, 60 Gy in 8 fractions or 60 Gy in 15 fractions was typically used to treat 172 primary lungs cancer in 164 patients and 57 metastatic lung tumors in 37 patients between January 2001 and December 2011. Prognostic factors for local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The median biologically effective dose was 105.6 Gy based on alpha/beta = 10 (BED10). The median follow-up period was 41.9 months. The 3-year LC and OS rates were 72.5% and 60.9%, and the 5-year LC and OS rates were 67.8% and 38.1%, respectively. Radiation pneumonitis of grades 2, 3 and 5 occurred in 22 patients, 6 patients and 1 patient, respectively. Multivariate analyses revealed that tumor origin (primary lung cancer or metastatic lung tumor, p < 0.001), tumor diameter (p = 0.005), BED10 (p = 0.029) and date of treatment (p = 0.011) were significant independent predictors for LC and that gender (p = 0.012), tumor origin (p = 0.001) and tumor diameter (p < 0.001) were significant independent predictors for OS. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT resulted in good LC and tolerable treatment-related toxicities. Tumor origin and tumor diameter are significant independent predictors for both overall survival and local control.

Long-term results of radiotherapy combined with nedaplatin and 5-fluorouracil for postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer: update on a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, we reported the effectiveness of chemoradiotherapy for postoperative recurrent esophageal cancer with a median observation period of 18 months. The purpose of the present study was to update the results of radiotherapy combined with nedaplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2004, we performed a phase II study on treatment of postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer with radiotherapy (60 Gy/30 fractions/6 weeks) combined with chemotherapy consisting of two cycles of nedaplatin (70 mg/m2/2 h) and 5-FU (500 mg/m2/24 h for 5 days).The primary endpoint was overall survival rate, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival rate, irradiated-field control rate and chronic toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled in this study. The regimen was completed in 76.7% of the patients. The median observation period for survivors was 72.0 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was 27.0% with a median survival period of 21.0 months. The 5-year progression-free survival rate and irradiated-field control rate were 25.1% and 71.5%, respectively. Grade 3 or higher late toxicity was observed in only one patient. Two long-term survivors had gastric tube cancer more than 5 years after chemoradiotherapy.Pretreatment performance status, pattern of recurrence (worse for patients with anastomotic recurrence) and number of recurrent lesions (worse for patients with multiple recurrent lesions) were statistically significant prognostic factors for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy combined with nedaplatin and 5-FU is a safe and effective salvage treatment for postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer. However, the prognosis of patients with multiple regional recurrence or anastomotic recurrence is very poor.

Whole-body total lesion glycolysis is an independent predictor in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine whether pretreatment whole-body total lesion glycolysis (TLGWB) and metabolic tumor volume (MTVWB) are associated with outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients with stage II or III thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent FDG-PET/CT within 45 days before dCRT between 2005 and 2013 were reviewed. MTV and TLG of the primary lesion (MTVpri and TLGpri) and the sum of MTV and TLG for all lesions (MTVWB and TLGWB) were calculated. Predictors were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 27.7 months. In multivariate analysis, MTVWB > median was an unfavorable predictor for OS (p = 0.027, hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15), LC (p = 0.039, HR: 1.98) and PFS (p = 0.041, HR: 1.96). TLGWB > median was an unfavorable predictor for OS (p = 0.019, HR: 2.26), LC (p = 0.015, HR: 2.36) and PFS (p = 0.014, HR: 2.33). SUVmax was not a predictor, and the HR of TLGWB was higher than that of MTVWB for OS, LC and PFS in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: TLGWB and MTVWB are independent predictors in patients with esophageal cancer.

Formula corrected maximal standardized uptake value in FDG-PET for partial volume effect and motion artifact is not a prognostic factor in stage I non-small cell lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: It is known that the partial volume effect and respiratory motion blur affect quantitative parameters such as the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in FDG-PET, especially in small lesions. The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic value of corrected SUVmax, which was corrected SUVmax for the partial volume effect and respiratory motion blur, in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS: Fifty-one patients who were treated with SBRT between 2005 and 2011 in our institute were enrolled. The median tumor diameter was 2.2 cm (range 0.9-3.9 cm). The prescribed dose was typically 48 Gy in 4 fractions, 60 Gy in 8 fractions or 60 Gy in 15 fractions to the isocenter of irradiation fields. Each raw SUVmax was corrected using the recently proposed formula, and the correlations of raw SUVmax and corrected SUVmax with local control rate (LCR) were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Median raw SUVmax before SBRT was 6.4 (range 0.6-22.8). Median corrected SUVmax was 8.0 (range 0.8-22.8), which was significantly increased (p < 0.01). The median follow-up period for survivors was 45.3 months (range 18.5-82.0 months). The 3-year LCR and overall survival rates were 81.8 and 65.2 %, respectively. In univariate analysis, raw SUVmax [per 1 increase; p = 0.02, hazard ratio (HR) 1.20, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.42] was significantly correlated with LCR, but corrected SUVmax did not show a significant correlation with LCR (per 1 increase; p = 0.15, HR 1.07, 95 % CI 0.96-1.19). Other factors significantly correlated with LCR were diagnosis (pathological diagnosis vs. clinical diagnosis; p = 0.04, HR 6.17, 95 % CI 1.08-116) and tumor diameter (per 1 mm increase; p < 0.01, HR 1.33, 95 % CI 1.15-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor diameter was the most significant predictor of LCR after SBRT. Correction for the partial volume effect and respiratory motion blur may weaken the prognostic value of SUVmax.