Prognostic value of neoadjuvant treatment response in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Groth SS, Burt BM, Farjah F, Smaglo BG, Sada YH, Sugarbaker DJ, Massarweh NN. Prognostic value of neoadjuvant treatment response in locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2019 Apr 1; 157(4):1682-1693.e1.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation therapy on completeness of pathologic response and to assess the impact of primary tumor versus nodal response on survival after esophagectomy. METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 80 years in the National Cancer Data Base (2006-2016) with clinically staged, locally advanced (cT2-4 or cN+) esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent an R0 esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation therapy were included. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed to assess the association between treatment response and survival. RESULTS: Among 2870 patients, there was a significant dose-response association between completeness of response and overall survival: no response (reference), partial response (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.91), and complete response (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.65). Compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with higher pathologic primary tumor (33.9% vs 21.3%; P  <  .001) and pathologic nodal response rates (55.9% vs 32.7%; P  <  .001). Both a primary and nodal response were associated with improved survival. However, among patients with a primary but no nodal response, primary tumor response was not associated with risk of death (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11). In contrast, among patients who had a nodal but no primary response, the survival benefit of a nodal response was maintained (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Pathologic nodal (rather than primary tumor) response to neoadjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival. These data suggest a need to optimize neoadjuvant strategies associated with more complete nodal response rates and to consider more aggressive adjuvant treatment for patients with residual nodal disease after esophagectomy.