Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Esophageal Cancer J. Timothy Sherwood MD Thoracic Surgeon Virginia Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery Mary Washington Hospital Fredericksburg, VA Assistant Professor of Surgery The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Baltimore, MD Esophageal Cancer EPIDEMIOLOGY OF ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA USA - 5 cases per 100,000 Iran, China, Russia - 500 cases per 100,000 Risk factors for squamous cell cancer Geography, age, sex, race (> black men), smoking (5-10 times) Alcohol, dietary and nutritional factors Risk factors for adenocarcinoma Increased incidence in last 10-15 years (> white male) Barrett’s esophagus (50%) PROFILE OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN THE UNITED STATES Represents approximately 1% of all cancers Annual incidence of 4 per 100,000 population Estimated 12,300 new cases in 1998 Estimated 11,900 deaths in 1998 Male-to-female ratio of 3-4:1 Median age is 67 (adenocarcinoma occurs most often in fourth decade of life) Death rate among African-Americans is 3 times that of whites Squamous cell carcinoma mainly affects African-Americans 95% of patients with adenocarcinoma are young white males BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS AND ESOPHAGEAL CANCER Precise definition difficult Incidence of cancer in Barrett’s mucosa is increasing Risk of cancer 50-100 times normal Dysplasia precedes malignancy Low grade dysplasia often remains stable or regresses High grade dysplasia is equivalent to carcinoma in situ High grade dysplasia predicts imminent or existing cancer (50%) 75% of resected cancers are associated with adjacent high grade dysplasia Endoscopic surveillances detects cancer early and improves survival Barrett’s Esophagus Columnar epithelium replaces squamous “Specialized intestinal metaplasia” White males Increased incidence of adenocarcinoma Long segment vs short segment Natural History of Dysplasia Low-grade dysplasia <50% interobserver agreement 10-28% incidence of HGD or Adenoca in 5 years High-grade dysplasia 85% path agreement Study: – 76 pts; 5 yr follow-up • 59% incidence of adenocarcinoma – 100 pts; 8 yr f/u • 32% incidence of adenocarcinoma 1/3 of patients have invasive cancer at esophagectomy Variable progression of dysplasia Studies: 48 pts w/ LGD – 10% progressed to high-grade dysplasia, 1 patient w/ adenoca at 41 months 43 pts w/ LGD – 12% progressed to adenoca in 60 months Risk of Adenocarcinoma Barrett’s 6 patients: prospective studies Mean annual incidence: 1% 30-fold higher risk than general population Treatment of Barrett’s Treatment of associated GERD Endoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia Treatment of dysplasia Treatment of High-Grade Dysplasia Esophagectomy Endoscopic ablative therapy YAG Laser Photodynamic therapy Endoscopic mucosal resection Chemoprevention NSAIDS – COX2 inhibitors – Meta-analysis- 9 studies: 43% decrease in ca Intensive surveillance PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS OF THE ESOPHAGUS Barrett’s Esophagus Lye Stricture Tylosis Plummer-Vinson Syndrome Celiac Sprue Zenker’s Diverticulum Achalasia Chagas Disease RISK FACTORS Cultural patterns Tobacco use Alcohol consumption (particularly whiskey) Diet High-nitrosamine foods Vitamin-deficient diets (particularly vitamins C and E deficient) Micronutrient deficiency (eg, niacin, magnesium, molybdenum, zinc and riboflavin) Scalding beverages Head and neck cancers Obesity (3 fold higher risk) RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER Barium swallow and endoscopy are complimentary in early detection CT pathologic correlation shows a sensitivity and specificity of 50%, with an overall accuracy 40-70% CT is useful in the detection of distant metastasis CT is useful as surveillance tool postoperatively MRI does not have a defined role Laparoscopy and PET scanning Diagnosis of Esophageal Cancer EsophagusMalignant Esophageal Cancer Squamous Cell Ca Mid-esophagus Adenocarcinoma Distal Esophagus Endoscopy Fungating mass at distal esophagus ENDOSONOGRAPHY IN ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA Most noteworthy advance in gastrointestinal endoscopy during this decade Provides detailed images of the esophageal wall and adjacent structures utilizing ultrasound technology Ideally suited for staging esophageal cancer Better than CT in assessing depth of tumor infiltration (T stage) and regional lymphadenopathy Endoscopic Ultrasound Gives detailed anatomic information on local tumor involvement T Depth of penetration N Lymph node involvement PET Scanning for Esophageal Cancer Staging Evolving Probably Standard of Care Use for extraregional staging Not lymph nodes Changes Management in 5% to 30% TNM STAGE GROUPING AND STANDARD TREATMENT STAGE Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage IIA Tis N0 Stage IV T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T4 Any T Stage IVA Stage IVB Any T Any N M1a Any T Any N M1b Stage IIB Stage III N0 N0 N0 N1 N1 N1 Any N Any N M0 M0 M0 M0 M0 M0 M0 M0 M1 STANDARD TREATMENT Surgery, ?radiation, chemoradiation; ?hematoporphyrins Surgery or Chemoradiation Surgery or Chemoradiation Surgery or Chemoradiation Chemoradiation Surgery for T3 tumors Radiation therapy intraluminal intubation and dilation chemotherapy Surgical Resection SURGICAL TREATMENT OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER Extent of esophageal resection Extent of dissection Conduit alternatives Stomach, colon, jejunum Surgical approaches Right thoracic (Ivor-Lewis), right thoracotomy-abdominal-cervical Left thoracotomy, left thoracoabdominal, left thoracoabdominal cervical Transhiatal esophagectomy Trans-sternal Video assisted esophagectomy STANDARD SURGICAL APPROACHES FOR ESOPHAGECTOMY Technique Procedures Comments Transthoracic (Ivor Lewis) Laparotomy: preparation of gastric conduit; lymph node dissection Right thoracotomy to mobilize and resect esophagus Intra thoracic anastomosis Near-total thoracic esophagectomy One of the two most common techniques in North America Transhiatal Laparotomy: preparation of gastric conduit; lymph node dissection Left neck exploration; mobilization of esophagus Transhiatal resection Cervical anastomosis Less radical than en block. Best for tumors below inferior pulmonary ligament, especially at gastroesophageal junction One of the two most common techniques in North America Esophagogastrostomy “Gastric Pullup” Mobilization of Stomach Lengthening of the stomach Drainage of the stomach Transpositioning of the stomach Anastomosis Gastric Pullup Mobilization of stomach and drainage procedure Gastric Pullup Creation of gastric tube for esophageal replacement Transhiatal Esophagectomy Transhiatal Esophagectomy “THE” Denk 1913 Turner 1933 Ong 1960 Antethoracic tunnel First pharyngogastric anastomosis Kirk 1974 Thomas 1977 Orringer 1974 stages Abdominal stage Left cervical incision – anastomosis Transposition of Stomach Gastric Pullup Cervical Anastomosis Ivor Lewis Right Thoracotomy SURVIVAL BY DISEASE STAGE Stage 5-Year Survival Rate (%) 0 (Tis, N0, M0) >90 1 (T1, N0, M0) >50-80 IIA (T2 or T3, N0, M0) 15-30 IIB (T1 or T2, N1, M0) 10-30 III (T3, N1, M0 or T4, any N, M0) IV (any T, any N, M1) <10-20 Rare NEOADJUVANT THERAPY OF ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA Rationale Reducing bulk and downstaging tumor Eradicating tumor in lymph nodes Reducing tumor dissemination during surgery Prevention of chemo resistant clones Assessment of tumor responsiveness Delivery prior to surgical disruption of blood supply NEOADJUVANT THERAPY OF ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA Preoperative RT (randomized trial) Can reduce tumor bulk, render some specimens sterile, does not increase postoperative mortality or morbidity, resection rate or long-term survival Preoperative chemoradiation therapy Complete responders with documented pathologic remission have better survival (5 yr - 40%) Operability and resectability rates high Randomized trials ongoing Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113): a random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 20;25(24):3719-25. 216 patients received preoperative chemotherapy, 227 underwent immediate surgery no difference in overall survival for patients receiving perioperative chemotherapy compared with the surgery only group Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in esophageal carcinoma: a metaanalysis The Lancet Oncology - Volume 8, Issue 3 (March 2007) Ten randomized comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1209) and eight of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1724) in patients with local operable esophageal carcinoma were identified A significant survival benefit was evident for preoperative chemoradiotherapy…….The findings provide an evidencebased framework for the use of neoadjuvant treatment in management decisions. American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system does not accurately predict survival in patients receiving multimodality therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 10;25(5):507-12. Thoracic Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA. [email protected] The current AJCC staging system is not a good predictor of survival after CRT. Although patients with a pCR do have improved long-term survival relative to patients with residual disease, this method places too much emphasis on residual depth of invasion and fails to identify patients with residual disease who have good long-term survival. Recursive partitioning analysis more accurately identifies nodal disease and metastatic disease as the most important prognostic variables. Degree of treatment response is less prognostic than nodal involvement. Proposed Revision of the Esophageal Cancer Staging System to Accommodate Pathologic Response (pP) Following Preoperative Chemoradiation (CRT) The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Annals of Surgery. Volume 241(5), May 2005, pp 810-820 Our analyses demonstrate that following CRT, pTNM continues to predict survival. The extent of pathologic response following CRT is an independent risk factor for survival (pP) and should be incorporated in the pTNM esophageal cancer staging system to better predict patient outcome in esophageal cancer Esophageal Cancer Increasing Incidence Presents at later stage Overall poor survival, but improving Increasing evidence for neoadjuvant therapy / Surgery improving outcomes