Search

Background: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) predict for survival in cancer patients. In patients receiving multimodality therapy, the effect of therapy on the NLR and PLR is not well understood. We evaluated changes in NLR and PLR among locally advanced esophageal cancer patients who received trimodality therapy., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of nonmetastatic patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) followed by esophagectomy at our institution between March 2000 and April 2012. NLR and PLR values were obtained for the following time points (TPs): (I) at diagnosis before CRT; (II) after CRT but prior to surgery; and (III) after surgery. We evaluated changes in NLR and PLR using the difference and ratio between TPs. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were applied to evaluate the independent prognostic significance of NLR and PLR., Results: This IRB-approved study included the records of 83 consecutive patients with stage II-IV esophageal cancer. The median age was 60 years, and median follow-up was 29.3 months. Patients were treated to a median prescription dose of 50.4 Gy (range, 50.4-56.4 Gy) in 28-33 fractions. Median NLR and PLR were 3.3 and 157.2, 12 and 645, and 11.5 and 391.7 at TPs 1, 2, and 3, respectively. On multivariate analysis, superior OS was associated with PLR ≥250 at TP3 (P=0.03), PLR decrease ≥609.2 between TP2 and TP3 (P=0.02), and PLR ratio (TP3/TP1) ≥1.08 (P=0.03). Inferior progression-free survival (PFS) was associated with NLR ≥36 at TP2 (P=0.0008), NLR increase ≥28.3 between TP1 and TP2 (P=0.0005), and PLR ratio (TP2/TP3) ≥0.38 (P=0.1). Pathologic complete response (PCR) was less likely for adenocarcinoma (AC) histology (P=0.03), NLR ≥10.6 at TP2 (P=0.04), and NLR increase ≥4.6 from TP1 to TP2 (P=0.03)., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine NLR and PLR values at various time intervals throughout treatment and demonstrate a correlation between OS, PFS, and PCR in patients undergoing trimodality therapy for esophageal cancer.

Molecular imaging techniques are increasingly being used in addition to standard imaging methods such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and computed tomography (CT) for many cancers including those of the esophagus. In this review, we will discuss the utility of the most widely used molecular imaging technique, (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET). (18)F-FDG PET has a variety of potential applications ranging from improving staging accuracy at the time of initial diagnosis to assisting in radiation target volume delineation. Furthermore, (18)F-FDG PET can be used to evaluate treatment response after completion of neoadjuvant therapy or potentially during neoadjuvant therapy. Finally, we will also discuss other novel molecular imaging techniques that have potential to further improve cancer care.

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is commonly employed in the management of esophageal carcinoma-either definitively or as part of a trimodality strategy with includes surgical resection. For patients treated with trimodality therapy, the most optimal sequence of chemoradiation (CRT) in relation to surgical resection is unclear. We reviewed the efficacy, advantages, and disadvantages of preoperative CRT versus postoperative CRT in esophageal cancer patients treated with trimodality therapy. Preoperative chemoradiation enables early treatment of distant metastases while simultaneously treating the primary disease, facilitates definition of radiotherapy target volumes, and may allow resection of advanced disease. It does, however, have considerable toxicity and may reduce the ability of some patients to tolerate resection. Postoperative CRT allows for early debulking, rapidly addresses dysphagia, and allows for CRT based on accurate pathologic staging, but delays systemic treatment. Randomized studies that compare preoperative with postoperative CRT in treating esophageal cancer are needed to identify conclusively the best standard of care. Based on the study information currently available, we conclude that treatment options should be tailored to the individual patient.

Radiotherapy and surgery have both played prominent roles in the treatment of esophageal cancer since the beginning of the 20th century. Although the use of radiotherapy alone to treat esophageal cancer has a long history, it has not demonstrated improved outcomes compared with surgery alone. The disappointing rates of survival and local control associated with single-modality therapy and the need for effective nonsurgical management led to the development of definitive chemoradiotherapy paradigms for esophageal cancer. Adding cytotoxic chemotherapy to radiotherapy for additive or synergistic effect was described as early as 1968, and over time, treatment has shifted from single-modality therapy toward combined-modality therapy using chemotherapy and radiotherapy. This approach eventually demonstrated superior outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer when compared to radiotherapy alone. Maximum benefit of this therapy depends on the appropriate addition of surgery and the optimization of radiosensitizing chemotherapy. A burgeoning area of research has focused on improving definitive chemoradiotherapy strategies through the incorporation of newer chemotherapeutic agents and targeted biologic agents. An overview of the history of chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer is presented, as well as a discussion of ongoing studies and future areas of promising research.

Background: Observations from previous intracoronary radiation therapy trials noted a considerable discrepancy between the prescribed radiation dose and the dose actually delivered. The aims of this study were to investigate the effect of actual delivered dose on vascular changes and to test the appropriateness of the current dose prescription., Methods and Results: Serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) analysis was performed in 30 in-stent restenosis cases treated with a 40-mm (90)Sr/Y source train. The fixed dose was prescribed at 2 mm from the centerline of the source train (18.4 Gy at 2 mm for reference diameter < or =3.35 mm and 23 Gy for diameter > or =3.36 mm). Only stent segments with full radiation coverage and device injury were enrolled and divided into 2-mm-long subsegments (n=202). D(S90)EEM (the minimum dose absorbed by 90% of the external elastic membrane surface) was calculated as the delivered dose corresponding to each segment, assuming that the radiation catheter occupied the same position in the vessel as the IVUS catheter. Mean D(S90)EEM of 23.5+/-5.82 Gy (range 12.3 to 41.7 Gy) was delivered to these subsegments. Overall, intimal hyperplasia volume remained constant from postintervention to follow-up (2.23+/-1.10 to 2.32+/-1.09 mm3/m; P=NS). Regression analysis revealed there was no correlation between delivered dose intensity and changes in intimal hyperplasia volume. No particular dose-dependent complications were appreciated in this delivered dose range., Conclusions: The current dose-prescription protocol of (90)Sr/Y radiation to native in-stent restenosis lesions may provide substantial inhibition of neointimal reproliferation regardless of the actual delivered dose intensity.