Search

To evaluate the utility of F-FDG-PET in predicting response to concomitant chemoradiation in locally-advanced esophageal cancer.Approximately 25% of esophageal cancer patients experience a pathologic complete response (pCR) to preoperative chemoradiation therapy. Computed tomography, endoscopy, and endoscopic ultrasound are unable to identify patients experiencing a pCR. Growing evidence supports the use of F-FDG-PET in the staging of esophageal cancer in its ability to detect occult metastatic and lymph nodal disease. The identification of patients with a pCR to chemoradiation could potentially spare those patients the morbidity associated with a resection.Eligibility criteria included T3-T4N0M0 or T1-T4N1M0 esophageal cancer. Patients underwent an initial F-FDG-PET before treatment and then repeated 4 to 6 weeks after chemoradiation, prior to the esophagectomy. Chemoradiation consisted of: cisplatinum, 5-fluorouracil, and radiation to a median dose of 50.4 Gy. Pathologic response was determined from a systematic review of the esophagectomy specimens.Sixty-four patients have completed therapy to date. Response was as follows: pCR 27%, pathologic residual microscopic (pCRmicro) 14.5%, partial response 19%, and stable or progressive disease 39.5%. A pretreatment standardized uptake value (SUVmax1hour)or = 15 was associated with an observed 77.8% significant response (pCR + pCRmicro) compared with 24.2% for patients with a pretreatment SUVmax1hour15 (P = 0.005). Significant response was observed in 71.4% of patients with a decrease in SUVmax1houror = 10 compared with 33.3% when the SUVmax1hour decreased10 (P = 0.004).Pretreatment and posttreatment F-FDG-PET can be useful for predicting significant response to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. These data should be considered in evaluation of patients for esophagectomy after chemoradiation.

Purpose: This phase II trial of induction irinotecan/gemcitabine followed by twice-weekly gemcitabine and upper abdominal radiation was initiated to determine the activity of this regimen in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods: Patients with locally advanced, nonmetastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas received 2 cycles of induction irinotecan (100 mg/m 2 IV) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 IV) on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle. Following the induction, patients without disease progression received gemcitabine administered twice weekly (40 mg/m 2 /day) for 5 weeks concurrent with upper abdominal radiation (50.4 Gy over 5.5 weeks). Results: From April 2000 to August 2003, 20 patients were entered into this study, 17 of whom were evaluable for treatment response. Characteristics included a median age of 67 years (range, 44-87 years) and 14 men (70%). Grades III and IV hematologic toxicity occurred in 25% and 5% of patients respectively and was primarily thrombocytopenia. No grade IV gastrointestinal toxicities or deaths due to therapy were observed. All therapy was completed in 8 patients, 7 patients were removed due to progression, 2 due to toxicity, 2 refused further treatment, and 1 was removed per the treating physician. The median time to progression and median survival was 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.7) and 8.8 months (95% CI, 6.4-10.1) respectively. Four patients (20%) were alive at 12 and 18 months. Conclusion: Induction irinotecan/gemcitabine followed by twice-weekly gemcitabine and upper abdominal radiation is feasible in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. This regimen, however, has only modest activity and should not be explored further.