Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Role for Tumor Volume Assessment in Resectable Esophageal Cancer

  • Thoracic Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis, and many patients undergoing surgery have a low chance of cure. Imaging studies suggest that tumor volume is prognostic. The study aimed to evaluate pathological tumor volume (PTV) as a prognostic variable in esophageal cancer.

Methods

This single-center cohort study included 283 patients who underwent esophageal cancer resections between 2000 and 2012. PTVs were obtained from pathological measurements using a validated volume formula. The prognostic value of PTV was analyzed using multivariable regression models, adjusting for age, tumor grade, tumor (T) stage, nodal stage, lymphovascular invasion, resection margin, resection type, and chemotherapy response, which provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes were time to death and time to recurrence. Secondary outcomes were margin involvement and lymph node positivity. Correlation analysis was performed between imaging and PTVs.

Results

On unadjusted analysis, increasing PTV was associated with worse overall mortality (HR 2.30, 95 % CI 1.41–3.73) and disease recurrence (HR 1.87, 95 % CI 1.14–3.07). Adjusted analysis demonstrated worse overall mortality with increasing PTV but reached significance in only one subgroup (HR 1.70, 95 % CI 1.09–2.38). PTV was an independent predictor of margin involvement (OR 2.28, 95 % CI 1.02–5.13) and lymph node–positive status (OR 2.77, 95 % CI 1.23–6.28). Correlation analyses demonstrated significant positive correlation between computed tomography (CT) software and formula tumor volumes (r = 0.927, p < 0.0001), CT and positron emission tomography tumor volumes (r = 0.547, p < 0.0001), and CT and PTVs (r = 0.310, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Tumor volume may predict survival, margin status, and lymph node positivity after surgery for esophageal cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ. Esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2241–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu PC, Posner MC. The role of surgery in the management of esophageal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4:481–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Davies AR, Gossage JA, Zylstra J, et al. Tumor stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy determines survival after surgery for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2983–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Davies AR, Pillai A, Sinha P, et al. Factors associated with early recurrence and death after esophagectomy for cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:459–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lagarde SM, ten Kate FJ, Reitsma JB, Busch OR, van Lanschot JJ. Prognostic factors in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4347–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sloof G. Response monitoring of neoadjuvant therapy using CT, EUS and FDG-PET. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2006;20:941–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Blom RLGM, Steenbakkers IR, Lammering G, et al. PET/CT-based metabolic tumor volume for response prediction of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1500–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hyun SH, Choi JY, Shim YM, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic tumor volume measured by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:115–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Crehange G, Bosset M, Lorchel F, et al. Tumor volume as outcome determinant in patients treated with chemoradiation for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2006;29:583–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hatt M, Visvikis D, Albarghach NM, Tixier F, Pradier O, Cheze-le RC. Prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET image-based parameters in esophageal cancer and impact of tumor delineation methodology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1191–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan DSY, Fielding P, Roberts SA, Reid TD, Ellis-Owen R, Lewis WG. Prognostic significance of 18-FDG PET/CT and EUS defined tumor characteristics in patients with esophageal cancer. Clin Radiol. 2013. 68:352–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wittekind C, Yamasaki S. Digestive system tumours—oesophagus including oesophagogastric junction. In: Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind CW, editors TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009:66.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schwartz M. A biomathematical approach to clinical tumor growth. Cancer. 1961;14:1272–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hasegawa M, Sone S, Takashima S, et al. Growth rate of small lung cancers detected on mass CT screening. Br J Radiol. 2000;73(876):1252–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Roset A, Spadola L, Ratib O. OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional DICOM images. J Digit Imaging. 2004;17:205–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mapstone NP. Dataset for the histopathological reporting of esophageal carcinoma. 2nd Edition. Royal College of Pathologists G006. 2007. https://www.rcpath.org/Resources/RCPath/Migrated%20Resources/Documents/G/G006OesophagealdatasetFINALFeb07.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2015.

  17. Davies AR, Sandhu H, Pillai A, et al. Surgical resection strategy and the influence of radicality on outcomes in oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2014;101:511–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Omloo JM, Lagarde SM, Hulscher JB, et al. Extended thoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the mid/distal oesophagus: five year survival of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:992–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Siu KF, Cheung HC, Wong J. Shrinkage of the esophagus after resection for carcinoma. Ann Surg. 1986;203:173–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Boggs DH, Hanna A, Burrows W, Horiba N, Suntharalingham N. Primary gross tumor volume is an important prognostic factor in locally advanced esophageal cancer patients treated with trimodality therapy. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2015;46:131–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jeganathan R, McGuigan J, Campbell F, Lynch T. Does pre-operative estimation of esophageal tumor metabolic length using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT images compare with surgical pathology length? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:656–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was undertaken as an ESSQ MSc thesis (L.G.C.T.).

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucinda G. C. Tullie MSc, MRCS.

Additional information

For the Guy’s St. Thomas’ Oesophago-Gastric Research Group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tullie, L.G.C., Sohn, HM., Zylstra, J. et al. A Role for Tumor Volume Assessment in Resectable Esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23, 3063–3070 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5228-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5228-x

Keywords

Navigation