Quantcast

Less radiation is better, again (esophagus).

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Mandelin Rain

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
2,516
Reaction score
5,678

I'm not sure how to rectify for my practice, as I have about a 25% confidence that my "neoadjuvant" patients will ultimately undergo esophagectomy even if that's the multidisciplinary plan upfront. But I think as far as meta-analyses go, this one is fairly well done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

OTN

Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
1,626
Reaction score
3,911
Bold statement to call something standard of care before a RCT is done. I don't see any reason why one couldn't be performed.
 

Lamount

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
891
Reaction score
1,574
Bold statement to call something standard of care before a RCT is done. I don't see any reason why one couldn't be performed.
I mean, the RCT that set our SOC had 41.4 Gy as the dose for neoadjuvant CRT, so a purist may argue that it already is SOC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

RADONC4285

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
73
Reaction score
147
We always do 50.4 Gy because as you pointed out many patients don't make it to surgery. Many of those RCTs likely did not use IMRT/VMAT, so toxicity is likely much better now. Just pay close attention to the heart and lung doses and 50.4 Gy should be very safe
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

metallica81788

Keeper of the Llamaworm
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
12,324
Reaction score
1,084
This doesn't matter to me as how many neoadjuvant CRTs do most of us out in the real world really see anyway? If surgeon yes definitely surgery without a quiver in tone of voice, I'm doing 41.4 no question.

How often does that actually happen? The real debate is still how much to give for definitive chemoradiation no surgery. Still ongoing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

ramsesthenice

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
1,948
I typically do 50 as well but to be fair pCR and survival in the Tepper CALGB study and CROSS were essentially identical (for both SCC and AC subtypes) despite different doses. The Tepper study closed early so the power isn't great but it does suggest that perhaps the possible pathologic gains with 50 vs 41.4 for patients that don't end up having surgery might not be that big.

I have a few issues with this analysis. First, there is not a lot of detail given to help me understand the characteristics of patients in each group. Second, they are trying to pull a bit of a fast one with the survival conclusion. Look at OS closer. At all but one timepoint its not that low dose is better than high dose. Its actually that low and high dose are similar and better than medium dose. But for PFS it looks like there is more of a negative correlation with dose. How does one see a 40% (relative) decrease in 5 year PFS between 41.4 and 50.4 with no corresponding difference in OS? Without knowing more about the groups I don't really have enough context to understand what is going on. Furthermore, I am very hard pressed to come up with a biologic reason that higher dose radiation would compromise distant disease control. Across the board decrements in survival would be easier to understand but that is not what they are getting. Seems like there is a high probability of some kind (more likely multiple kinds) of bias at play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RADONC4285

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
73
Reaction score
147
We do 50.4 for definitive because there is no convincing data that higher is better. There was a phase II MDA trial with promising results with an sib to 60 Gy to GTV. However, early results from ARTDECO show 50.4 is same as 61.6 Gy and the latter had higher tox.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Ray D. Ayshun

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
1,840
Reaction score
2,760
This feels like a finding were arguing about in a separate thread. If there was a higher pfs AND lower os with 50.4, the things we talk about re toxicity make sense. But 41.4 is not more likely to control cancer than 50.4. makes me question the inclusion criteria of the various trials, etc. I don't know anyone in the us that does 4140.
 

seper

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
1,921
Reaction score
930
Cannot trust most esophageal surgeons in my region, re: operable vs. not vs. maybe
 

evilbooyaa

Full Member
Staff member
Volunteer Staff
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
7,491
Reaction score
8,305
Have not met an esophageal cancer patient that was a slam dunk to undergo esophagectomy. Most of mine are in their 60s-70s usually with some other medical comorbidities.

Those folks are all getting 50 from me. I do 50 and 45Gy dose painting in 25 fractions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

ramsesthenice

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
1,948
Have not met an esophageal cancer patient that was a slam dunk to undergo esophagectomy. Most of mine are in their 60s-70s usually with some other medical comorbidities.

Those folks are all getting 50 from me. I do 50 and 45Gy dose painting in 25 fractions.
This is my practice too (SIB). Conceptually dose escalation makes sense but there is really no good data to support doing so. The only thing consistent is increased toxicity. That said, do I ever give into temptation and take the bigger ones to 54? Sometime yes. Some bad habits are just hard to kick even when you know better :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RadsWFA1900

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
1,946
Reaction score
2,463
Whatever...ESOPEC will make this discussion irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top