Treatment response and prognosis of patients after recurrence of esophageal cancer.

Abstract Background. Although radical operation and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improve survival in patients with advanced esophageal cancer, more than half of these patients have recurrence. The aim of this study was to explore treatment responses and prognostic factors in patients with recurrent esophageal cancer. Methods. The operative specimens from 258 patients undergoing radical esophagectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma between 1990 and 1999 were analyzed. Depth of tumor invasion, and the extent and location of lymph node metastases were determined. Postoperative recurrence was identified from positive findings on successive 3-month examinations of tumor markers, 6-month examinations of ultrasonography, and annual computed tomography. Of 258 patients, 95 had recurrence by the end of 2000 (mean follow-up was 22 months, range, 2-113). Of those 95 patients, 76 received nonsurgical treatment, 7 received operative intervention, and 12 received no treatment. Clinicopathologic features of recurrent tumors were analyzed to determine prognostic values. Serum anti-p53 antibodies (S-p53-Abs), serum C-reactive protein concentration (S-CRP), and albumin concentration were also analyzed. Results. The main recurrent patterns were nodal (n = 45) and organ (n = 35). Of the nonsurgical treatment group, 47 patients received chemoradiotherapy; 17, chemotherapy; and 12, radiotherapy. Overall clinical response was observed in 26 of 76 patients (34%). Treatment response was significantly associated with the type of recurrence, history of perioperative adjuvant therapy, time of recurrence, number of recurrent tumors, albumin concentration, S-CRP, and S-p53-Abs. Multivariate analysis suggested that S-p53-Abs and S-CRP were independent prognostic factors. Conclusion. The status of S-p53-Abs and S-CRP may predict response and outcome of patients with recurrence of esophageal cancer after radical operation. (Surgery 2003;133:24-31.)