Relative tumor volume is a better independent prognostic factor in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Results of a retrospective study

• Published in: Medicine (Baltimore) 2019-04, Vol.98 (14), p.e14963-e14963
• Main Authors: Lv, Jun, Gan, Huimin, Zhang, Wei, Pan, Linjiang, Wang, Rensheng, Qin, Yutao
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Therapy, Combination; Esophageal Neoplasms - drug therapy; Esophageal Neoplasms - mortality; Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology; Esophageal Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - drug therapy; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - mortality; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - pathology; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - radiotherapy; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Lymph Nodes - anatomy & histology; Lymph Nodes - pathology; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Study; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Survival Rate; Tumor Burden
• ISSN: 0025-7974; 1536-5964
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014963

The present study is to evaluate the significance in prognosis of relative tumor volume (RTV) in patients with non-resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) treated by definitive radiotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy.Fifty-eight consecutive patients with ESCC in UICC stage I to IV were retrospectively analyzed. Relative primary gross volume (RGTVp) was defined as primary gross volume (GTVp) divided by body volume. Relative primary gross volume for lymph nodes (RGTVnd) was defined as primary gross volume for lymph nodes (GTVnd) divided by body volume. The relationships were analyzed between overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and RGTVp (RGTVnd) in univariate and multivariate analyses.The cut-off values of 0.947 and 0.007 were determined for RGTVp and RGTVnd, respectively. The 3-year OS, DFS, and LRFS for patients with RGTVp ≤ 0.947 vs RGTVp > 0.947 was 65.4% vs 25.0% (P = .001), 46.2% vs 12.5% (P = .002), and 90.1% vs 42.0% (P  0.007 was 44.4% vs 20.0% (P = .023), and 62.9% vs 24.6% (P