Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Esophageal cancer

3,710 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Esophageal cancer

  1. 1. Overview on Esophageal CancerManagementAhmed Allam A.H. Mohammed.Ass. Lecturer, Clinical oncology and Nuclear med. Depart. Assiut University Hospitals
  2. 2. Esophageal Cancer Management• Surgery• Radiation therapy.• Chemotherapy.
  3. 3. Surgery:• Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for most patients with esophageal cancer who have technically resectable disease and are medically fit.• Mariette and colleagues, in a series of 179 patients with stage 0 to II esophageal cancer treated with surgery alone between 1982 and 2002, observed an overall actuarial survival rate at 5 years of 59%.• The investigators report, however, that no long-term survivors were observed among a subset of patients with locally advanced disease. Analysis of surgical pathology shows that a significant number of patients present with disease involving the regional lymph nodes and that such involvement results in a worse outcome.• The optimum number of lymph nodes to be removed and examined at the time of resection remains unclear. Latest retrospective analysis determined the optimal no. range from 18-23.
  4. 4. Tis-T1• patients with Tis and T1a disease (lymph node negative) can be considered for primary endoscopic treatment such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or ablation with, for example, argon laser.
  5. 5. T2-4 N+ve• Transthoracic two-stage (Ivor Lewis) surgery involves laparotomy and coeliac lymph node dissection. Right thoracotomy is performed for mobilisation and resection and mediastinal lymphadenectomy, along with intrathoracic anastomosis.• Transhiatal approach involves resection by an abdominal laparotomy with a cervical anastomosis.• Total thoracic, three-stage (McKeown) surgery is as per Ivor Lewis above, but with neck exploration, dissection, and anastomosis
  6. 6. Milestones in Radiation Therapy• RTOG 85-01 phase III trail.• INT 0122 phase II trial.• INT 0123 (RTOG 94-05) Phase III Trial.• RTOG 92-07 phase III trial.• CROSS group phase III trail.
  7. 7. Randomized Patients ( n:123) Non-randomized patients (n:69) Combined Modality Radiation Therapy alone (n:62) (n:61) 50 Gy/25 fr/5 64 Gy /32 fractions over 6.4 Ws+ Combined Modality (n:61) 50 Gy/25 fr/5 weeks Cisplatinum D1+ 5Fu Ws+ D1-4 / W1-4-8-11 Cisplatinum D1+ 5Fu D1-4 / W1-4-8-11 Overall Survival at 5 Overall Survival at 5 Overall Survival at 5 years 0% years: 26% years 14%Cooper JS, Guo MD, Herskovic A, et al: Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Long-term follow-up of a prospectiverandomized trial (RTOG 85-01). JAMA 1999; 281:1623-1627
  8. 8. • The incidence of local failure as the first site of failure (defined as local persistence plus recurrence) was also lower in the CMT arm (47% versus 65%)Cooper JS, Guo MD, Herskovic A, et al: Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer. Long-term follow-up of a prospectiverandomized trial (RTOG 85-01). JAMA 1999; 281:1623-1627
  9. 9. The Intergroup INT 0122 phase II trial• the intergroup INT 0122 phase II trial was designed in which the chemotherapy and radiation doses delivered in the combined-modality therapy arm of RTOG 85-01 were intensified.• The regimen was modified as follows:(1) 5-FU continuous infusion was increased from 4 to 5 days;(2) total number of chemotherapy cycles was increased from four to five(3) three cycles of full-dose neoadjuvant 5-FU and cisplatin were delivered before the start of combined- modality therapy(4) radiation dose was increased from 50 to 64.8 Gy.Minsky BD, Neuberg D, Kelsen DP, et al: Final report of intergroup trial 0122 (ECOG PE-289, RTOG 90-12): Phase II trial of neoadjuvantchemotherapy plus concurrent chemotherapy and highdose radiation for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys43:517-523, 1999.
  10. 10. • The response, local/regional control, and survival rates for INT 0122 were similar to those reported in the combined modality arm of RTOG 85-01. However, the incidence of treatment- related mortality was higher (9% v 2%).Minsky BD, Neuberg D, Kelsen DP, et al: Final report of intergroup trial 0122 (ECOG PE-289, RTOG 90-12): Phase II trial of neoadjuvantchemotherapy plus concurrent chemotherapy and highdose radiation for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys43:517-523, 1999.
  11. 11. Minsky BD, Pajak T, Ginsberg RJ, et al: INT 0123 (RTOG 94-05) phase III trial of combined modality therapy for esophageal cancer: high dose (64.8 Gy) vs.standard dose (50.4 Gy) radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:1167-1174
  12. 12. • Results:(1) For the 218 eligible patients, there was no significant difference in median survival, 2-year survival (31% v 40%), or local/regional failure and local/regional persistence of disease (56% v 52%) between the high-dose and standard-dose arms.(2) 11 treatment-related deaths occurred in the high- dose arm compared with two in the standard-dose arm, seven of the 11 deaths occurred in patients who had received 50.4 Gy or less.The higher radiation dose did not increase survival or local/regionalcontrol. Although there was a higher treatment-related mortality ratein the patients assigned to the high-dose radiation arm, it did not seemto be related to the higher radiation dose. The standard radiation dosefor patients treated with concurrent 5-FU and cisplatin chemotherapyis 50.4 Gy
  13. 13. RTOG 92-07 trial• 75 patients with squamous cell cancers (92%) or adenocarcinomas (8%) of the thoracic esophagus received the RTOG 85-01 CMT regimen (5- FU/cisplatin/50 Gy) followed by a boost during cycle 3 of chemotherapy high dose rate intraluminal brachytherapy.• High dose rate brachytherapy was delivered in weekly fractions of 5 Gy during weeks 8, 9, and 10, Following the development of several fistulas, the fraction delivered at week 10 was discontinued
  14. 14. • The complete response rate was 73%, with a median follow-up of only 11 months, local failure as the first site of failure was 27%.• Acute toxicity included 58% grade 3, 26% grade 4, and 8% grade 5 (treatment-related death). The cumulative incidence of fistula was 18%/year and the crude incidence was 14%. Of the six treatment-related fistulas, three were fatal.• Given the significant toxicity this treatment approach should be used with caution.
  15. 15. CROSS phase III trail.• 366 patients with resectable Sq. cell and Adenocarcinoma of esophagus and GEJ,• T2-3 N+M0• Randomized arms inculde(1) surgery alone(2) Pre-operative RTH 41.4 Gy/ 23 Fr + Carboplatin (AUC 2) and paclitaxil (50 mg/m2) weekly + Surgery. Van Hagen P et al., properative chemoradiation for esophogeal or junctional cancer. NEJM 2012 May 31, 366:2074
  16. 16. • More ptns in combined modality arm had – ve margin R0 resection (92 Vs 69 %)• pCR was achieved in 29% in CMT arm• Median OS was higher in CMT than surgery alone ( 49.9 Vs 24 months)• 5 years OS was higher in CMT ( 47 Vs 34%) Van Hagen P et al., properative chemoradiation for esophogeal or junctional cancer. NEJM 2012 May 31, 366:2074
  17. 17. Milestones in Chemotherapy• Most studies of preoperative chemotherapy are based on combinations that contain cisplatin, which seems to be modestly tolerated but does not increase postoperative mortality. Overall response rates using these combinations range from 25 to 50%. However, no definite conclusions can be derived from these studies because of conflicting results
  18. 18. • Kelsen et al. (Intergroup 0113): 440 patients. Randomized neoadjuvant chemotherapy (3 cycles cisplatin, 5-FU), surgery 2 -4 weeks after 3rd cycles followed by 2 cycles post-op(213 ptns ) compared to surgery alone (227 ptns )• Median survival was 15 months Vs 16 months , 2 years survival rate was 35 % Vs 37 % , There was no difference in overall survival (OS), 20% at 5 years, for either histologic subtype. Preoperative chemotherapy did not improve the rate of curative resection, and virtually no pCRs were observed.
  19. 19. • MRC in UK : 802 ptns , 2 cycles of 5-FU, cisplatin (400)+ S Vs S alone (402) Median survival was 16.8 months Vs 13.3 months . Tumor histology and tumor site did not influence the effect of chemotherapy.• MAGIC in Gastric Ca but 25 % of the ptn are GE junction or distal esophageal adenocarcinoma : 503 ptns , pre and post operative Epirubcin, cisplatin, 5-FU (250 ptns ) Vs surgery alone (253 ptns ). Median survival 24 months Vs 20 months Five-year OS was improved by 13% (36% vs 23%; P < .001) in the chemotherapy group. There was no improvement in the rate of curative resection with preoperative chemotherapy, and no pathologic complete responses were observed.• FFCD/FNLC 9703 (French trial) : 219 patients including GE junction and gastric cancer 2-3 preoperative and 2-3 post operative cisplatin, 5-FU shows 14% in 5 years over survival.
  20. 20. Role of Adjuvant chemotherapy :• Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy has been compared with surgery alone, and no OS benefit was seen in 3 phase III randomized studies or meta- analyses.• Japanese trials of preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy in esophageal squamous cancer have reached often conflicting and inconsistent conclusions. Recent data from a Japanese trial showed a 10% survival benefit at 3 years (P = .003) after treatment with S-1 (an oral form of 5FU) in 1059 patients with resected gastric cancer. Such data provide an evidence base for treating resected esophageal cancer (pN1) in the adjuvant setting, but S-1 is not as effective in Western populations.
  21. 21. Vincent Van Gogh, Dutch impressionist, Starry nightTell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.- Benjamin Franklin S

×