Postoperative Extended-Volume External-Beam Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Prospective Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Extended-volume external-beam radiation therapy (RT) following esophagectomy is controversial. The present prospective study evaluates the feasibility of extended-volume RT treatment in high-risk esophagectomy patients with a cervical anastomosis receiving postoperative combined chemoradiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2006, 15 patients with resected esophageal cancer were prospectively accrued to this pilot study to evaluate the adverse effects of extended-volume RT. Postoperative management was carried out at London Regional Cancer Program. Eligibility criteria were pathology-proven esophageal malignancy (T3-4, N0-1), disease amenable to surgical resection, and esophagectomy with or without resection margin involvement. Patients with distant metastases (M1) and patients treated with previous RT were excluded. All 15 study patients received 4 cycles of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. External-beam RT was conducted using conformal computed tomography planning, with multi-field arrangement tailored to the pathology findings, with coverage of a clinical target volume encompassing the primary tumour bed and the anastomotic site in the neck. The radiation therapy dose was 50.40 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction. The RT was delivered concurrently with the third cycle of chemotherapy. The study outcomes-disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)-were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment-related toxicities were assessed using the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria. RESULTS: The study accrued 10 men and 5 women of median age 64 years (range: 48-80 years) and TNM stages T3N0 (n = 1), T2N1 (n = 2), T3N1 (n = 11), and T4N1 (n = 1). Histopathology included 5 adenocarcinomas and 10 squamous-cell carcinomas. Resection margins were clear in 10 patients. The median follow-up time was 19 months (range: 3.5-53.4 months). Before radiation therapy commenced, delay in chemotherapy occurred in 20% of patients, and dose reduction was required in 13.3%. During the concurrent chemoradiation therapy phase, 20% of the patients experienced chemotherapy delay, and 6.6% experienced dose reduction. No patient experienced treatment-related acute and chronic esophagitis above grade 2. Disease recurred in 40% of the patients (6/15), and median time to relapse was 24 months. No tumour recurred at the anastomotic site. The median DFS was 23 months, and the median OS was 21 months. CONCLUSIONS: Extended-volume external-beam RT encompassing the tumour bed and the anastomotic site is feasible and safe for high-risk T3-4, N0-1 esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".