Skip Navigation LinksHome > April 2013 - Volume 8 - Issue 4 > Trimodality Therapy for Stage II–III Carcinoma of the Esopha...
Journal of Thoracic Oncology:
doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182829bf3
Original Articles

Trimodality Therapy for Stage II–III Carcinoma of the Esophagus: A Dose-Ranging Study of Concurrent Capecitabine, Docetaxel, and Thoracic Radiotherapy

Wood, Matthew D. MD, PhD*†‡; Zaki, Bassem I. MD*†; Gordon, Stuart R. MD*†; Sutton, John E. Jr MD*†; Lisovsky, Mikhail MD, PhD*†; Gui, Jiang PhD*†; Bubis, Jeffrey A. DO, FACP*†§; Dragnev, Konstantin H. MD*†; Rigas, James R. MD*†

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

*Comprehensive Thoracic Oncology Program, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Norris Cotton Cancer Center, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California (current affiliation); and §Cancer Specialists of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida.

Presented in part at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, New Orleans, Lousiana, June 6, 2004 and reported at the 48th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Chicago, Illinois, June 1, 2012.

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Address for correspondence: James R. Rigas, MD, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756. E-mail: james.r.rigas@dartmouth.edu

Collapse Box

Abstract

Purpose: This dose-escalation study was performed to determine the recommended phase II dose of oral capecitabine to be delivered concurrently with thoracic radiation therapy and weekly docetaxel in patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma.

Methods: Patients with operable stage II or III esophageal carcinoma were staged by endoscopic ultrasonography and computed tomography. Two cycles of docetaxel (80 mg/m2) and carboplatin (target area under the concentration-time curve: 6 mg/ml × min) were delivered over 6 weeks. This was followed by concurrent weekly docetaxel (15 mg/m2), thoracic radiotherapy (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions), and increasing doses of capecitabine (500–3500 mg) given before each fraction of radiotherapy. After restaging, responding patients continued to esophagectomy within 4 to 8 weeks of completing chemoradiotherapy.

Results: Forty-four patients were enrolled, and 40 were assessable for the dose-ranging component of concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Endoscopic ultrasonography stages at enrollment were T3N1 (29 patients), T3N0 (4 patients), T2N1 (6 patients), and T4N0 (one patient). The maximum tolerated dose of capecitabine was 3500 mg. Thirty-six patients had surgery; 83% had R0 resection, and 17% had pathological complete response. Median overall survival was 23.5 months, with 34 and 27% alive at 3 and 5 years.

Conclusion: The recommended phase II dose of capecitabine is 3500 mg when given concurrently with 50.4 Gy of thoracic radiotherapy in 28 fractions and weekly docetaxel. This trimodality therapy for operable locally advanced esophageal carcinoma was very well tolerated and remarkably active. This regimen holds promise for the treatment of esophageal carcinoma and warrants further investigation.

Esophageal cancer is predicted to afflict 16,980 individuals in 2011, causing 14,710 deaths in that year.1 The disease has a poor outcome, with a 16.8% 5-year survival rate, largely because most patients present with regional or distant spread of disease.2 Surgical resection is a mainstay of treatment for stage II–III disease, but locoregional and systemic recurrence is common. Consequently, a number of clinical studies have focused on identifying neoadjuvant therapies to prevent recurrence and improve survival.

Numerous studies have evaluated the role for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in surgically resectable esophageal carcinoma.3–5 A recent meta-analysis of neoadjuvant therapy trials encompassing 4188 patients showed that the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.78 for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 0.87 for neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with surgery alone.6 As the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy gained attention, a series of retrospective analyses indicated that addition of an intensive induction chemotherapy regimen before concomitant chemoradiotherapy and surgery further improves outcomes.7,8 Numerous phase II trials evaluating the induction chemotherapy have shown that such regimens can be well tolerated and highly active, but results have varied widely because of the variation in agents, schedules, and dosing.9–19 In the absence of an accepted optimal approach, one focus for current trials is to identify regimens that maximize the quality of life and have minimal toxicity while maintaining acceptable clinical response and overall survival (OS).

The pyrimidine analog 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is one of the most often studied chemotherapeutic agents in esophageal cancer.20 This agent requires central venous access for delivery, which carries a risk of infection and being inconvenient for patients. Capecitabine is an orally bioavailable prodrug of 5’-deoxy-5-fluorouridine, which is converted to 5-FU in tumor cells because of high expression of the converting enzyme thymidine phosphorylase in human carcinomas.21 Capecitabine has shown promise in phase I and phase II studies for the treatment of esophageal cancer.22–25 High tumor expression of thymidine phosphorylase and its association with capecitabine responsiveness suggests a potentially valuable role for this agent in the treatment esophageal cancer.26

Docetaxel and paclitaxel are taxane class agents that stabilize microtubules and interfere with cell division. Both the agents have a broad spectrum of antitumor activity, and both have been studied in esophageal cancer.27–29 Taxane treatment increases the expression of thymidine phosphorylase in mouse models of breast and colorectal cancer.30,31 Therefore, treatment regimens containing docetaxel and capecitabine may have high therapeutic value because of a synergistic effect between these two agents. Preliminary studies of capecitabine and docetaxel combination therapy showed that these agents are well tolerated and highly active, but the study was limited by a small sample size and limited follow-up.32 The goal of this trial was to integrate oral capecitabine into a trimodal therapeutic regimen including induction chemotherapy followed by combination chemoradiotherapy and surgical resection. Capecitabine dosing was titrated upward during chemoradiotherapy, and patients were monitored for the primary outcome of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Secondary outcomes were OS, relapse-free survival (RFS), the rate of pathological complete response (pCR), and the rate of complete surgical resection.

Back to Top | Article Outline

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patient Selection

Previously untreated patients with locally advanced, surgically resectable cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal (GE) junction, clinical stage II–III (T2-4N0M0, T1-4N1M0) with histologic or cytologic evidence of adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma confirmed by the Department of Pathology at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center were eligible. Patients having gastric cancer with minor involvement of the GE junction or distal esophagus were not eligible, nor were patients with cancer of the cervical esophagus. Celiac lymph node metastases were considered regional lymph node involvement (N1). Patients were required to be older than 18 years, with Karnofsky performance status greater than or equal to 70%, and with adequate organ function defined by leukocytes greater than or equal to 3000 per cubic millimeter, platelets greater than or equal to 100,000 per cubic millimeter, bilirubin less than or equal to the upper limit of normal, serum transaminase (aspartate transaminase or alanine aminotransferase) less than or equal to five times the upper limit of normal, serum creatinine less than or equal to 1.5 mg/dl, or creatinine clearance of 50 mg × min/dl. Patients were not permitted to have previous chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or chest/abdominal radiotherapy. Patients with any of the following were excluded: clinically apparent metastatic disease (brain, bone, pulmonary, or liver metastases, or positive cytology of the pleura, pericardium, or peritoneum), clinically evident metastatic disease of the cervical or supraclavicular lymph nodes, grade greater than or equal to 2 peripheral neuropathy, serum calcium greater than 12 mg/dl, recurrent laryngeal or phrenic nerve paralysis, tracheobronchial tree involvement, tracheoesophageal fistula, concurrent active malignancy other than nonmelanoma skin cancer or carcinoma in situ of the cervix, or uncontrolled intercurrent medical illness. The study was performed in accordance with the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at Dartmouth College and monitored by the Data Monitoring Committee of the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth. All patients signed a Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects–approved informed consent before enrollment.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Clinical Staging

Initial evaluation included computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest and upper abdomen, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), laboratory tests, and radiation therapy simulation all completed within 4 weeks of enrollment. A bone scan was performed in patients with abnormal alkaline phosphatase levels in the setting of normal aspartate transaminase, or patients with new-onset bone pain. A screening magnetic resonance imaging or CT scan of the brain was performed for a recent history of headache or new focal neurologic findings. EUS was performed with an Olympus gastroscope (Olympus America, Center Valley, PA) under conscious sedation in the usual manner. At the time of initial clinical staging, biopsies were taken for evaluation by the Department of Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. Before surgical resection, patients were restaged by repeat CT scans of the chest and upper abdomen and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with EUS.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Treatment Plan

In the induction phase, patients were treated with two cycles of docetaxel (80 mg/m2) and carboplatin (target area under the concentration-time curve: 6 mg/ml × min) every 21 days for 6 weeks. In the concurrent chemoradiotheraputic (CCRT) phase, all patients received weekly docetaxel (15 mg/m2) and external beam radiotherapy (50.4 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction in 28 fractions, delivered Monday through Friday). The patients underwent CT simulation in an immobilized state, with arms up using a wing-board and vac-bag. All patients underwent three-dimensional treatment planning. The dose was calculated using tissue heterogeneity corrections. The planned treatment volume 1 (PTV1) included the gross tumor volume with a 4- to 5-cm proximal and distal margins and 1.5 to 2 cm circumferential margins. The celiac nodes were electively covered in distal and GE junction carcinomas. The planned treatment volume 2 (PTV2) was designed with a 1.5- to 2-cm margin around the gross tumor volume. Margins around the grossly positive nodes were kept at 1 to 1.5 cm in both PTV1 and PTV2. PTV1 received 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions. A boost of 9 Gy in five fractions was delivered to PTV2. The constraints for the organs at risk were kept under tolerance: less than 32% of the lung volumes received more than 20 Gy, less than 50% of the heart volume received more than 40 Gy, and the maximum dose to any point on the spinal cord was kept less than 45 Gy. Before each fraction of radiotherapy, patients took a set dose of oral capecitabine ranging from 500 mg at dose level I to 3500 mg at dose level VII, in 500-mg increments. DLT was defined as any grade 3 or higher toxicity, which did not return to grade 2 or lower within 3 weeks from the completion of treatment, or any grade toxicity that resulted in a treatment break longer than 1 week. Initially, three patients were enrolled at dose level I. If one or more patients developed DLT, three more patients were enrolled at the same dose level. If there was no DLT, the next three patients were enrolled at the next incremental dose level. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as the dose of capecitabine at which 33% of patients experience a DLT. This experimental design follows the approach outlined by Storer for DLT studies.33

Back to Top | Article Outline
Efficacy Analysis

The primary outcome for this study is the occurrence of DLT during the escalation phase of concomitant chemoradiotherapy treatment. Secondary outcomes include changes in patient weight and performance status after chemoradiotherapy, frequency of minor toxicity, OS, RFS, disease-specific survival, curative surgical resection rate, and pCR rate. All survival outcomes were determined from the date of study enrollment. RFS was measured to the date of documented disease progression, incomplete surgical resection, or death from any cause. OS was measured to the date of death from any cause, regardless of the disease status. Disease-specific survival was measured to the date of death from esophageal cancer or complications of surgery, with other causes of death censored at the time of death. Patients who were living or lost to follow-up without progressive disease were censored at the date of the last documented clinical encounter. Surgical outcomes were defined as (1) R0: curative resection, all gross disease removed, surgical margins free of tumor; (2) R1: palliative resection, gross tumor left behind, or positive surgical margins on pathology; or (3) R2: no resection, primary tumor could not be removed. Positive radial margins were considered R1 resection. pCR was defined as the absence of residual carcinoma at the primary site on microscopic examination. Microscopic residual disease (MRD) was defined as the presence of only single cancer cells or small groups of cancer cells in the background of fibrosis, according to the reporting pathologist. Significant residual disease was defined as multiple residual cancer cells in the background of fibrosis or as residual carcinoma without evidence of treatment effect. All cases that were downstaged to ypT0 or ypT1 had slides reviewed by a pathologist for pCR or MRD, regardless of the nodal or distant disease. Surgical mortality was defined as death within 30 days of the surgical procedure.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

Patient Characteristics

Forty-four patients were enrolled. Four patients were replaced during the induction phase – two because of the discovery of metastatic disease during staging, one because of withdrawal of consent before treatment, and one because of death from a nonneoplastic cause (cerebrovascular accident). Demographical and clinical characteristics of the 40 patients who initiated induction are summarized in Table 1. Patients had a median age of 63 years (range, 47–87 years), 32 patients (80%) were men, and 36 patients (90%) had adenocarcinoma. Clinical stages at enrollment were T3N1 (n = 29, 72.5%), T2N1 (n = 6, 15%), T3N0 (n = 4, 10%), and T4N0 (n = 1, 2.5%) with disease involving the distal esophagus (n = 12, 30%), the distal esophagus and the GE junction (n = 19, 47.5%), or both these areas and the cardia of the stomach (n = 8, 20%). One patient (2.5%) had disease of the midesophagus. The accrual and treatment course of the cohort is shown in Figure 1. During the CCRT phase, one patient died from acute respiratory distress syndrome, whereas two patients withdrew consent for low-grade toxicity. Both of these patients later continued to surgery: one had surgical resection, whereas the other was found to have liver metastases, so no resection was performed. Of 37 patients who completed CCRT, one declined surgery and one transitioned to hospice care, whereas the remaining 35 patients proceeded to surgery. The total number of patients having resection was therefore 36 (90% of those who received induction), one of whom did not complete the full course of CCRT. Thirty-three of 36 patients survived the surgical and postoperative period, for a surgical mortality rate of 8.3%. One patient was found to have stage IV disease at the time of surgery.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools
Figure 1
Figure 1
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Safety Parameters

There were seven DLTs in CCRT phase, occurring across five different doses of capecitabine (Table 2). Two patients had grade 3 dysphagia (at 500 and 1500 mg capecitabine), one patient had thrombocytopenia (at 1500 mg), one had grade 3 fatigue (at 3000 mg), and one had grade 3 pneumonitis (at 3500 mg). Two patients at 3500 mg withdrew consent for toxicities – one for severe nausea and one for persistent neuropathy. Although these were objectively less than grade 3 or 4 events, the patients were unable to tolerate these toxic effects and declined further participation in the study. Because of the clinical impact of these events and the associated prolonged treatment interruption, we considered them to be dose limiting. Therefore, from a total of nine patients treated at 3500 mg, three patients (33.3%) had DLT, meeting the definition for maximally tolerated dose.

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools

All grade 3 or 4 toxicities (including the dose-limiting toxicities) that occurred among patients receiving CCRT are enumerated in Table 3. The most common nonhematologic event was dysphagia, occurring in six patients (15%). The most common hematologic toxicity was absolute neutrophil content abnormality during induction, occurring in 10 patients (25%). More than half of the participants had no events of grade 3 or higher (n = 23, 58%), and several categories of adverse event never occurred with severity above grade 2.

Table 3
Table 3
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Efficacy Parameters

The median follow-up time was 18.5 months. OS and RFS were computed from 40 patients who started induction therapy, measured from the time of enrollment (Fig. 2). The median OS was 23.5 months, with 62, 34, and 27% of patients alive at 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up. The median RFS was 15.6 months, with 63% of patients free from relapse at 1 year. The 3- and 5-year RFSs were both 37%. The median disease-specific survival was 28.1 months (Fig. 3A).

Figure 2
Figure 2
Image Tools
Figure 3
Figure 3
Image Tools

Thirty-six patients had surgical resection, with the vast majority (30 of 36, 83%) having R0 resection. One of the patients with R0 resection of the primary tumor was found to have a single nodule of metastatic disease embedded in the abdominal wall, which was completely resected. Five patients had R1 resection, with tumor microscopically present at the proximal, distal, or radial margins. Two of these patients had positive radial margins, and two others had isolated tumor cells in lymphovascular spaces. Only one patient had microscopic extension of the primary tumor to a proximal or distal margin. One patient had gross residual disease involving the chest wall and was classified as R2. Six patients (16.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.5–28.8%) had a pCR at the primary site, and an additional five patients had microscopic foci of residual tumor cells at the primary site. Based on evidence that MRD and pCR have identical outcomes with respect to OS, we considered these two groups together.34 We found that 11 patients (30.6%; 95% CI: 15.5–45.6%) who had pCR or MRD had a median survival of 86.6 months, compared with a median survival of 19.1 months for 25 patients who had a greater extend of residual disease. The pCR/MRD group had a 61.4% survival rate at both 3 and 5 years, compared with 27.5% at 3 years and 18.4% at 5 years for patients with significant residual disease (Fig. 3B). This result was statistically significant by the log-rank test, with a p value of 0.026.

Nineteen of 37 patients (51%) who completed CCRT had a stable or improved Karnofsky performance status, whereas 13 patients (35%) dropped by 10%, and five patients (14%) dropped by 20%. No patient dropped their performance status to less than 70%. The average weight loss among CCRT patients was 4.6 kg. Six patients (15%) required a feeding tube before surgery, and in three of these patients, the feeding tube was required because of the tumor causing obstruction of the esophagus rather than toxicity from the chemoradiotherapy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

Esophageal cancer presents a therapeutic challenge because of the advanced stage of disease at clinical presentation and frequent local recurrence. One approach to therapy consists of an intensive chemotherapeutic regimen, followed by lower doses of chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy. This approach may improve local disease control, achieve downstaging for easier surgical resection, and treat occult metastatic disease. Such regimens, however, can carry significant toxicity. Capecitabine and docetaxel are promising agents for such trimodal therapy, because of potential synergistic effects, reduced toxicity, and easy delivery. We investigated a trimodal regimen including phase 2 dose escalation of capecitabine in patients with resectable esophageal cancer and found that this regimen produced excellent median and 5-year survival, with a low burden of toxicity.

Several recent phase 2 studies have evaluated trimodal therapies in esophageal carcinoma, including both adenomatous and squamous histology, with a high-intensity induction chemotherapy phase before concomitant chemoradiotherapy (Table 4). The rates of R0 resections have ranged from 76 to 100%. By comparison, our study achieved a reasonable rate of 83% R0 resection. In four of five R1 resections, disease extended to the radial margins or to the lyphovascular space, whereas only one case had a microscopically positive margin at the proximal or distal aspect. Therefore, even in cases that were strictly defined as R1, the degree of marginal disease was minimal, suggesting a potent therapeutic effect. In the same set of studies, pCR rates among patients who had resection ranged from 20 to 40%, whereas our study achieved a pCR rate of 17% and pCR/MRD rate of 30.6%. This may be a result of the sample size, and in fact, the 95% CI for our response rate overlaps with many of the response rates in previous studies. This may reflect the range of efficacy for this trimodal regimen; it must be noted that our surgical outcomes are confounded by the dose-escalation aspect of the chemoradiotherapy phase. It is possible that using the MTD of capecitabine (3500 mg) would produce better and less variable results. Furthermore, recent reports have found that tumor histology can influence the treatment response. Specifically, patients with squamous cell carcinoma are more likely to achieve a pCR, but they are also more prone to distal recurrence.35 Therefore, one factor potentially explaining our lower than expected pCR rate may be a higher frequency of adenocarcinoma compared with most other studies (Table 4). In this cohort, 34 patients (85%) had T3 or higher staging at enrollment, which is comparable to other studies. Compared with a landmark clinical trial of 5-FU and cisplatin, this regimen produced a superior median OS (23.5 versus 18 months) and 3-year survival (34 compared with 25%).36

Table 4
Table 4
Image Tools

As expected, we observed that patients having either pCR or MRD had a better 5-year survival compared with patients with a greater burden of residual disease. Although there is evidence that these two categories can be considered together, Verlato et al. recently reported that the prognostic value of absent or scattered residual cancer cells varies depending on node status.37 Considering that the main goal of this work is to define MTD of capecitabine, and consequently we have a small number of patients in the cohort, we do not believe it is appropriate to draw any firm conclusions on the prognostic value of pCR versus MRD in our population.

One advantage of this regimen is the overall tolerability. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurred in a minority of patients and was largely limited to dysphagia, nausea/vomiting, and laboratory abnormalities. Few patients required a feeding tube before surgery, indicating that induction therapy helped to preserve swallowing function, which enabled delivery of oral capecitabine. These results are consistent with data from a smaller set of patients who were treated with a capecitabine-/docetaxel-based regimen.32 One limitation of our study is that at the highest tolerated dose level of capecitabine (3500 mg), two of the patients had objectively low-grade toxicities that resulted in withdrawal from the study. It is possible that higher doses of capecitabine might be tolerated without producing grade 3 or higher toxicities, but our study was limited by our definition of DLT to include prolonged treatment breaks. We concluded that 3500-mg capecitabine was the highest practically achievable dose and an appropriate end point for a MTD study.

In conclusion, a trimodal approach including capecitabine and docetaxel was well tolerated and produced acceptable OS rates, although the pathological response rate was low compared with other studies. The low pCR rate was a surprising result, but we believe the high tolerability and favorable survival outcomes make a strong case for further studies with the MTD of capecitabine, where better pCR rates might be attained. Despite the low pCR rate, OS was comparable to other studies, and this is a more direct outcome. We identified 3500 mg as the MTD of capecitabine in this regimen. We suggest that survival and response might be further improved by treating with the maximum tolerated capecitabine dose. High-grade toxicity was uncommon. This method of treatment warrants further investigation and has the potential to prolong survival and increase quality of life among patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding provided by Sanofi-Aventis and National Institute of Health, 5P30 CA023108-33. Capecitabine supplied by Hoffmann-La Roche.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:212–236

2. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Esophagus, Update.

3. Walsh TN, Noonan N, Hollywood D, Kelly A, Keeling N, Hennessy TP. A comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:462–467

4. Forastiere AA, Orringer MB, Perez-Tamayo C, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy followed by transhiatal esophagectomy for local-regional cancer of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:119–127

5. Urba SG, Orringer MB, Turrisi A, Iannettoni M, Forastiere A, Strawderman M. Randomized trial of preoperative chemoradiation versus surgery alone in patients with locoregional esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:305–313

6. Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, et al.Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group. Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:681–692

7. Jin J, Liao Z, Zhang Z, et al. Induction chemotherapy improved outcomes of patients with resectable esophageal cancer who received chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:427–436

8. Malaisrie SC, Hofstetter WL, Correa AM, et al. The addition of induction chemotherapy to preoperative, concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves tumor response in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2006;107:967–974

9. Bains MS, Stojadinovic A, Minsky B, et al. A phase II trial of preoperative combined-modality therapy for localized esophageal carcinoma: initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;124:270–277

10. De Vita F, Orditura M, Martinelli E, et al. A multicenter phase II study of induction chemotherapy with FOLFOX-4 and cetuximab followed by radiation and cetuximab in locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:427–432

11. Ruhstaller T, Widmer L, Schuller JC, et al.Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). Multicenter phase II trial of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation with docetaxel and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma (SAKK 75/02). Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1522–1528

12. Ruhstaller T, Pless M, Dietrich D, et al. Cetuximab in combination with chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable, locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a prospective, multicenter phase IB/II Trial (SAKK 75/06). J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:626–631

13. Ajani JA, Komaki R, Putnam JB, et al. A three-step strategy of induction chemotherapy then chemoradiation followed by surgery in patients with potentially resectable carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Cancer. 2001;92:279–286

14. Ajani JA, Walsh G, Komaki R, et al. Preoperative induction of CPT-11 and cisplatin chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in patients with locoregional carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Cancer. 2004;100:2347–2354

15. Ajani JA, Correa AM, Walsh GL, et al. Trimodality therapy without a platinum compound for localized carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Cancer. 2010;116:1656–1663

16. Henry LR, Goldberg M, Scott W, et al. Induction cisplatin and paclitaxel followed by combination chemoradiotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, and paclitaxel before resection in localized esophageal cancer: a phase II report. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:214–220

17. Swisher SG, Ajani JA, Komaki R, et al. Long-term outcome of phase II trial evaluating chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and surgery for locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:120–127

18. Choong NW, Mauer AM, Haraf DC, et al. Long-term outcome of a phase II study of docetaxel-based multimodality chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Med Oncol. 2011;28(Suppl 1):S152–S161

19. Eisterer W, de Vries A, Kendler D, et al. Triple induction chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. a phase II study. Anticancer Res. 2011;31:4407–4412

20. Kelsen DP, Ilson DH. Chemotherapy and combined-modality therapy for esophageal cancer. Chest. 1995;107(Suppl 6):224S–232S

21. Dooley M, Goa KL. Capecitabine. Drugs. 1999;58:69–76; discussion 77–78

22. Koo DH, Park SI, Kim YH, et al. Phase II study of use of a single cycle of induction chemotherapy and concurrent chemoradiotherapy containing capecitabine/cisplatin followed by surgery for patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: long-term follow-up data. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;69:655–663

23. Yun T, Han JY, Lee JS, et al. Phase II study of weekly paclitaxel and capecitabine in patients with metastatic or recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:385

24. Cunningham D, Okines AF, Ashley S. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:858–859

25. Spigel DR, Greco FA, Meluch AA, et al. Phase I/II trial of preoperative oxaliplatin, docetaxel, and capecitabine with concurrent radiation therapy in localized carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2213–2219

26. Lee S, Park YH, Kim KH, et al. Thymidine synthase, thymidine phosphorylase, and excision repair cross-complementation group 1 expression as predictive markers of capecitabine plus cisplatin chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2010;103:845–851

27. Ajani JA, Moiseyenko VM, Tjulandin S, et al. Clinical benefit with docetaxel plus fluorouracil and cisplatin compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil in a phase III trial of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer adenocarcinoma: the V-325 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3205–3209

28. Ajani JA, Moiseyenko VM, Tjulandin S, et al. Quality of life with docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil from a phase III trial for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: the V-325 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3210–3216

29. Lorenzen S, Duyster J, Lersch C, et al. Capecitabine plus docetaxel every 3 weeks in first- and second-line metastatic oesophageal cancer: final results of a phase II trial. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:2129–2133

30. Endo M, Shinbori N, Fukase Y, et al. Induction of thymidine phosphorylase expression and enhancement of efficacy of capecitabine or 5’-deoxy-5-fluorouridine by cyclophosphamide in mammary tumor models. Int J Cancer. 1999;83:127–134

31. Sawada N, Ishikawa T, Fukase Y, Nishida M, Yoshikubo T, Ishitsuka H. Induction of thymidine phosphorylase activity and enhancement of capecitabine efficacy by taxol/taxotere in human cancer xenografts. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4:1013–1019

32. Rao S, Oelschlager B, Koh WJ, et al. Phase I trial with weekly docetaxel, capecitabine and carboplatin followed by concomitant capecitabine and radiation in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:abstr 15501

33. Storer BE. Design and analysis of phase I clinical trials. Biometrics. 1989;45:925–937

34. Mandard AM, Dalibard F, Mandard JC, et al. Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer. 1994;73:2680–2686

35. Koshy M, Greenwald BD, Hausner P, et al. Outcomes after trimodality therapy for esophageal cancer: the impact of histology on failure patterns. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34:259–264

36. Kelsen DP, Ginsberg R, Pajak TF, et al. Chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for localized esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1979–1984

37. Verlato G, Zanoni A, Tomezzoli A, et al. Response to induction therapy in oesophageal and cardia carcinoma using Mandard tumour regression grade or size of residual foci. Br J Surg. 2010;97:719–725

Esophageal carcinoma; Trimodality therapy; Capecitabine; Chemoradiotherapy; Phase 2 dose-escalation study; Clinical trial

© 2013International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.

Other Ways to Connect

Twitter
twitter.com/JTOonline

 



Visit JTO.org on your smartphone. Scan this code (QR reader app required) with your phone and be taken directly to the site.

 For additional oncology content, visit LWW Oncology Journals on Facebook.