Satyajeet Rath, profile picture
Uploaded bySatyajeet Rath
PPTX, PDF2,269 views

Satyajeet oesophagus management

This document summarizes the management of carcinoma of the oesophagus. It discusses the AJCC TNM classification and staging for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. It also describes surgical options like esophagectomy and conservative procedures. Non-surgical treatments including chemotherapy regimens, radiotherapy alone or with chemotherapy are mentioned. Several studies evaluating the role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy prior to surgery are summarized. Meta-analyses demonstrating improved survival with neoadjuvant therapy are also highlighted.

Embed presentation

Downloaded 204 times
Management of Carcinoma Oesophagus By – Dr. Satyajeet Rath Moderator – Prof. Kamal Sahni Date - 24/01/17
AJCC TNM classification
Staging : Squamous cell carcinoma Group T N M Grade 0 Tis (HGD) N0 M0 1, X IA T1 1-2, X IB T1 3 T2 1-2, X IIA T2 3 IIB T3 Any T1-2 N1 IIIA T1-2 N2 T3 N1 T4a N0 IIIB T3 N2 IIIC T4a N1-2 T4b Any Any N3 IV Any Any M1 Staging : Adenocarcinoma
AJCC 8th Edition, TNM 8 Classification • A tumour the epicenter of which is within 2 cm of the oesophagogastric junction and also extends into the oesophagus is classified and staged using the oesophageal scheme. • Cancers involving the oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) whose epicenter is within the proximal 2 cm of the cardia (Siewert types I/II) are to be staged as oesophageal • The AJCC also publish pathological staging for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma Pathological Stage (SCC) Stage 0 Tis N0 M0 Stage IA T1a N0 M0 Stage IB T1b N0 M0 T2 N0 M0 Stage II T3 N0 M0 T1 N1 M0 Stage IIIA T1 N2 M0 T2 N1 M0 Stage IIIB T2 N2 M0 T3 N1, N2 M0 T4a N0, N1 M0 Stage IVA T4a N2 M0 T4b Any N M0 Any T N3 M0 Stage IVB Any T Any N M1 Pathological Stage (Adeno ca) Stage 0 Tis N0 M0 Stage IA T1a N0 M0 Stage IB T1b N0 M0 Stage IIA T2 N0 M0 Stage IIB T1a,T1b N1 M0 Stage IIIA T1 N2 M0 T2 N1 M0 T3, T4a N0 M0 Stage IIIB T2 N2 M0 T3 N1, N2 M0 T4a N1 M0 Stage IVA T4a N2 M0 T4b Any N M0 Any T N3 M0 Stage IVB Any T Any N M1 •
Siewert Classification for GE Junction Adenoca : • Type I : 5 cm to 1 cm cephalad to above GE junction • Type II : 1 cm cephalad to 2 cm caudad • Type III : Below 2 cm from GE junction Matzinger O, Gerber E, Bernstein Z, et al. EORTC-ROG expert opinion: radiotherapy volume and treatment guidelines for neoadjuvant radiation of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction and the stomach. Radiother Oncol 2009;92:164–175
Evolution of treatment Non surgical treatment • Radiation therapy alone • Combined modality therapy(CT+RT) • Intensification of the radiation dose Surgical treatment • Sx alone • Sx+adjuvant • Preop CT + Sx
Surgical options Conservative Esophagectomy • Mucosal Ablation • Endoscopic Mucosal resection • Transthoracic • Transhiatal • Minimally invasive
Conservative procedures • Mucosal Ablative techniques • Photodynamic therapy (PDT) • Laser ablation • Multipolar electrocoagulation • Argon plasma coagulation • Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) Pacifico et al, Surg Oncol Clin North Am 2002
• Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) • EMR is now considered an essential diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic option for patients with HGD or superficial disease (T1a). • Involves either • (a) a submucosal injection of fluid to lift and separate the lesion from the underlying muscular layer or • (b) the use of suction to trap the lesion into a cylinder. This then allows a full resection and tissue retrieval. • These results and similar findings in smaller series1 examining EMR confirm that use of this technique is feasible for the treatment of high-grade dysplasia and carcinoma limited to the mucosa (T1a) and provides an alternative to esophagectomy. 1. Nijhawan K et al, Gastrointest Endosc 2000 Conservative procedures • Criteria for EMR • Lesions with • No ulceration • T1 N0 • No LVI • <2 cm • Wd-md
Esophagectomy: Broad Principles • Depends on • Site of disease • Extent of disease involvement • Co-morbid conditions • Patient preference • (May depend on) Histology • Mainstay of treatment for all resectable disease • T4b disease is non resectable disease.
• A 5 cm margin cranio-caudally should be obtained to ensure negative final microscopic margins. • Thus not performed for cervical esophagus. • May be performed for primaries of the upper-third thoracic esophagus depending on location. • The stomach is considered by the replacement conduit of choice for the resected esophagus. Esophagectomy: Broad Principles
• An abdominal and a cervical incision with blunt mediastinal dissection through the esophageal hiatus (i.e. Transhiatal esophagectomy [THE]) • An abdominal and a thoracic incision (i.e. Transthoracic esophagectomy [TTE]) Open Esophagectomy
Approaches TTE McKneown Approaches TTE Ivor Lewis
Transhiatal Esophagectomy (THE) • 2 incisions: • Upper midline • Left side of neck (6cms) • Disadvantages of the transhiatal approach • Poor visualization of upper and middle thoracic esophageal tumors • Increased anastomotic leak rate with subsequent stricture formation • Possibility of chylothorax, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury Transthoracic Esophagectomy(TTE) • 2 incisions: • Upper midline • Right posterolateral (5th or 6th ICS) • The greatest advantage of the transthoracic approach is that it provides direct visualization and exposure of the intrathoracic esophagus, allowing wider dissection to achieve adequate margins around the primary tumor, and more thorough lymph node dissection. • Its disadvantages (reasons for the emergence of transhiatal approach) • The combined effects of an abdominal and thoracic incision may compromise cardiorespiratory function. • An intrathoracic anastomotic leak can lead to mediastinitis and sepsis. • More perioperative pain • Longer duration of surgery
Meta analyses comparing TTE and THE Rindani et al, Aust N Z J Surg 1999 • Other meta analyses have found similar outcomes with both procedures while showing variable outcomes in terms of patient morbidity.
• Chemotherapy • Regimens • Perioperative / NACT / ACT • Radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) • Neoadjuvant • Postoperative • Definitive • Palliative Non-Surgical treatment Radiotherapy and/or Chemotherapy
Rationale of neo-adjuvant treatment • Downstage the disease:- Enhances resectability • Drugs enhances radiosensitivity • Reduced dissemination of tumor cells during surgery :- Hence reduces distant metastasis • Remove microscopic persistent disease
RT alone • No randomized studies comparing surgery alone with radiation alone, and radiation therapy alone has been usually delivered when lesions are deemed inoperable because of tumor extent, medical contraindications, and/or palliative treatment is indicated
Pre-op RT - Cochrane Review 2005 • Median follow-up 9 years • Mostly squamous carcinomas • Hazard ratio (HR) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.01) • Overall reduction in the risk of death of 11% • Absolute survival benefit of 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. (p-0.06)
Post-op RT • 3 studies • French • Hong Kong • Xiao • Postoperative radiation therapy may decrease local recurrence, particularly in the setting of involved margins, although the impact of this adjuvant treatment on overall survival remains less clear.
• Platinum doublet is preferred over single agents • Cisplatin plus 5-FU are commonly used combinations Regimens: • Paclitaxel and carboplatin • Cisplatin and 5-FU or capecitabine • Oxaliplatin and 5-FU or capecitabine • Paclitaxel or docetaxel and cisplatin • Carboplatin and 5-FU • Irinotecan and cisplatin • Oxaliplatin, docetaxel and capecitabine • Epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU (Only for adenocarcinoma) Chemotherapy agents
Pre-op Chemotherapy • 4 RCTs Study Authors/ Year Pts No HPE/Site Treatment arms Results US Intergroup trial/INT 133 Kelsen et al. 1998 440 53% adenoca 47% SCC 3 5FU/Cis -> Sx ->3 5FU/Cis vs. Sx alone 3 yr OS - 26% vs 23% MRC MRC 2002 802 66% adenoca 31% scc 2 Cis/5FU -> Sx vs Sx alone 2 yr OS - 43% vs 34% 5 yr OS - 23% vs 17% MAGIC Cunningham 2008 503 Lower esophag GEJ Stomach 3 ECF -> Sx -> 3ECF vs Sx alone 5 yr OS - 36% vs 23% (p-0.009) PFS – (P – 0.001) FNCLCC/FFCD Ychou JCO 2011 224 Lower esophag GEJ Stomach 2 Cis/5FU -> Sx ->3 5FU/Cis vs Sx alone 5 yr OS 38% vs 24% (p – 0.02) 5 yr DFS 34% vs 19% (p – 0.003)
• N = 503 (Chemotherapy 250, Surgery 253; 26% esophageal tumors) • Chemotherapy: epirubicin (50 mg) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2) on d1, and a 5FU CI (200 mg/m2/day for 21 days): 3 cycles each pre and post operatively. • Surgery: 3-6 weeks after NACT/within 6 weeks for controls. ACT was started 6-12 weeks after surgery. • The primary end point was overall survival. • ECF-related adverse effects were similar to those previously reported among patients with advanced gastric cancer. Rates of postoperative complications were similar in both arms (46% and 45% respectively), as was the postop 1 month mortality. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less advanced in the chemotherapy group. Cunningham et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;355(1):877–89. MAGIC Trial
• At a median follow-up of 4 years, 149 patients in the chemotherapy group and 170 in the surgery group had died. • Adjusted HR for death, 0.74; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93; p = 0.008 • HR for progression 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; p<0.001) • 5-year survival 36% vs. 23% • Limitations: • Only 42% of patients in the test group completed all protocol treatment. • 5 year survival data with a median survival of 4 years is questionable. • Conclusion: Perioperative chemotherapy with a regimen of ECF improves OS and PFS among patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, lower esophagus, or GE junction, as compared with surgery alone. Cunningham et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;355(1):877–89.
AUTHOR MEDIAN FOLLOW UP REGIMEN NO OF PTS Ro resection/ Dist Met PATH CR LOCOREG FAILURE 3-Yr Survival SURVIVAL DIFF Urba et al 8.2 5fu+cddp+Vbl+RT+S S 50 50 90 60% 90 65% 28 - 19% 42% P=0.02 30 16 p=0.15 Boset et al 4.6 Cddp+RT+S S 143 138 81 69 26 --- 34 36 NS Walsh et al 1.5 5fu+cddp+RT+S S 58 58 NR NR 25 32 6 P=0.01 Burmeister et al 5.4 5fu+cddp+RT+S S 128 128 80 59 16 --- 35 30 NS Tepper et al (CALGB 9781) 6.0 5fu+cddp+RT+S S 30 26 NR NR 33 13 15 39 16 P=0.008 Pre op CRT f/b Sx vs Sx alone
Cross Trial – Hagen,2012 • Esophagus or esophago-gastric junction • 368 pts , Median FU -45 mnths • 5 cycles of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (intravenous carboplatin [AUC 2 mg/mL per min] and intravenous paclitaxel [50 mg/m2 of body-surface area]) with concurrent radiotherapy • RT - 41·4 Gy, given in 23 fractions of 1·8 Gy • Median overall survival was 49.4 months in the CRT– Sx group versus 24.0 months in the Sx group. • Overall survival was significantly better in the CRT– Sx group (hazard ratio, 0.657; 95% confidence interval, 0.495 to 0.871; P=0.003).
• Long-term results after a minimum follow-up of 5 years • OS and PFS benefit were confirmed for both histological subtypes • LC and distant disease control also improved CRT f/b Sx Sx alone P value 5-yr OS 58% 33% 0.003 5-yr PFS 44% 27% 0.000217 Cross Trial –updated by Shapiro,2015
Urschel Meta-analysis - 2002 • 9 RCT • 1116 patients • Compared with Sx, NA CTRT • Improved 3 yr OS • Reduced LRF • Higher R0 rates • pCR in 21% pts • Survival benefit was most pronounced when CT+RT were given concurrently instead of sequentially Three-year survival (odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.92; P - 0.016). Rate of complete resection (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.84; P - 0.007).
• 6 RCTs • 764 pts • In resectable oesophageal cancer, preoperative CRT significantly improves three year survival versus surgery alone (NNT=10) • Reduction in the rate of advanced oesophageal cancer (stages IIb and III) was observed in almost all trials at the time of surgery (down- staging) (NNT = 5). Florica Meta-analysis - 2004 OR and CI for the effect of treatment on three year overall mortality
Gebski Meta-analysis 2007, Updated by Sjoquist, 2011 • NA CTRT – 10 trials, 1209 pts • NA Chemo – 8 trials, 1724 pts • Updated analysis – 4188 pts • Local operable oesophageal carcinoma • Neo adjuvant chemo increases • Absolute 2 yr survival – 7% • Absolute 5 yr survival – 4% • Neo adjuvant CRT increases • Absolute 2 yr survival – 13% • Absolute 5 yr survival – 6.5%
Provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. Clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. SCC Adenocarcinoma HR 95% CI P value HR 95% CI P value CRT 0.80 0.68 – 0.93 0.004 0.75 0.59 – 0.95 0.02 CT 0.92 0.81 – 1.04 0.18 0.83 0.71 – 0.95 0.01
Pre op CRT vs Pre op Chemo • German Trial , JCO Stahl 2009 • IC + Sx vs IC + CRT + Sx • locally advanced (uT3-4NXM0) adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus or gastric cardia • 46 mnths FU, Study closed prematurely • Preoperative radiation therapy improved 3-year survival rate from 27.7% to 47.4%
RT alone vs CRT as Definitive Therapy • RTOG 85-01 • Herskovic 1992, Al sarraf 1997, Cooper 1999 R A N D O M I S E Wk 1 50Gy/25 fractions Wk 5 Wk 11 CDDP 75mg/m2 Day 1 and 5-FU 1gm/m2 C.I. day 1- 4 CT+RT RT Wk 8 64Gy/32 fractions
Comp- liance Gr III toxicity Gr IV Gr V Local failure Dist failure Median and 5yr survival CT+RT (n=61) 54% 44% 20% 3% 43% 22% 12.5 mo, 27% RT (n=60) 83% 25% 3% 0 64% 38% 8.9 mo, 0% P-value Sig Sig Sig Sig Sig Sig p<0.0001 All patients who received RT alone were dead of disease by 3 years. Established chemoradiation as the conventional nonsurgical treatment for esophageal cancer
RT dose escalation during Definitive CRT • RTOG 94-05, INT 0123 • Minsky et al , JCO 2002 • CRT 50.4 Gy vs • CRT 64.8 Gy (Chemo Cis/5FU x 4 cycles) • The trial was stopped after an interim analysis. The median follow-up was 16.4 months for all patients and 29.5 months for patients still alive.
No significant difference in survival(p=NS) MS-18 v/s 13 months 2 yr survival—40% v/s 31% No significant difference in time to first failure(52% v/s 56%) (local /regional failure or locoregional persistance of cancer) This trial demonstrated that for patients who receive concurrent chemotherapy with radiation, higher doses of radiation therapy do not offer a local/regional control or survival advantage.
Bedenne FFCD 9102 JCO 2007 • In patients with locally advanced thoracic esophageal cancers, especially SCC, who respond to chemoradiation, there is no benefit for the addition of surgery after chemoradiation compared with the continuation of additional chemoradiation
Stahl JCO 2005 , 2008 Conclusion • Adding surgery to chemoradiotherapy improves local tumor control but does not increase survival of patients with locally advanced esophageal SCC. • Tumor response to induction chemotherapy identifies a favorable prognostic group within these high-risk patients, regardless of the treatment group.
Is Surgery after chemoradiation a must? • Conclusion Selective surgery after chemoradiation is an evolving concept; effect on ultimate survival is unclear and the standard remains Neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery. Bedenne et al JCO 2007 Adding surgery to CRT improves local control but does not increase survival in locally advanced esophageal SCC. Stahl et al JCO 2005 Improvement in local controls, but similar 3 year survivals in esophageal SCCs. Berger et al, JCO 2005, Rohatgi et al Cancer 2005: Patients who achieve a pCR had an improvement in survival compared to those who do not. Surgical resection may not be necessary and has led to the concept of selective surgery after preoperative chemoradiation.
Indications for Post-op Chemo RT : • Unfavourable T2 N0 • T3/T4 • LN +ve • Close/+ve margin
R0 resection Surveillance R1 resection Chemoradiation (if no neoadjuvant therapy) Observation till progression or Chemotherapy + Radiation R2 resection Chemoradiation (if not given before) or Palliative Management • For R0 resections, may consider chemotherapy alone as adjuvant treatment if Node positive. Postoperative Management - SCC NCCN 2016
Postoperative Management - Adenocarcinomas R0 resection R1 resection R2 resection Chemoradiation or Palliative Management N0 N+ Upto T1 Surveillance > T2 Surveillance or Chemotherapy + Radiation (No neoadjuvant therapy) Chemoradiation Observation or Chemotherapy + Radiation Observation or Chemotherapy + Radiation NCCN 2016
Radiotherapy Techniques
Radiotherapy Curative Dose- 50.4 Gy/28# 41.4 Gy/23# 39 Gy/13# 25 Gy/5# Conventional Conformal • 3 D CRT • IMRT • IGRT • Arc Respiratory gating Proton Palliative EBRT Dose-30 Gy/10# Brachytherapy 12 Gy/# 15 Gy/3#
Techniques of radiation therapy • External beam radiotherapy • Important considerations for RT • Nearby vital structures: spinal cord. lungs, heart • Movement in target tissue and vital structures: lungs, heart • Variable density of tissues: lungs • Dose limitations • Spinal cord Dmax:45 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fx • Lung: Limit 70% of both lungs <20 Gy • Heart: Limit 50% of ventricles <25 Gy
EBRT • Patient Positioning: • Cervical and upper thoracic Esophagus: Supine, arms by the side • Middle and Lower third: • Supine with arms above their head if AP – PA portals are being planned • Prone position may be considered if posterior obliques are being included. Esophagus is pulled anteriorly and spinal cord can be spared. • Immobilization: • Vertebral column should be as parallel to couch as possible. • Image acquisition: Preferably with iv contrast; oral contrast may also be used for better visualization of the lumen.
• A 3 cm margin proximally and distally would cover microscopic disease in 94% of all SCCs. • For GE junction tumors, a 3cm margin proximally and 5cm distally would allow similar coverage. • Most contemporary radiation trials used margins of 3 to 5 cm cranially and caudally on the GTV, along with a 2-2.5cm radial margin. Gao et al, IJROBP 2007 Treatment Fields
Treatment volume • The radiation field should include • the primary tumor • 5-cm cranial • 5 cm caudal margins • 2-cm lateral margins. Lymph nodes • The primary local/regional lymph nodes should receive the same dose. For cervical (proximal) primary tumors (defined as at or proximal to the carina) the treatment volume includes the bilateral supraclavicular nodes • GE junction (distal) primaries the celiac axis nodes need to be included.
EBRT – Cervical Esophagus • 2 anterior obliques and 1 posterior OR • 2 posterior obliques and 1 anterior field • AP – PA followed by opposed oblique pair. • T-shaped AP-PA Field : • Superior Border: C7 • Inferior Border: T4 (carina) • 2 cm lateral margins. • Supraclavivular nodes irradiated electively; can be boosted by a separate field if required.
EBRT – Middle and Lower Third • Superior Border: 5 cm proximal to superior extent of disease. • Inferior Border: • Middle third - GEJ as visualised by Barium swallow • Lower third - Coeliac plexus (L1) to be included. • AP - PA followed by 1 Anterior and 2 Posterior oblique pairs • 4 Field: AP - PA & opposed laterals – for mid 1/3rd lesions. May consider prone position. • AP - PA to deliver 36-44 Gy followed by posterior obliques to reach the full dose. Initial phase (39.6-41.4 Gy) Parallel opposed AP-PA fields - 5cm prox and distal margins - 2 cm lateral margins Off cord Boost: After 40-44Gy 3 field technique -- one direct anterior and two lateral/ posterior oblique Advantages - Homogeneous dose distribution - Tumor better covered - Critical organs are out of the field
Current approach • EBRT using 3D-CRT to a total dose of 50.4 Gy (1.8 Gy per daily fraction) is standard. • IMRT is often utilized to minimize exposure to adjacent structures. • Proton beam in combination with chemotherapy is being explored. • Targeted biologic agents added to standard cytotoxic chemotherapy is being explored
Brachytherapy • Gaspar, 2000 • RTOG 9207 • The cumulative incidence of fistula was 18%/year and the crude incidence was 14%. • Esophageal fistulas were treatment-related rather than tumor-related of the six treatment-related fistulas, three were fatal . • Occurred in the region of the brachytherapy. • Five of the six patients developing fistulas received 15 Gy brachytherapy dose. (median-3.9 months) • The other patient received just one fraction of 5 Gy and developed a fistula within 0.5 months.
American Brachytherapy Society Guidelines • Active length: visible tumor by UGIE + 1 - 2 cm margins both ways. • External diameter of applicator must be 6 – 10 mm. • Dose is prescribed 1 cm from mid source or mid dwell position.
Staging Upto T1a N0 Upto T4N0 or T3N+ Stage IV Surgcal candidate? Surgical candidate?Yes Yes No 1. EMR 2. Esophagectomy (?MIE ?Open) 3. Ablative procedures Early stage? Palliative management • Chemotherapy • Radiotherapy • Stenting/dilatation No Surgery Yes CRT CRT Surgery Post op HPE Adj if locally advanced No RT
Summary :- • Stg I – IIIA resectable medically fit : • Pre-op CRT (Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) f/b Sx • Definitive CRT (Definitive mngmt for Cervical Oesophagus) • Sx alone – preferred for non-cervical T1 N0 • Inoperable I – IIIA : • Definitive CRT (Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) [RTOG 85-01, INT 0123] • Stg IV Palliative : • CRT (Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) • RT alone • Stenting for obstruction
Site-wise management : • Cervical Oesophagus SCC : • Definitive CRT (Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) • Thoracic Oesophagus SCC/Adenoca: • Pre op CRT(Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) f/b Sx • Definitive CRT • Lower esophagus and GE Junction Adenoca : • Peri op Chemo with Sx • Pre op Chemo f/b Sx f/b Post op RT
Thank You

More Related Content

PPT
TARGET DELINEATION OF CANCER ESOPHAGUS
byKanhu Charan
 
PPTX
Oligometastasis
byKanhu Charan
 
PPTX
Cervix landmark trials- kiran
byKiran Ramakrishna
 
PPTX
FAST Forward Trial breast cancer
byKanhu Charan
 
PPTX
Hypofractionation in carcinoma prostate
byNarayan Adhikari
 
PPTX
Rectal cancer Preoperative Radiotherapy- Short vs long course
byGaurav Kumar
 
PPTX
Post op radiotherapy in oral cavity cancers
byDr. Prashant Surkar
 
PPTX
Prophylactic cranial irradiation
byShreya Singh
 
TARGET DELINEATION OF CANCER ESOPHAGUS
byKanhu Charan
 
Oligometastasis
byKanhu Charan
 
Cervix landmark trials- kiran
byKiran Ramakrishna
 
FAST Forward Trial breast cancer
byKanhu Charan
 
Hypofractionation in carcinoma prostate
byNarayan Adhikari
 
Rectal cancer Preoperative Radiotherapy- Short vs long course
byGaurav Kumar
 
Post op radiotherapy in oral cavity cancers
byDr. Prashant Surkar
 
Prophylactic cranial irradiation
byShreya Singh
 

What's hot

PPTX
RAPIDO Trial
byJibran Mohsin
 
PPTX
Radiotherapy in nasopharynx
byDr pallavi kalbande
 
PPTX
Esophageal cancer-role of RT
byBharti Devnani
 
PPTX
Chemoradiotherapy Anal canal cancer.pptx
byAtulGupta369
 
PPTX
Radiotherapy for bladder cancers
byAshutosh Mukherji
 
PPTX
Nasopharynx rt techniques
bykavita sehrawat
 
PPTX
Radiotherapy in carcinoma rectum
bySagar Raut
 
PPT
Neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer
byhr77
 
PPT
RAPIDO TRIAL RECTUM
byKanhu Charan
 
PPTX
Neoadjuvant therapy of rectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
PPTX
MANAGEMENT OF PROSTATE CA
byradiation oncology
 
PPTX
Pricipals of chemoradiotherapy
byDr pallavi kalbande
 
PPTX
Accelerated partial breast irradiation
byHimanshu Mekap
 
PPTX
Plan evaluation in RADIOTHERAPY
byKanhu Charan
 
PPTX
Radioimmunotherapy
byAastha Shah
 
PPTX
Icru reports in external beam radiotherapy
byDeepika Malik
 
ODP
IMRT and 3D CRT in cervical Cancers
bySantam Chakraborty
 
PPTX
Radiotherapy in benign disease.
byParag Roy
 
PPTX
Unsealed radionuclides
byNilesh Kucha
 
PPTX
TSET
byHanuman Doke
 
RAPIDO Trial
byJibran Mohsin
 
Radiotherapy in nasopharynx
byDr pallavi kalbande
 
Esophageal cancer-role of RT
byBharti Devnani
 
Chemoradiotherapy Anal canal cancer.pptx
byAtulGupta369
 
Radiotherapy for bladder cancers
byAshutosh Mukherji
 
Nasopharynx rt techniques
bykavita sehrawat
 
Radiotherapy in carcinoma rectum
bySagar Raut
 
Neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer
byhr77
 
RAPIDO TRIAL RECTUM
byKanhu Charan
 
Neoadjuvant therapy of rectal cancer
byMohamed Abdulla
 
MANAGEMENT OF PROSTATE CA
byradiation oncology
 
Pricipals of chemoradiotherapy
byDr pallavi kalbande
 
Accelerated partial breast irradiation
byHimanshu Mekap
 
Plan evaluation in RADIOTHERAPY
byKanhu Charan
 
Radioimmunotherapy
byAastha Shah
 
Icru reports in external beam radiotherapy
byDeepika Malik
 
IMRT and 3D CRT in cervical Cancers
bySantam Chakraborty
 
Radiotherapy in benign disease.
byParag Roy
 
Unsealed radionuclides
byNilesh Kucha
 
TSET
byHanuman Doke
 

Viewers also liked

PPTX
Satyajeet Carcinoma Stomach management
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Cross trial esophagus updated result
byBharti Devnani
 
PPTX
EBRT IN CARCINOMA CERVIX
byIsha Jaiswal
 
PDF
RADIOTHERAPY IN CARCINOMA OVARY
byDR DEBASHIS PANDA
 
PPTX
Satyajeet Carcinoma Urinary Bladder Management
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Satyajeet cervix concurrent chemo-radiotherapy
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Radiotherapy planning in carcinoma cervix dr rekha
byDr Rekha Arya
 
PPTX
Management Carcinoma Nose & PNS
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Management of Carcinoma cervix
byDrrajan Paliwal
 
PPTX
Ca anal canal
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Radiotherapy in hepatic, pancreatic & biliary tract cancers
byJyotirup Goswami
 
PPTX
Testicular carcinoma
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Ca endometrium
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Ca vulva
byM Sohaib Butt
 
PPTX
Ca pancreas part diagnosis and workup
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Ca penis
byJoydeep Ghosh
 
PPTX
Hodgkin’s lymphoma
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPT
Seminar ca penis
byRushabh Shah
 
PPTX
Penile carcinoma basic sience
bydamuluri ramu
 
PDF
Airway management is large thyroid tumors
byApollo Hospitals
 
Satyajeet Carcinoma Stomach management
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Cross trial esophagus updated result
byBharti Devnani
 
EBRT IN CARCINOMA CERVIX
byIsha Jaiswal
 
RADIOTHERAPY IN CARCINOMA OVARY
byDR DEBASHIS PANDA
 
Satyajeet Carcinoma Urinary Bladder Management
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Satyajeet cervix concurrent chemo-radiotherapy
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Radiotherapy planning in carcinoma cervix dr rekha
byDr Rekha Arya
 
Management Carcinoma Nose & PNS
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Management of Carcinoma cervix
byDrrajan Paliwal
 
Ca anal canal
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Radiotherapy in hepatic, pancreatic & biliary tract cancers
byJyotirup Goswami
 
Testicular carcinoma
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Ca endometrium
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Ca vulva
byM Sohaib Butt
 
Ca pancreas part diagnosis and workup
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Ca penis
byJoydeep Ghosh
 
Hodgkin’s lymphoma
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Seminar ca penis
byRushabh Shah
 
Penile carcinoma basic sience
bydamuluri ramu
 
Airway management is large thyroid tumors
byApollo Hospitals
 

Similar to Satyajeet oesophagus management

PPTX
Esophagectomy
byDr Amit Dangi
 
PPTX
Management ca esophagus sneha
bySneha George
 
PPTX
Trials in esophageal cancer.pptx
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
PPTX
Carcinoma esophagus
byDrAyush Garg
 
PPTX
Ca esophagus trails
bySreekanth Nallam
 
PPTX
Surgical Management of Carcinoma Esophagus
byDr.Bhavin Vadodariya
 
PPTX
Carcinoma Esophagus & GE jn management.pptx
byarvindkumarchauhan16
 
PPTX
Treatment of Cancer of the Esophagus
byRobert J Miller MD
 
PPTX
Esophageal cancer and adenocarcinoma of EGJ
byHappyFridayKnight
 
PPTX
Carcinoma of esophagus
byprabhanjan chakravarthy
 
PPTX
Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma
byDr.Bhavin Vadodariya
 
PPTX
Oesophageal cancer osama
byOsama Elzaafarany, MD.
 
PPTX
Carcinoma Esophagus part 1.pptx
byDr.Neelam Ahirwar
 
PPTX
esophagus carcinoma management updated NCCN
byamberamin2023
 
PPTX
Role of RT in CA Esophagus.pptx carcinoma
byssuser4bca06
 
PPTX
esophageal cancer radiation therapy treatment.pptx
bySumitava De
 
PPTX
Gastrointestinal tumor surgical management
byPooja Agarwal
 
PPTX
esmo-academy-2024-pptx-template smyth final (1).pptx
byGuillermoGutirrez33
 
PPTX
carcinoma of esophaghus and management.pptx
byNatureismyabode
 
PPT
Esophagus Final 2003
byratliff6275
 
Esophagectomy
byDr Amit Dangi
 
Management ca esophagus sneha
bySneha George
 
Trials in esophageal cancer.pptx
byCancer surgery By Royapettah Oncology Group
 
Carcinoma esophagus
byDrAyush Garg
 
Ca esophagus trails
bySreekanth Nallam
 
Surgical Management of Carcinoma Esophagus
byDr.Bhavin Vadodariya
 
Carcinoma Esophagus & GE jn management.pptx
byarvindkumarchauhan16
 
Treatment of Cancer of the Esophagus
byRobert J Miller MD
 
Esophageal cancer and adenocarcinoma of EGJ
byHappyFridayKnight
 
Carcinoma of esophagus
byprabhanjan chakravarthy
 
Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma
byDr.Bhavin Vadodariya
 
Oesophageal cancer osama
byOsama Elzaafarany, MD.
 
Carcinoma Esophagus part 1.pptx
byDr.Neelam Ahirwar
 
esophagus carcinoma management updated NCCN
byamberamin2023
 
Role of RT in CA Esophagus.pptx carcinoma
byssuser4bca06
 
esophageal cancer radiation therapy treatment.pptx
bySumitava De
 
Gastrointestinal tumor surgical management
byPooja Agarwal
 
esmo-academy-2024-pptx-template smyth final (1).pptx
byGuillermoGutirrez33
 
carcinoma of esophaghus and management.pptx
byNatureismyabode
 
Esophagus Final 2003
byratliff6275
 

More from Satyajeet Rath

PPTX
Carcinoma Oropharynx Management
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Satyajeet rath chemotherapy and hormone therapy in breast cancer
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
SOFT & TEXT Trials
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Carcinoma cervix pre management workup
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Satyajeet meningioma pituitary adenoma spinal cord tumours
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Ca breast, diagnosis, clinical examination and diagnostic workup
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Carcinoma anatomy and epidemiology
bySatyajeet Rath
 
PPTX
Ca penis
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Carcinoma Oropharynx Management
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Satyajeet rath chemotherapy and hormone therapy in breast cancer
bySatyajeet Rath
 
SOFT & TEXT Trials
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Carcinoma cervix pre management workup
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Satyajeet meningioma pituitary adenoma spinal cord tumours
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Ca breast, diagnosis, clinical examination and diagnostic workup
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Carcinoma anatomy and epidemiology
bySatyajeet Rath
 
Ca penis
bySatyajeet Rath
 

Recently uploaded

PPTX
NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY2025bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.pptx
byhospital
 
PPTX
Imaging of benign focal lesions of the Liver
byDr. Aryan (Anish Dhakal)
 
PDF
Anxiety and Antianxiety Drugs: Pathophysiology of Anxiety Disorders, Classifi...
byShagufta Farooqui
 
PPTX
OBSTRUCTED LABOR - Edward Mwansa.LGH.pptx
byedwardmwansa4
 
PPTX
Swallowing & Swallowing Disorders SLP_1 lecture 4.pptx
byDr Zonera Khalid PT
 
PPTX
EYELID TUMOURS . CLINICAL FEATURES . DIAGNOSIS . SURGICAL MANAGEMENT
byDr Aarushi Choudhary
 
PPT
New Kids on the Block in mHSPC: Personalising Approaches Through Emerging Pre...
byPVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education
 
PPTX
Organization, Premises, Equipment & Raw Materials The Pillars of Pharmaceutic...
byDr. Smita Kumbhar
 
PPTX
Transport of Oxygen& CO2.pptx by dr ambareesha
byDr K Ambareesha Goud PhD
 
PPTX
Communication and utilization of research.pptx
byPreeti Kulshreshtha
 
PPTX
HSV KERATITIS . CLINICAL FEATURES , TYPES , DIAGNOSIS , TREATMENT , HEDS TRIAL
byDr Aarushi Choudhary
 
PDF
स्वास्थ्यकर्मी_पारिश्रमिक_तथा_सेवा_सुविधा_प्रतिवेदन_२०८२
byPublic Health Concern Nepal
 
PPTX
Structural elucidation of Menthol by uv vis ir nmr mass
byswathireddy6585
 
PDF
RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION; CRVO & BRVO types, pathophysiology, diagnosis & manag...
bySamikshaRai22
 
PPTX
NEUROBIOLOGY OF AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER
byDr Hari Ram Sedai
 
PPTX
Pressure ulcer Internal KPIs results for July,2024.pptx
byprofyasser95
 
PDF
Dyes/ Stain Used In Ophthalmology - Clinical uses, Indication & Side effects....
bySamikshaRai22
 
PPTX
Chronic Viral Hepatitis HEP B HEP C HEP D
byNAWEEN KUMAR
 
PPT
Many Roads to Myeloma Remission: Making Sequential Choices With BCMA and Non-...
byPVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education
 
PPTX
Types of Communication Disorders SLP lecture 3.pptx
byDr Zonera Khalid PT
 
NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY2025bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.pptx
byhospital
 
Imaging of benign focal lesions of the Liver
byDr. Aryan (Anish Dhakal)
 
Anxiety and Antianxiety Drugs: Pathophysiology of Anxiety Disorders, Classifi...
byShagufta Farooqui
 
OBSTRUCTED LABOR - Edward Mwansa.LGH.pptx
byedwardmwansa4
 
Swallowing & Swallowing Disorders SLP_1 lecture 4.pptx
byDr Zonera Khalid PT
 
EYELID TUMOURS . CLINICAL FEATURES . DIAGNOSIS . SURGICAL MANAGEMENT
byDr Aarushi Choudhary
 
New Kids on the Block in mHSPC: Personalising Approaches Through Emerging Pre...
byPVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education
 
Organization, Premises, Equipment & Raw Materials The Pillars of Pharmaceutic...
byDr. Smita Kumbhar
 
Transport of Oxygen& CO2.pptx by dr ambareesha
byDr K Ambareesha Goud PhD
 
Communication and utilization of research.pptx
byPreeti Kulshreshtha
 
HSV KERATITIS . CLINICAL FEATURES , TYPES , DIAGNOSIS , TREATMENT , HEDS TRIAL
byDr Aarushi Choudhary
 
स्वास्थ्यकर्मी_पारिश्रमिक_तथा_सेवा_सुविधा_प्रतिवेदन_२०८२
byPublic Health Concern Nepal
 
Structural elucidation of Menthol by uv vis ir nmr mass
byswathireddy6585
 
RETINAL VEIN OCCLUSION; CRVO & BRVO types, pathophysiology, diagnosis & manag...
bySamikshaRai22
 
NEUROBIOLOGY OF AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER
byDr Hari Ram Sedai
 
Pressure ulcer Internal KPIs results for July,2024.pptx
byprofyasser95
 
Dyes/ Stain Used In Ophthalmology - Clinical uses, Indication & Side effects....
bySamikshaRai22
 
Chronic Viral Hepatitis HEP B HEP C HEP D
byNAWEEN KUMAR
 
Many Roads to Myeloma Remission: Making Sequential Choices With BCMA and Non-...
byPVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education
 
Types of Communication Disorders SLP lecture 3.pptx
byDr Zonera Khalid PT
 

Satyajeet oesophagus management

  • 1.
    Management of Carcinoma Oesophagus By– Dr. Satyajeet Rath Moderator – Prof. Kamal Sahni Date - 24/01/17
  • 2.
  • 3.
    Staging : Squamouscell carcinoma Group T N M Grade 0 Tis (HGD) N0 M0 1, X IA T1 1-2, X IB T1 3 T2 1-2, X IIA T2 3 IIB T3 Any T1-2 N1 IIIA T1-2 N2 T3 N1 T4a N0 IIIB T3 N2 IIIC T4a N1-2 T4b Any Any N3 IV Any Any M1 Staging : Adenocarcinoma
  • 4.
    AJCC 8th Edition,TNM 8 Classification • A tumour the epicenter of which is within 2 cm of the oesophagogastric junction and also extends into the oesophagus is classified and staged using the oesophageal scheme. • Cancers involving the oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) whose epicenter is within the proximal 2 cm of the cardia (Siewert types I/II) are to be staged as oesophageal • The AJCC also publish pathological staging for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma Pathological Stage (SCC) Stage 0 Tis N0 M0 Stage IA T1a N0 M0 Stage IB T1b N0 M0 T2 N0 M0 Stage II T3 N0 M0 T1 N1 M0 Stage IIIA T1 N2 M0 T2 N1 M0 Stage IIIB T2 N2 M0 T3 N1, N2 M0 T4a N0, N1 M0 Stage IVA T4a N2 M0 T4b Any N M0 Any T N3 M0 Stage IVB Any T Any N M1 Pathological Stage (Adeno ca) Stage 0 Tis N0 M0 Stage IA T1a N0 M0 Stage IB T1b N0 M0 Stage IIA T2 N0 M0 Stage IIB T1a,T1b N1 M0 Stage IIIA T1 N2 M0 T2 N1 M0 T3, T4a N0 M0 Stage IIIB T2 N2 M0 T3 N1, N2 M0 T4a N1 M0 Stage IVA T4a N2 M0 T4b Any N M0 Any T N3 M0 Stage IVB Any T Any N M1 •
  • 5.
    Siewert Classification forGE Junction Adenoca : • Type I : 5 cm to 1 cm cephalad to above GE junction • Type II : 1 cm cephalad to 2 cm caudad • Type III : Below 2 cm from GE junction Matzinger O, Gerber E, Bernstein Z, et al. EORTC-ROG expert opinion: radiotherapy volume and treatment guidelines for neoadjuvant radiation of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction and the stomach. Radiother Oncol 2009;92:164–175
  • 6.
    Evolution of treatment Nonsurgical treatment • Radiation therapy alone • Combined modality therapy(CT+RT) • Intensification of the radiation dose Surgical treatment • Sx alone • Sx+adjuvant • Preop CT + Sx
  • 7.
    Surgical options Conservative Esophagectomy •Mucosal Ablation • Endoscopic Mucosal resection • Transthoracic • Transhiatal • Minimally invasive
  • 8.
    Conservative procedures • MucosalAblative techniques • Photodynamic therapy (PDT) • Laser ablation • Multipolar electrocoagulation • Argon plasma coagulation • Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) Pacifico et al, Surg Oncol Clin North Am 2002
  • 9.
    • Endoscopic MucosalResection (EMR) • EMR is now considered an essential diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic option for patients with HGD or superficial disease (T1a). • Involves either • (a) a submucosal injection of fluid to lift and separate the lesion from the underlying muscular layer or • (b) the use of suction to trap the lesion into a cylinder. This then allows a full resection and tissue retrieval. • These results and similar findings in smaller series1 examining EMR confirm that use of this technique is feasible for the treatment of high-grade dysplasia and carcinoma limited to the mucosa (T1a) and provides an alternative to esophagectomy. 1. Nijhawan K et al, Gastrointest Endosc 2000 Conservative procedures • Criteria for EMR • Lesions with • No ulceration • T1 N0 • No LVI • <2 cm • Wd-md
  • 10.
    Esophagectomy: Broad Principles •Depends on • Site of disease • Extent of disease involvement • Co-morbid conditions • Patient preference • (May depend on) Histology • Mainstay of treatment for all resectable disease • T4b disease is non resectable disease.
  • 11.
    • A 5cm margin cranio-caudally should be obtained to ensure negative final microscopic margins. • Thus not performed for cervical esophagus. • May be performed for primaries of the upper-third thoracic esophagus depending on location. • The stomach is considered by the replacement conduit of choice for the resected esophagus. Esophagectomy: Broad Principles
  • 12.
    • An abdominaland a cervical incision with blunt mediastinal dissection through the esophageal hiatus (i.e. Transhiatal esophagectomy [THE]) • An abdominal and a thoracic incision (i.e. Transthoracic esophagectomy [TTE]) Open Esophagectomy
  • 13.
  • 14.
    Transhiatal Esophagectomy (THE) •2 incisions: • Upper midline • Left side of neck (6cms) • Disadvantages of the transhiatal approach • Poor visualization of upper and middle thoracic esophageal tumors • Increased anastomotic leak rate with subsequent stricture formation • Possibility of chylothorax, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury Transthoracic Esophagectomy(TTE) • 2 incisions: • Upper midline • Right posterolateral (5th or 6th ICS) • The greatest advantage of the transthoracic approach is that it provides direct visualization and exposure of the intrathoracic esophagus, allowing wider dissection to achieve adequate margins around the primary tumor, and more thorough lymph node dissection. • Its disadvantages (reasons for the emergence of transhiatal approach) • The combined effects of an abdominal and thoracic incision may compromise cardiorespiratory function. • An intrathoracic anastomotic leak can lead to mediastinitis and sepsis. • More perioperative pain • Longer duration of surgery
  • 15.
    Meta analyses comparingTTE and THE Rindani et al, Aust N Z J Surg 1999 • Other meta analyses have found similar outcomes with both procedures while showing variable outcomes in terms of patient morbidity.
  • 16.
    • Chemotherapy • Regimens •Perioperative / NACT / ACT • Radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) • Neoadjuvant • Postoperative • Definitive • Palliative Non-Surgical treatment Radiotherapy and/or Chemotherapy
  • 17.
    Rationale of neo-adjuvanttreatment • Downstage the disease:- Enhances resectability • Drugs enhances radiosensitivity • Reduced dissemination of tumor cells during surgery :- Hence reduces distant metastasis • Remove microscopic persistent disease
  • 18.
    RT alone • Norandomized studies comparing surgery alone with radiation alone, and radiation therapy alone has been usually delivered when lesions are deemed inoperable because of tumor extent, medical contraindications, and/or palliative treatment is indicated
  • 19.
    Pre-op RT -Cochrane Review 2005 • Median follow-up 9 years • Mostly squamous carcinomas • Hazard ratio (HR) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.01) • Overall reduction in the risk of death of 11% • Absolute survival benefit of 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. (p-0.06)
  • 20.
    Post-op RT • 3studies • French • Hong Kong • Xiao • Postoperative radiation therapy may decrease local recurrence, particularly in the setting of involved margins, although the impact of this adjuvant treatment on overall survival remains less clear.
  • 21.
    • Platinum doubletis preferred over single agents • Cisplatin plus 5-FU are commonly used combinations Regimens: • Paclitaxel and carboplatin • Cisplatin and 5-FU or capecitabine • Oxaliplatin and 5-FU or capecitabine • Paclitaxel or docetaxel and cisplatin • Carboplatin and 5-FU • Irinotecan and cisplatin • Oxaliplatin, docetaxel and capecitabine • Epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU (Only for adenocarcinoma) Chemotherapy agents
  • 22.
    Pre-op Chemotherapy • 4RCTs Study Authors/ Year Pts No HPE/Site Treatment arms Results US Intergroup trial/INT 133 Kelsen et al. 1998 440 53% adenoca 47% SCC 3 5FU/Cis -> Sx ->3 5FU/Cis vs. Sx alone 3 yr OS - 26% vs 23% MRC MRC 2002 802 66% adenoca 31% scc 2 Cis/5FU -> Sx vs Sx alone 2 yr OS - 43% vs 34% 5 yr OS - 23% vs 17% MAGIC Cunningham 2008 503 Lower esophag GEJ Stomach 3 ECF -> Sx -> 3ECF vs Sx alone 5 yr OS - 36% vs 23% (p-0.009) PFS – (P – 0.001) FNCLCC/FFCD Ychou JCO 2011 224 Lower esophag GEJ Stomach 2 Cis/5FU -> Sx ->3 5FU/Cis vs Sx alone 5 yr OS 38% vs 24% (p – 0.02) 5 yr DFS 34% vs 19% (p – 0.003)
  • 23.
    • N =503 (Chemotherapy 250, Surgery 253; 26% esophageal tumors) • Chemotherapy: epirubicin (50 mg) and cisplatin (60 mg/m2) on d1, and a 5FU CI (200 mg/m2/day for 21 days): 3 cycles each pre and post operatively. • Surgery: 3-6 weeks after NACT/within 6 weeks for controls. ACT was started 6-12 weeks after surgery. • The primary end point was overall survival. • ECF-related adverse effects were similar to those previously reported among patients with advanced gastric cancer. Rates of postoperative complications were similar in both arms (46% and 45% respectively), as was the postop 1 month mortality. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less advanced in the chemotherapy group. Cunningham et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;355(1):877–89. MAGIC Trial
  • 24.
    • At amedian follow-up of 4 years, 149 patients in the chemotherapy group and 170 in the surgery group had died. • Adjusted HR for death, 0.74; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93; p = 0.008 • HR for progression 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; p<0.001) • 5-year survival 36% vs. 23% • Limitations: • Only 42% of patients in the test group completed all protocol treatment. • 5 year survival data with a median survival of 4 years is questionable. • Conclusion: Perioperative chemotherapy with a regimen of ECF improves OS and PFS among patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, lower esophagus, or GE junction, as compared with surgery alone. Cunningham et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;355(1):877–89.
  • 25.
    AUTHOR MEDIAN FOLLOW UP REGIMEN NOOF PTS Ro resection/ Dist Met PATH CR LOCOREG FAILURE 3-Yr Survival SURVIVAL DIFF Urba et al 8.2 5fu+cddp+Vbl+RT+S S 50 50 90 60% 90 65% 28 - 19% 42% P=0.02 30 16 p=0.15 Boset et al 4.6 Cddp+RT+S S 143 138 81 69 26 --- 34 36 NS Walsh et al 1.5 5fu+cddp+RT+S S 58 58 NR NR 25 32 6 P=0.01 Burmeister et al 5.4 5fu+cddp+RT+S S 128 128 80 59 16 --- 35 30 NS Tepper et al (CALGB 9781) 6.0 5fu+cddp+RT+S S 30 26 NR NR 33 13 15 39 16 P=0.008 Pre op CRT f/b Sx vs Sx alone
  • 26.
    Cross Trial –Hagen,2012 • Esophagus or esophago-gastric junction • 368 pts , Median FU -45 mnths • 5 cycles of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (intravenous carboplatin [AUC 2 mg/mL per min] and intravenous paclitaxel [50 mg/m2 of body-surface area]) with concurrent radiotherapy • RT - 41·4 Gy, given in 23 fractions of 1·8 Gy • Median overall survival was 49.4 months in the CRT– Sx group versus 24.0 months in the Sx group. • Overall survival was significantly better in the CRT– Sx group (hazard ratio, 0.657; 95% confidence interval, 0.495 to 0.871; P=0.003).
  • 27.
    • Long-term resultsafter a minimum follow-up of 5 years • OS and PFS benefit were confirmed for both histological subtypes • LC and distant disease control also improved CRT f/b Sx Sx alone P value 5-yr OS 58% 33% 0.003 5-yr PFS 44% 27% 0.000217 Cross Trial –updated by Shapiro,2015
  • 28.
    Urschel Meta-analysis -2002 • 9 RCT • 1116 patients • Compared with Sx, NA CTRT • Improved 3 yr OS • Reduced LRF • Higher R0 rates • pCR in 21% pts • Survival benefit was most pronounced when CT+RT were given concurrently instead of sequentially Three-year survival (odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.92; P - 0.016). Rate of complete resection (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.84; P - 0.007).
  • 29.
    • 6 RCTs •764 pts • In resectable oesophageal cancer, preoperative CRT significantly improves three year survival versus surgery alone (NNT=10) • Reduction in the rate of advanced oesophageal cancer (stages IIb and III) was observed in almost all trials at the time of surgery (down- staging) (NNT = 5). Florica Meta-analysis - 2004 OR and CI for the effect of treatment on three year overall mortality
  • 30.
    Gebski Meta-analysis 2007,Updated by Sjoquist, 2011 • NA CTRT – 10 trials, 1209 pts • NA Chemo – 8 trials, 1724 pts • Updated analysis – 4188 pts • Local operable oesophageal carcinoma • Neo adjuvant chemo increases • Absolute 2 yr survival – 7% • Absolute 5 yr survival – 4% • Neo adjuvant CRT increases • Absolute 2 yr survival – 13% • Absolute 5 yr survival – 6.5%
  • 32.
    Provides strong evidencefor a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. Clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. SCC Adenocarcinoma HR 95% CI P value HR 95% CI P value CRT 0.80 0.68 – 0.93 0.004 0.75 0.59 – 0.95 0.02 CT 0.92 0.81 – 1.04 0.18 0.83 0.71 – 0.95 0.01
  • 33.
    Pre op CRTvs Pre op Chemo • German Trial , JCO Stahl 2009 • IC + Sx vs IC + CRT + Sx • locally advanced (uT3-4NXM0) adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus or gastric cardia • 46 mnths FU, Study closed prematurely • Preoperative radiation therapy improved 3-year survival rate from 27.7% to 47.4%
  • 34.
    RT alone vsCRT as Definitive Therapy • RTOG 85-01 • Herskovic 1992, Al sarraf 1997, Cooper 1999 R A N D O M I S E Wk 1 50Gy/25 fractions Wk 5 Wk 11 CDDP 75mg/m2 Day 1 and 5-FU 1gm/m2 C.I. day 1- 4 CT+RT RT Wk 8 64Gy/32 fractions
  • 35.
    Comp- liance Gr III toxicity Gr IVGr V Local failure Dist failure Median and 5yr survival CT+RT (n=61) 54% 44% 20% 3% 43% 22% 12.5 mo, 27% RT (n=60) 83% 25% 3% 0 64% 38% 8.9 mo, 0% P-value Sig Sig Sig Sig Sig Sig p<0.0001 All patients who received RT alone were dead of disease by 3 years. Established chemoradiation as the conventional nonsurgical treatment for esophageal cancer
  • 36.
    RT dose escalationduring Definitive CRT • RTOG 94-05, INT 0123 • Minsky et al , JCO 2002 • CRT 50.4 Gy vs • CRT 64.8 Gy (Chemo Cis/5FU x 4 cycles) • The trial was stopped after an interim analysis. The median follow-up was 16.4 months for all patients and 29.5 months for patients still alive.
  • 37.
    No significant differencein survival(p=NS) MS-18 v/s 13 months 2 yr survival—40% v/s 31% No significant difference in time to first failure(52% v/s 56%) (local /regional failure or locoregional persistance of cancer) This trial demonstrated that for patients who receive concurrent chemotherapy with radiation, higher doses of radiation therapy do not offer a local/regional control or survival advantage.
  • 38.
    Bedenne FFCD 9102JCO 2007 • In patients with locally advanced thoracic esophageal cancers, especially SCC, who respond to chemoradiation, there is no benefit for the addition of surgery after chemoradiation compared with the continuation of additional chemoradiation
  • 39.
    Stahl JCO 2005, 2008 Conclusion • Adding surgery to chemoradiotherapy improves local tumor control but does not increase survival of patients with locally advanced esophageal SCC. • Tumor response to induction chemotherapy identifies a favorable prognostic group within these high-risk patients, regardless of the treatment group.
  • 41.
    Is Surgery afterchemoradiation a must? • Conclusion Selective surgery after chemoradiation is an evolving concept; effect on ultimate survival is unclear and the standard remains Neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery. Bedenne et al JCO 2007 Adding surgery to CRT improves local control but does not increase survival in locally advanced esophageal SCC. Stahl et al JCO 2005 Improvement in local controls, but similar 3 year survivals in esophageal SCCs. Berger et al, JCO 2005, Rohatgi et al Cancer 2005: Patients who achieve a pCR had an improvement in survival compared to those who do not. Surgical resection may not be necessary and has led to the concept of selective surgery after preoperative chemoradiation.
  • 42.
    Indications for Post-opChemo RT : • Unfavourable T2 N0 • T3/T4 • LN +ve • Close/+ve margin
  • 43.
    R0 resection Surveillance R1resection Chemoradiation (if no neoadjuvant therapy) Observation till progression or Chemotherapy + Radiation R2 resection Chemoradiation (if not given before) or Palliative Management • For R0 resections, may consider chemotherapy alone as adjuvant treatment if Node positive. Postoperative Management - SCC NCCN 2016
  • 44.
    Postoperative Management -Adenocarcinomas R0 resection R1 resection R2 resection Chemoradiation or Palliative Management N0 N+ Upto T1 Surveillance > T2 Surveillance or Chemotherapy + Radiation (No neoadjuvant therapy) Chemoradiation Observation or Chemotherapy + Radiation Observation or Chemotherapy + Radiation NCCN 2016
  • 45.
  • 46.
    Radiotherapy Curative Dose- 50.4 Gy/28# 41.4 Gy/23# 39Gy/13# 25 Gy/5# Conventional Conformal • 3 D CRT • IMRT • IGRT • Arc Respiratory gating Proton Palliative EBRT Dose-30 Gy/10# Brachytherapy 12 Gy/# 15 Gy/3#
  • 47.
    Techniques of radiationtherapy • External beam radiotherapy • Important considerations for RT • Nearby vital structures: spinal cord. lungs, heart • Movement in target tissue and vital structures: lungs, heart • Variable density of tissues: lungs • Dose limitations • Spinal cord Dmax:45 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fx • Lung: Limit 70% of both lungs <20 Gy • Heart: Limit 50% of ventricles <25 Gy
  • 48.
    EBRT • Patient Positioning: •Cervical and upper thoracic Esophagus: Supine, arms by the side • Middle and Lower third: • Supine with arms above their head if AP – PA portals are being planned • Prone position may be considered if posterior obliques are being included. Esophagus is pulled anteriorly and spinal cord can be spared. • Immobilization: • Vertebral column should be as parallel to couch as possible. • Image acquisition: Preferably with iv contrast; oral contrast may also be used for better visualization of the lumen.
  • 49.
    • A 3cm margin proximally and distally would cover microscopic disease in 94% of all SCCs. • For GE junction tumors, a 3cm margin proximally and 5cm distally would allow similar coverage. • Most contemporary radiation trials used margins of 3 to 5 cm cranially and caudally on the GTV, along with a 2-2.5cm radial margin. Gao et al, IJROBP 2007 Treatment Fields
  • 50.
    Treatment volume • Theradiation field should include • the primary tumor • 5-cm cranial • 5 cm caudal margins • 2-cm lateral margins. Lymph nodes • The primary local/regional lymph nodes should receive the same dose. For cervical (proximal) primary tumors (defined as at or proximal to the carina) the treatment volume includes the bilateral supraclavicular nodes • GE junction (distal) primaries the celiac axis nodes need to be included.
  • 52.
    EBRT – CervicalEsophagus • 2 anterior obliques and 1 posterior OR • 2 posterior obliques and 1 anterior field • AP – PA followed by opposed oblique pair. • T-shaped AP-PA Field : • Superior Border: C7 • Inferior Border: T4 (carina) • 2 cm lateral margins. • Supraclavivular nodes irradiated electively; can be boosted by a separate field if required.
  • 53.
    EBRT – Middleand Lower Third • Superior Border: 5 cm proximal to superior extent of disease. • Inferior Border: • Middle third - GEJ as visualised by Barium swallow • Lower third - Coeliac plexus (L1) to be included. • AP - PA followed by 1 Anterior and 2 Posterior oblique pairs • 4 Field: AP - PA & opposed laterals – for mid 1/3rd lesions. May consider prone position. • AP - PA to deliver 36-44 Gy followed by posterior obliques to reach the full dose. Initial phase (39.6-41.4 Gy) Parallel opposed AP-PA fields - 5cm prox and distal margins - 2 cm lateral margins Off cord Boost: After 40-44Gy 3 field technique -- one direct anterior and two lateral/ posterior oblique Advantages - Homogeneous dose distribution - Tumor better covered - Critical organs are out of the field
  • 55.
    Current approach • EBRTusing 3D-CRT to a total dose of 50.4 Gy (1.8 Gy per daily fraction) is standard. • IMRT is often utilized to minimize exposure to adjacent structures. • Proton beam in combination with chemotherapy is being explored. • Targeted biologic agents added to standard cytotoxic chemotherapy is being explored
  • 56.
    Brachytherapy • Gaspar, 2000 •RTOG 9207 • The cumulative incidence of fistula was 18%/year and the crude incidence was 14%. • Esophageal fistulas were treatment-related rather than tumor-related of the six treatment-related fistulas, three were fatal . • Occurred in the region of the brachytherapy. • Five of the six patients developing fistulas received 15 Gy brachytherapy dose. (median-3.9 months) • The other patient received just one fraction of 5 Gy and developed a fistula within 0.5 months.
  • 57.
    American Brachytherapy SocietyGuidelines • Active length: visible tumor by UGIE + 1 - 2 cm margins both ways. • External diameter of applicator must be 6 – 10 mm. • Dose is prescribed 1 cm from mid source or mid dwell position.
  • 58.
    Staging Upto T1a N0 UptoT4N0 or T3N+ Stage IV Surgcal candidate? Surgical candidate?Yes Yes No 1. EMR 2. Esophagectomy (?MIE ?Open) 3. Ablative procedures Early stage? Palliative management • Chemotherapy • Radiotherapy • Stenting/dilatation No Surgery Yes CRT CRT Surgery Post op HPE Adj if locally advanced No RT
  • 59.
    Summary :- • StgI – IIIA resectable medically fit : • Pre-op CRT (Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) f/b Sx • Definitive CRT (Definitive mngmt for Cervical Oesophagus) • Sx alone – preferred for non-cervical T1 N0 • Inoperable I – IIIA : • Definitive CRT (Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) [RTOG 85-01, INT 0123] • Stg IV Palliative : • CRT (Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) • RT alone • Stenting for obstruction
  • 60.
    Site-wise management : •Cervical Oesophagus SCC : • Definitive CRT (Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) • Thoracic Oesophagus SCC/Adenoca: • Pre op CRT(Cis/5FU + 50 Gy) f/b Sx • Definitive CRT • Lower esophagus and GE Junction Adenoca : • Peri op Chemo with Sx • Pre op Chemo f/b Sx f/b Post op RT
  • 61.

Editor's Notes

  • #9 Pacifico RJ, Want KK. Nonsurgical management of Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Surg Oncol Clin North Am 2002;11:321–336.
  • #10 Nijhawan K, Wang KK. Endoscopic mucosal resection for lesions with endoscopic features suggestive of malignancy and high-grade dysplasia within Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:328–332
  • #11 T4a: Pleura, Pericardium and Diaphragm
  • #16 Rindani R, Martin CJ, Cox MR. Transhiatal versus Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: is there a difference? Aust N Z J Surg 1999;69:187–194
  • #42 Bedenne L, Michel P, Bouche O, et al. Chemoradiation followed by surgery compared to chemoradiation alone in squamous cancer of the esophagus: FFCD 9102. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1160–1168. Stahl M, Stuschke M, Lehmann N, et al. Chemoradiation with and without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2310–2317. Berger AC, Farma J, Scott WJ, et al. Complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma is associated with significantly improved survival. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4330–4337. Rohatgi R, Swisher SG, Correa AM, et al. Histologic subtypes as determinants of outcome in esophageal carcinoma patients with pathologic complete response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Cancer 2005;106:552–558.
  • #50 Gao XS, Qiao X, Wu F, et al. Pathological analysis of clinical target volume margin for radiotherapy in patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:389–396.
  • #53 For cervical primaries, patients are placed supine. Various field designs are possible and their choice depends on the geometry of the primary tumor in relation to the spinal cord. The ideal design is a three-field technique (two anterior obliques and a posterior). However, since the primary tumor is rarely limited to the midline, the most common approach is anteroposterior (AP)/posteroanterior (PA) to 39.6 to 41.4 Gy (Fig. 36-3) followed by a left or right opposed oblique pair with photons to 50.4 Gy (Fig. 36-4A-C). Since this technique will exclude the ipsilateral supraclavicular fossa, a separate electron field is added (commonly to a depth of 2 to 3 cm depending on the patient's anatomy) thereby bringing the total dose to 50.4 Gy. For cervical primaries, patients are placed supine. Various field designs are possible and their choice depends on the geometry of the primary tumor in relation to the spinal cord. The ideal design is a three-field technique (two anterior obliques and a posterior). However, since the primary tumor is rarely limited to the midline, the most common approach is anteroposterior (AP)/posteroanterior (PA) to 39.6 to 41.4 Gy (Fig. 36-3) followed by a left or right opposed oblique pair with photons to 50.4 Gy (Fig. 36-4A-C). Since this technique will exclude the ipsilateral supraclavicular fossa, a separate electron field is added (commonly to a depth of 2 to 3 cm depending on the patient's anatomy) thereby bringing the total dose to 50.4 Gy.