We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Towards an Organ-Sparing Approach for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.
Digestive Surgery 2019
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance after neoadjuvant therapies has emerged among several malignancies. During active surveillance, frequent assessments are performed to detect residual disease and surgery is only reserved for those patients in whom residual disease is proven or highly suspected without distant metastases. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), nearly one-third of esophageal cancer patients achieve a pathologically complete response (pCR). Both patients that achieve a pCR and patients that harbor subclinical disseminated disease after nCRT could benefit from an active surveillance strategy.
SUMMARY: Esophagectomy is still the cornerstone of treatment in patients with esophageal cancer. Non-surgical treatment via definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is currently reserved only for patients not eligible for esophagectomy. Since salvage esophagectomy after dCRT (50-60 Gy) results in increased complications, morbidity and mortality compared to surgery after nCRT (41.4 Gy), the latter seems preferable in the setting of active surveillance. Clinical response evaluations can detect substantial (i.e., tumor regression grade [TRG] 3-4) tumors after nCRT with a sensitivity of 90%, minimizing the risk of development of non-resectable recurrences. Current scarce and retrospective literature suggests that active surveillance following nCRT might not jeopardize overall survival and postponed surgery could be performed safely. Key Message: Before an active surveillance approach could be considered standard treatment, results of phase III randomized trials should be awaited.
SUMMARY: Esophagectomy is still the cornerstone of treatment in patients with esophageal cancer. Non-surgical treatment via definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is currently reserved only for patients not eligible for esophagectomy. Since salvage esophagectomy after dCRT (50-60 Gy) results in increased complications, morbidity and mortality compared to surgery after nCRT (41.4 Gy), the latter seems preferable in the setting of active surveillance. Clinical response evaluations can detect substantial (i.e., tumor regression grade [TRG] 3-4) tumors after nCRT with a sensitivity of 90%, minimizing the risk of development of non-resectable recurrences. Current scarce and retrospective literature suggests that active surveillance following nCRT might not jeopardize overall survival and postponed surgery could be performed safely. Key Message: Before an active surveillance approach could be considered standard treatment, results of phase III randomized trials should be awaited.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app