SCC was associated with a significantly higher pCR rate than adenocarcinoma. Recurrence pattern and survival outcomes were significantly different between the 2 histology subtypes in non-pCR patients.
PurposeGrade 4 lymphopenia (G4L) during radiation therapy (RT) is associated with higher rates of distant metastasis and decreased overall survival in a number of malignancies, including esophageal cancer (EC). Through a reduction in integral radiation dose, proton RT (PRT) may reduce G4L relative to photon RT (XRT). The purpose of this study was to compare G4L in patients with EC undergoing PRT versus XRT.Methods and materialsPatients receiving curative-intent RT and concurrent chemotherapy for EC were identified. Lymphocyte nadir was defined as the lowest lymphocyte count during RT. G4L was defined as absolute lymphocyte count <200/mm3. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVA) were performed to assess patient and treatment factors associated with lymphopenia. A propensity-matched (PM) cohort was created using logistic regression, including baseline covariates.ResultsA total of 144 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 66 years (range, 32-85 years). Of these patients, 79 received XRT (27% 3-dimensional chemo-RT and 73% intensity modulated RT) and 65 received PRT (100% pencil-beam scanning). Chemotherapy consisted of weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel (99%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups, except for age (median 4 years older in the PRT cohort). G4L was significantly higher in patients who received XRT versus those who received PRT (56% vs 22%; P < .01). On MVA, XRT (odds ratio [OR]: 5.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.35-11.18; P < .001) and stage III/IV (OR: 4.54; 95% CI, 1.87-11.00; P < .001) were associated with G4L. PM resulted in 50 PRT and 50 XRT patients. In the PM cohort, G4L occurred in 60% of patients who received XRT versus 24% of patients who received PRT. On MVA, XRT (OR: 5.28; 95% CI, 2.14-12.99; P < .001) and stage III/IV (OR: 3.77; 95% CI, 1.26-11.30; P = .02) were associated with G4L.ConclusionsXRT was associated with a significantly higher risk of G4L in comparison with PRT. Further work is needed to evaluate a potential association between RT modality and antitumor immunity as well as long-term outcomes.
Introduction: In patients with esophageal cancer, occurrence of severe radiation-induced lymphopenia during chemoradiation therapy has been associated with worse progression-free and overall survival. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a pretreatment clinical nomogram for the prediction of grade 4 lymphopenia. Methods and Materials: A development set of consecutive patients who underwent chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer and an independent validation set of patients from another institution were identified. Grade 4 lymphopenia was defined as an absolute lymphocyte count nadir during chemoradiation therapy of <0.2 Â 10 3 /mL. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to create a prediction model for grade 4 lymphopenia in the development set, which was internally validated using bootstrapping and externally validated by applying the model to the validation set. The model was presented as a nomogram yielding 4 risk groups. Results: Among 860 included patients, 322 (37%) experienced grade 4 lymphopenia. Higher age, larger planning target volume in interaction with lower body mass index, photon-rather than proton-based therapy, and lower baseline absolute lymphocyte count were predictive in the final model (corrected c-statistic, 0.76). External validation in 144 patients, among whom 58 (40%) had grade 4 lymphopenia, yielded a c-statistic of 0.71. Four nomogram-based risk groups yielded predicted risk rates of 10%, 24%, 43%, and 70%, respectively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.