nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 30.09.2023 | Gastrointestinal Oncology

Potential Predictive Immune and Metabolic Biomarkers of Tumor Microenvironment Regarding Pathological and Clinical Response in Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: A Systematic Review

verfasst von: H. H. Wang, BSc, E. N. Steffens, BSc, G. Kats-Ugurlu, MD, PhD, B. van Etten, MD, PhD, J. G. M. Burgerhof, MSc, G. A. P. Hospers, MD, PhD, J. T. M. Plukker, MD, PhD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 1/2024

Abstract

Introduction

The tumor microenvironment (TME) plays a crucial role in therapy response and modulation of immunologic surveillance. Adjuvant immunotherapy has recently been introduced in post-surgery treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) with residual pathological disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT) remains a valuable imaging tool to assess therapy response and to visualize metabolic TME; however, there is still a paucity in understanding the interaction between the TME and nCRT response. This systematic review investigated the potential of TME biomarkers and ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT features to predict pathological and clinical response (CR) after nCRT in EC.

Methods

A literature search of the Medline and Embase electronic databases identified 4190 studies. Studies regarding immune and metabolic TME biomarkers and ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT features were included for predicting pathological response (PR) and/or CR after nCRT. Separate analyses were performed for ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT markers and these TME biomarkers.

Results

The final analysis included 21 studies—10 about immune and metabolic markers alone and 11 with additional ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT features. High CD8 infiltration before and after nCRT, and CD3 and CD4 infiltration after nCRT, generally correlated with better PR. A high expression of tumoral or stromal programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after nCRT was generally associated with poor PR. Moreover, total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) of the primary tumor were potentially predictive for clinical and PR.

Conclusion

CD8, CD4, CD3, and PD-L1 are promising immune markers in predicting PR, whereas TLG and MTV are potential ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT features to predict clinical and PR after nCRT in EC.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1722 KB)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-14352-z.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Standard curative treatment for potentially resectable locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) (clinical TNM classification cT2-4a/Nany/M0) consists of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery according to the CROSS regimen.¹ Although 20–30% of patients achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR), more than half still have residual tumor after nCRT.² The tumor microenvironment (TME) is currently a focus in exploring additional treatment combinations. Several potential predictive markers have been evaluated to improve treatment outcome, including the expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), as well as the prevalence of microsatellite instability (MSI). Based on the presence of MSI and PD-L1 expression among squamous cell (ESCC) and adenocarcinoma (EAC) of the esophagus, including the results of the landmark CheckMate-577 trial, adjuvant immunotherapy has been suggested in EC patients with residual pathologic disease.^3‐10 Differences in response of only immune checkpoint inhibitors have been observed in ESCC and EAC, which might be associated with important differences in the TME in upper/mid-esophageal (ESCC) and lower esophagus/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC/GEA).^11‐13 Compared with EAC/GEA, ESCC exhibited a high expression of PD-L1 and a low HER-2 expression and high MSI (MSI-H) status.¹⁴

Therapy response and the activities of the TME are commonly visualized with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT) scanning. ¹⁸F-FDG-uptake (glucose analog) measured by PET/CT indicates the highly increased glucose uptake because of the Warburg effect in tumor tissue. Many studies showed that the increased uptake of glucose and glycolysis by esophageal tumor cells might be caused by enhancement of membrane-bound glucose transporters (GLUT) and hexokinase (HK) enzymes.^15‐17 Studies have ever since tried to associate the Warburg effect in the tumor and its increased TME metabolic biomarkers with the semiquantitative standardized maximum uptake value (SUV_max) in ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT.¹⁸

However, there is still a gap in our understanding of how the TME interacts with nCRT in EC. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to explore potential metabolic and immune TME biomarkers and their predictive role in pathological response (PR) and/or clinical response (CR) after nCRT in EC. As ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT may visualize the metabolic activity throughout the entire tumor, including its inflammatory microenvironment, it can be used to study the effect of additional immunotherapy in future studies. Combined with potent biomarkers, this metabolic imaging may be helpful in determining response to identify patients more likely to benefit from additional treatment or a potentially applicable organ-preserving treatment approach. Therefore, we also aimed to provide some future research perspectives on metabolic and immune TME biomarkers that might be associated with ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT (semi)-quantitative features.

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy and Study Selection Process

A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines was performed.¹⁹ The study protocol was registered and the search strategy was documented online at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registry (PROSPERO; ID CRD42022325532). The research question was to explore potential predictive immune and metabolic biomarkers in the interaction of nCRT and TME for a more effective treatment strategy. The exact search strategy is provided in electronic supplementary material (ESM) Table 1. The EMBASE and PubMed online databases were searched from 2001 until September 2022 using the following inclusion criteria: (1) original article/conference abstracts; (2) studies on ESCC or EAC and/or GEA; (3) published in peer-reviewed journals from 2001 or later; (4) studies on the effect of the metabolic, immune and PET-based TME on PR and/or CR after neoadjuvant treatment; and (5) studies published in English. The exclusion criteria were (1) studies with missing or unclear description/criteria for groups and/or variables; (2) if full text was not available; (3) studies not assessing CR after nCRT on pre- and post-treatment PET/CT; and (4) studies not including pathologic reports of the esophageal biopsy and PR of the surgical resection material.

Table 1

Main characteristics of selected studies

ID	Author	Journal	Year	Study design	N	TNM staging	Histology	CT/CRT/RT	Tissue type	Pathological score	Clinical score	Time of scan	Metabolic/immune markers
1	Göbel et al.²⁸ ^a	Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology	2022	Retrospective	76	II–III	EAC, GEAC	CRT	Pretreatment biopsies	Mandard (TRG1–3 vs. TRG 4–5)	NA	NA	CD8, PD-1, PD-L1
2	Haddad et al.²⁹ ^a	Journal of Personalized Medicine	2022	Retrospective	43	I–III	EAC, GEAC, ESCC	CRT;CT	Surgical specimens	College of American Pathologist (1–3)	NA	NA	CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD45R0+, Foxp3+, CD20+, CD163+
3	Fassan et al. ²³ ^a	Cancer Medicine	2019	Retrospective	88	I–IV	ESCC	CRT	Surgical specimens	Mandard (TRG1 vs. TRG2–5)	NA	NA	CD4; Tbet; FoxP3; CD8; CD80; PD-L1;
4	Goedegebuure et al.²⁴ ^a	Oncoimmunology	2021	Retrospective	40	II–III	EAC, GEAC	CRT	Tumor samples; surgical specimens	Mandard (TRG1 vs. TRG 2–3 vs. TRG4–5)	NA	NA	CD8/CD163; CK: CD3; FoxP3; CD163; Ki67
5	Huang et al.²⁵ ^a	Journal of Clinical Medicine	2019	Retrospective	107	II–III	ESCC	CRT	Surgical specimens	pCR; no pCR	NA	NA	PD-L1
6	Koemans et al.³⁰ ^a	Histopathology	2021	Retrospective	123	II–III	EAC, GEAC	CRT	Surgical specimens	Mandard (TRG2 vs. TRG4–5)	NA	NA	CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, FOXP3, PD-L1
7	Kotsafti et al.²⁶ ^a	Oncoimmunology	2020	Prospective	123	II–III	EAC, GEAC	CRT	Pretreatment biopsies; healthy esophageal mucosa close to cancer site	Mandard (TRG1 vs. TRG2–5)	NA	NA	mRNA of CD80; CD8; CD28; CD38; CTLA4; CD8alpha; CD8beta; CD107a (LAMP1); CD69; Tbet (TBX21); SERPINB3; TP53; HER2 (ERBB2); PD-1 (PDCD1); PD-L1 (CD274); PD-L2 (PDCD1LG2); MLH1; MSH6; MSH3; PMS2; BRAF; IFNγ; FOXP3; CD25 (IL2RA); CD94 (KLRD1); CTLA4; TNFβ (LT; TNFSF1)
8	Soeratram et al.²⁷ ^a	The Journal of Pathology	2021	Retrospective	188	II–III	EAC, GEAC	CRT	Pretreatment biopsies	Mandard (TRG1–3 vs. 4–5)	NA	NA	PD-L1; PD-1; CD274PD-1; CD279; FOXP3; CD8; pan-cytokeratin multiplex; MHC class I, II duplex
9	Alvarado et al.³¹ ^a	Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery	2022	Retrospective	244	II–III	EAC, GEAC, ESCC	CRT	NA	pCR; no pCR	NA	NA	Diabetes
10	Boyd et al.⁴¹ ^a	ASCO Annual Meeting I	2010	Retrospective	122	NA	EAC, GEAC, ESCC	CRT	NA	pCR; no pCR	NA	NA	DM; obesity
11	Fang et al.³² ^b	International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics	2017	Prospective	20	IIa–IIIb	EAC; GEAC, ESCC	CRT	NA	Mandard (TRG1 vs. TRG2 vs. TRG3+)	ΔSUV_max; ΔSUV_mean; ΔTLG; MTV	Pre-CRT; during CRT; post-CRT	NA
12	Gillham et al.³³ ^b	British Journal of Cancer	2006	Retrospective	32	II–III	EAC, GEAC, ESCC	CRT	NA	Mandard (TRG1–2 vs. TRG3–5)	ΔSUV_mean; MTV	Pre-CRT; during CRT	NA
13	Kukar et al.³⁴ ^b	JAMA Surgery	2015	Retrospective	77	NA	EAC, GEAC	CRT	NA	pCR; no pCR	SUV_max; ΔSUV_mean; %reduction SUV_max; mean linear length of uptake, in cm, pre- and post-CRT; change in linear length	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	NA
14	Arnett et al.³⁵ ^b	International Journal of Radiation Oncology	2016	Retrospective	193	I–IV	EAC, GEAC	CRT	NA	pCR; no pCR	ΔSUV_max; ΔSUR to blood pool uptake; ΔSUR to liver uptake	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	NA
15	Choi et al.³⁶ ^b	European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging	2021	Retrospective	480	0–III	ESCC	CRT	NA	Mandard (TRG1 vs. TRG2–5)	MTV; SUV_max; SUV_avg; TLG	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	NA
16	Dewan et al.³⁷ ^b	Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer	2017	Prospective	70	I–III	ESCC	CRT	NA	pCR; no pCR	SUV_max; % ΔSUV_max	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	NA
17	Lee et al.³⁸ ^b	European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery	2021	Retrospective	158	I–III	ESCC	CRT	NA	pCR; no pCR	ΔSUV_max; % ΔSUV_max	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	NA
18	Piessen et al.³⁹ ^b	Annals of Surgery	2013	Retrospective	60	II–III	EAC, GEAC, ESCC	CRT	NA	Grade I: ≥50% VRTC; Grade II: 10–50% VRTC with fibrosis; Grade III: <10%⁴²	% ΔSUV_max	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	NA
19	Van Rossum et al.⁴⁰ ^b	European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging	2017	Retrospective	70		EAC, GEAC	CRT	NA	Chirieac’s TRG: TRG1–4 (TRG1–2 vs. TRG3–4)⁴³	SUV_max; SUV_mean; MTV; TLG;	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	NA
20	Li et al.²¹ ^b	Scientific Reports	2021	Retrospective	127	II–III	ESCC	CRT	Pre-CRT blood; post-CRT blood	pCR; no pCR	ΔSUV; ΔSUV ratio	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	NLR pre-CRT; NLR post-CRT
21	Wang et al.²² ^b	European Journal of Cancer	2010	Retrospective	405	I–III	EAC, GEAC, ESCC, other	CRT	Surgical specimens	pCR; no pCR	NA	Pre-CRT; post-CRT	Obese (≥25 kg/m²); non-obese (< 25 kg/m²)

^a No presence of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET scan

^b Presence of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET scan

CT chemotherapy, CRT chemoradiotherapy, RT radiotherapy, EAC esophageal adenocarcinoma, GEAC gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, ESCC esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, pCR pathologic complete response, SUV_max maximum standardized uptake value, SUV_mean mean standardized uptake value, SUV_avg average standardized uptake value, TLG total lesion glycolysis, MTV metabolic tumor volume, SUR standardized uptake ratio, TRG tumor regression grade, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, NA not available, PD-L1 programmed death-ligand 1, PD-1 programmed death-1, MHC major histocompatibility complex, DM diabetes mellitus, ^18F-FDG-PET/CT F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography

Quality Assessment

Risk of bias was assessed according to the study design and purpose. Non-randomized intervention studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.²⁰ All studies were evaluated with a visualization tool for risk-of-bias assessments in a systematic review (Risk-of-Bias VISualization Tool). Each article was read and assessed by two independent authors (HHW, ENS).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two authors (HHW, ENS) extracted the data independently. Disagreements between individual judgments were resolved by discussion among the research group consisting of two surgical oncologists, one medical oncologist and one pathologist (all experienced) until consensus was reached. Data were recorded, extracted and managed in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). The extraction and generation of the results were discussed together with a statistician (JGMB).

Relative and percentage ΔSUV, total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) changes were considered to be an index for CR on ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT scans.

Results

Identification of Studies

The initial electronic search identified 4190 studies. After eliminating duplicates, 3097 studies remained. These studies were screened using title and/or abstract to assess relevancy to our study scope. As both PR and CR were assessed, we distinguished between studies that included ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT scans and studies that did not. Seventy-eight articles were included for full screening (31 congress abstracts, 47 original articles); 57 were excluded due to unclear description/criteria for groups and/or variables (n = 34) or studies that did not assess PR and/or CR (n = 23). Finally, we included 21 studies (20 original articles^21‐40 and one study congress abstract⁴¹). We identified 10 studies on biological immune and metabolic TME biomarkers without the presence of an ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT scan (two studies on metabolic biomarkers, eight on immune biomarkers). Eleven studies were considered significant on clinical immune and metabolic TME biomarkers with the presence of an ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT scan (10 studies on metabolic biomarkers and 1 study on immune biomarkers) (Fig. 1).

Study Characteristics

An overview of the study characteristics of the selected studies is provided in Table 1. Three studies^26,32,37 were prospective and 18 studies were retrospective.^{21‐24,26‐31,33‐36, 38‐41} Eight studies assessed only EAC,^{24,26‐28,30, 34,35,40} six studies assessed only ESCC,^{21,23,25,36‐38} and seven studies included both types.^{18‐21,27,35,37}

All 21 studies assessed PR, of which 9 studies used the Mandard TRG scoring system,^{23,24,26‐28,30,32, 33,36} 9 studies only assessed whether pCR was achieved^{21,22,25,31,34,35, 37,38,41} (defined as no viable tumor cells; ypT0), one study used the assessment of the College of American Pathologist (1–3),²⁹ 1 study used pathologic grading according to Schneider et al.,^39,42 and 1 study used pathologic grading according to Chirieac et al.⁴³ Eight studies assessed immune markers, of which PD-L1, PD-1, CD80, CD8, CD4 and CD3 were assessed most extensively.^23‐30 Three studies assessed CD8, PD-L1 and PD-1 in diagnostic tumor biopsies before nCRT,^24,27,28 while six studies assessed CD4, CD8, PD-L1, PD-1, CD80 and CD3 in surgical resection specimens after nCRT.^{23‐26,29,30}

Two studies determined whether diabetes mellitus (DM) affected pathologic outcome.^31,41 In one of these studies, diabetic and non-diabetic patients were matched on patient and tumor characteristics.³¹ Both studies included both type 1 and type 2 DM.

All studies on CR included a baseline and post-nCRT ¹⁸F-FDG-PET scan. Eleven studies assessed CR,^{21,22,32‐40} of which six studies assessed ΔSUV_max,^{21,32,34,35,38, 40} four studies assessed percentage reduction SUV_max,^{34, 37‐39} four studies assessed mean tumor volume (MTV),^{32, 33,36,40} two studies assessed tumor lesion glycolysis (TLG),^36,40 and three studies assessed ΔSUV_mean.^32‐34

Effect of Metabolic Markers on Pathologic Response

Two studies on the effect of DM on pathologic response were included and are shown in Table 2. In total, 73 diabetic patients and 293 non-diabetic patients were included. DM was associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving pCR according to Alvarado et al.,³¹ whereas Boyd et al. showed no significant difference between both groups.⁴¹

Table 2

Effect of metabolic marker diabetes on pathologic response (no ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT)

Author	Pathologic response	Diabetes (%)	No diabetes (%)	Total (%)	p-Value
Alvarado et al., 2022³¹ ^a					0.03
	TRG1	5 (9.3)	41 (21.6)	46 (18.9)
	TRG2–5	49 (90.7)	149 (78.4)	198 (81.1)
Total		54 (100.0)	190 (100)	244 (100)
Boyd et al., 2010⁴¹ ^a					0.62
	TRG1	7 (36.8)	32 (31.1)	39 (10.7)
	TRG2–5	12 (63.2)	71 (68.9)	83 (22.7)
Total		19 (100.0)	103 (100.0)	122 (33.3)

Bold value indicates the significant values (p < 0.05)

^a Univariate and multivariate regression

TRG tumor regression grade according to Mandard, ^18F-FDG-PET/CT F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography

Effect of Immune Markers on Pathologic Response

Tables 3 and 4 show the pathologic immune markers on PR in treatment-naïve biopsies (Table 3) and surgical resections after nCRT (Table 4) in the primary tumor/TME/overall tumor area. Treatment-naïve biopsies were collected and assessed on immune markers prior to nCRT. The median density of immune markers was assessed in the total area.

Table 3

Effect of immune markers on pathologic response in the total area, tumor sample, and tumor microenvironment of treatment-naïve biopsies (no ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT)

Pre-CRT	Author	Assessment	Cut-off value	Sample size	n pGR (TRG1–3)	n pPR (TRG4–5)	Correlation biomarkers with PR in biopsies	p-Value total area	p-Value tumor	p-Value TME
CD8
	Gobel et al., 2022²⁸ ^a,b	Cell count/mm²	Median	58	47	11	No significant difference in CD8 density between pGR and pPR	0.223	NA	NA
	Goedegebuure et al., 2021²⁴ ^a,b	Cell count/mm²	Median	40	31	9	High intratumoral density of CD8+ is associated with pGR No significant difference in stromal density between groups	NA	0.031	NM
	Soeratram et al., 2021²⁷ ^c	Cells/mm²	Mean and median	81	48	33	Higher combined mean density of CD8 was associated with pGR	0.001	0.013	0.026
PD-1
	Gobel et al., 2022²⁸ ^a,b	<1%, 1 to <10%, 10 to <50%, ≥50%	–	58	47	11	Intra- and peritumoral PD-1 had no significant influence on TRG	NA	NM	NM
	Soeratram et al., 2021²⁸ ^c	cells/mm²	Mean and median	81	48	33	pPR had significant higher stromal PD-1 in lymphocytes compared with pGR	NA	0.222	0.048
PD-L1
	Gobel et al., 2022²⁸ ^a,b	<1%, 1 to <10%, 10 to <50%, ≥50%	–	58	47	11	PD-L1-positive score in the tumoral area: no significant influence; PD-L1-positive score in the peritumoral area was found significantly more in pGR	NA	NM	0.036
	Soeratram et al., 2021²⁷ ^c	<1–4%, 5–24%, 25–100%	Mean and median	81	48	33	CPS > 1 was associated with lower TRG (1–3)	0.010	NA	NA

Bold values indicate the significant values (p < 0.05)

^a Pearson’s Chi-square test

^b Two-tailed z-test

^c Mann–Whitney U-test

^18F-FDG-PET/CT F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, TRG tumor regression grade, pGR pathologic good responders, pPR pathologic poor responders, PR pathologic response, CRT chemoradiotherapy, CPS combined positive score, PD-1 programmed death-1, PD-L1 programmed death-ligand 1, TME tumor microenvironment, NA not available, NM not mentioned

Table 4

Effect of immune markers on pathologic response in the total area, tumor sample, and tumor microenvironment of surgical specimens (no ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT)

Post-CRT author	Assessment	Cut-off value	Sample size	n pGR (TRG1–2)^†	n pPR (TRG3–5)^†	Correlation biomarkers with PR in surgical specimens	p-Value total area	p-Value tumor	p-Value TME
CD8
Fassan et al., 2019⁴⁴ ^a,b	Cell count/5 HPF	Median	88	23	65	pGR had significant enrichment of CD8+ compared with pPR	<0.001	NA	NA
Goedegebuure et al., 2021²⁴ ^a	Cell count/mm²	Median	40	12 (TRG1)	28 (TRG2–5)	TRG1 was significantly more present in a CD8-dominant infiltrate	0.027	NA	NA
Haddad et al., 2022⁴⁶ ^c	% ± SD	Mean	17	11	6	Significant enrichment of CD8+ in pGR compared with pPR	NA	<0.001	0.001
Koemans et al., 2021³⁰ ^c	Cell count/mm²	4 hotspots of 0.5 mm*0.5mm²	123	62	61	pGR had significantly less CD8+ compared with pPR	0.001	NA	NA
Kotsafti et al., 2021²⁶ ^a,b	Cell count/5 HPF	Median	123	20	103	Peritumoral healthy mucosa in pGR had significant high CD8+ compared with pPR	0.05	NA	NA
Soeratram et al., 2021²⁷ ^a	Cells/mm²	Mean and median	89	55 (TRG1–3)	25 (TRG4–5)	Higher CD8 in the tumor epithelium was associated with pPR; higher CD8 in tumor stroma was associated with pGR	NA	0.000	0.000
CD4
Fassan et al., 2022⁴⁴ ^a,b	Cell count/5 HPF	Median	88	23	65	pGR had significant enrichment of CD4+ compared with pPR	0.006	NA	NA
Haddad et al., 2022⁴⁶ ^c	% ± SD	Mean	28	13	15	pGR had significant enrichment of CD4+ compared with pPR	NA	0.009	0.004
Koemans et al., 2021³⁰ ^c	Cell count/mm²	4 hotspots of 0.5 mm*0.5mm²	123	62	61	pGR had significantly less CD4+ compared with pPR	<0.001	NA	NA
CD3
Haddad et al., 2022⁴⁶ ^c	% ± SD	Mean	88	13	15	pGR had significant enrichment of CD3+ compared with pPR	NA	<0.001	<0.001
Koemans et al., 2021³⁰ ^c	Cell count/mm²	4 hotspots of 0.5 mm*0.5mm²	123	62	61	pGR had significant less CD3+ compared with pPR	<0.001	NA	NA
CD80
Fassan et al., 2022⁴⁴ ^a,b	Cell count/5 HPF	Median	88	23	65	No difference between pGR and pPR	0.4874	NA	NA
Kotsafti et al., 2021²⁶ ^a,b	Cell count/5 HPF	Median	123	20	103	No difference between pGR and pPR	0.89	NA	NA
PD-1
Kotsafti et al., 2021²⁶ ^a,b	NA	–	123	20	103	pGR had significantly lower mRNA PD-1 compared with pPR	0.0065	NA	NA
PD-L1
Fassan et al., 2019⁴⁴ ^a,b	Cell count/5 HPF	–	88	23	65	pGR had significant levels of PD-L1 expressions either on tumor cells or in lymphocytes than pPR	NA	0.004	NA
Huang et al., 2019²⁵ ^d	>1% = positive, <1 = negative	–	107	28	79	Positive tumoral PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with pPR	NA	0.036	NA
Koemans et al., 2021³⁰ ^c	0%, 1–5%, 6–9%, 10–29%, >30%	–	123	62	61	No association between PD-L1 positivity in tumor cells and PR; pPR had significantly more PD-L1-positive lymphocytes	NA	1.00	0.001
Kotsafti et al., 2021²⁶ ^a,b	NA	–	123	20	103	pGR had significantly lower mRNA PD-L1 compared with pPR	0.0005	NA	NA
Soeratram et al., 2021^27 a	<1–4%, 5–24%, 25–100%	Mean and median	89	55 (TRG1–3)	25 (TRG4–5)	CPS > 1 was associated with pPR	0.010	NA	NA

Bold values indicate the significant values (p < 0.05)

^a Pearson’s Chi-square test

^b Two-tailed z-test

^c Mann–Whitney U-test

^d Logistic regression

^18F-FDG-PET/CT F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, TRG tumor regression grade, pGR pathologic good responders, pPR pathologic poor responders, PR pathologic response, CRT chemoradiotherapy, CPS combined positive score, TME tumor microenvironment, NA not available, PD-1 programmed death-1, PD-L1 programmed death-ligand 1, HPF high power field, SD standard deviation

As the included studies combined different TRG groups, we were unable to create consistent TRG groups for this review. Tumor regression in these studies was based on vital tumor tissue at the ratio of fibrosis. In addition, patients with pCR (TRG1) were considered free of residual tumor, which is less likely compared with those with non-pCR (TRG2–5). Therefore treatment-naïve biopsies (Table 3) were divided according to the pathologic examination of the resected specimen in good (TRG1–3) and poor (TRG4–5) responders. The Mandard response rates from the treatment-naïve biopsies were extrapolated from their resected specimens. In assessing potential biomarkers in the resected specimen (Table 4), responders after nCRT were divided into pathologic good responders (TRG1–2) and pathologic poor responders (TRG3–5).

Table 3 shows that an overall higher tumoral and TME infiltration of CD8 in treatment-naïve biopsies was associated with a better PR (p = 0.013 and p = 0.026; p = 0.001; p = 0.031, respectively)^24,27 Moreover, a higher PD-1 in the TME seemed to significantly predict the possible poor response in tumor tissue from treatment-naïve biopsies (p = 0.048) (Table 4); however, PD-1 in the primary tumor was shown to not be predictive for tumor response (p = 0.222) (Table 3).^27,28 PD-L1 expression in the treatment-naïve biopsies showed to predict better PR (lower TRG) both in the TME as the overall tumoral and the TME area (p = 0.036, p = 0.010, respectively).^25,27 Only Huang et al. showed that a high density of PD-L1 in the treatment-naïve biopsies predicted poor PR (higher TRG) (p = 0.036).²⁵

Table 4 shows that tumoral and stromal CD8 was found to be significantly higher in pathologic good responders as well as in the healthy mucosa in resected specimens after nCRT.^26,44‐46 Soeratram et al., who distinguished tumoral and stromal CD8, showed that stromal CD8 was significantly associated with good pathologic response (p = 0.000, whereas tumoral CD8 was correlated with a poorer pathologic response (p = 0.000).²⁷ Koemans et al. showed that good responders had significantly less CD8 in the overall area compared with poor responders after nCRT (p = 0.001).³⁰

The majority of the studies found significant enrichment of CD4 in the tumor and the TME in surgical resection specimens after CRT (p = 0.006, p = 0.009, p = 0.004, respectively) (Table 4);^23,29 however, one study contradicted these results and showed that poor responders had significant enrichment of CD4 density compared with poor responders (p ≤ 0.001).³⁰

Furthermore, higher PD-1 in the overall tumor and stromal area was shown to be significantly predictive for a poor PR after nCRT (p = 0.0065).²⁶

PD-L1 expression after nCRT proved to be associated with a poor PR according to Koemans et al. (p = 0.001).³⁰ Moreover, a high PD-L1 in the overall area was correlated with a poor PR after nCRT (p = 0.0005, p = 0.010, respectively).^26,27

Regarding CD80, two studies revealed no differences in CD80 between pathologic good and poor responders in the overall tumoral and stromal area after nCRT (p = 0.4874, p = 0.89, respectively).^26,44

Effect of Clinical Metabolic Markers on Pathological Response

We considered the semi-quantative tools that are used for measuring glucose metabolism and ¹⁸F-FDG uptake (SUV_max, SUV_mean, ΔSUV_max and percentage reduction SUV_max) in the ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT scan as clinical metabolic markers. Table 5 describes the effect of ΔSUV_max, percentage reduction SUV_max, ΔSUV_mean, TLG, MTV, and ΔSUV_ratio on pathologic response. Pathologic responders were divided into good responders (TRG1–2) and poor responders (TRG3–5).

Table 5

Effect of immune and metabolic markers on pathologic response (in the presence of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT)

	Author	Total sample size	n pGR (TRG1–2)^a	n pPR (TRG3–5)^a	Correlation clinical biomarkers with pathologic tumor response	p-Value
ΔSUV_max
	Fang et al., 2017³² b	20	14	6	ΔSUV_max was not correlated with pCR on interim and post-CRT scan	0.508; 1.00
	Kukar et al., 2015³⁴ ^c	77	22	55	ΔSUV_max was higher in pGR	0.03
	Arnett et al., 2016³⁵ ^d	193	NM	NM	ΔSUV_max was not correlated with pCR	0.25
	Lee et al., 2021³⁸ ^e	158	44	114	ΔSUV_max did not differ between pCR and pPR	0.201
	Van Rossum et al., 2017⁴⁰ ^d	70	27	43	Higher ΔSUV_max was significantly related to a good response	0.01
	Li et al., 2021²¹ ^d	127	57 (TRG1)	70 (TRG2–5)	ΔSUV_max was an independent predictor for pCR	0.002
% reduction in SUV_max
	Kukar et al., 2015³⁴ ^c	77	22	55	% reduction SUV_max was higher in pGR	0.03
	Lee et al., 2021³⁸ ^e	158	44	114	% reduction SUV_max did not differ between pCR and pPR	0.071
	Piessen et al., 2013³⁹ ^b	60	21	25	No significant difference in % reduction SUV_max between pGR and pPR	0.310
	Dewan et al., 2017³⁷ ^d	70	24 (TRG1)	46 (TRG2–5)	% reduction SUV_max of 72.32% predicts pCR (sensitivity 70.8%, specificity 67.4%)	0.011
TLG
	Choi et al., 2021³⁶ ^d	275	75 (TRG1)	200 (TRG2–5)	Higher pre-CRT TLG (> 205.67) was associated with a lower probability of pCR	0.0318
	Van Rossum et al., 2017⁴⁰ ^d	70	27	43	Higher post-TLG was associated with a higher chance of pPR	0.01
MTV
	Fang et al., 2017³² ^b	20	14	6	MTV was not correlated with pCR on interim and post-CRT scan	0.198; 0.6
	Gillham et al., 2006³³ ^c	32	9	23	No correlation between MTV and TRG	0.472
	Choi et al., 2021³⁶ ^d	275	75 (TRG1)	200 (TRG2–5)	Higher post-MTV (> 4.99) was associated with a low probability of pCR	0.0005
	Van Rossum et al., 2017⁴⁰ ^d	70	27	43	Higher post-MTV was associated with a higher chance of pPR	0.01
ΔSUVmean
	Fang et al., 2017³² ^b	20	14	6	No correlation between ΔSUV_mean and TRG on interim and post-CRT scan	0.424; 0.704
	Gillham et al., 2006³³ ^c	32	9	23	No correlation between ΔSUV_mean and TRG	0.645
	Kukar et al., 2015³⁴ ^c	77	22	55	ΔSUV_mean was higher in pGR	0.03
ΔSUVratio
ΔSUVratio	Li et al., 2021²¹ ^d	127	57 (TRG1)	70 (TRG2–5)	ΔSUV_ratio was an independent predictor for pCR	0.007
Obesity
Obesity	Wang et al., 2010²² ^d	405	85 (TRG1)	121 (TRG2–5)	BMI is not a significant predictor for pCR	0.9879

Bold values indicate the significant values (p < 0.05)

^a In case studies that made different divisions in pathologic responders, the numbers and specific tumor regression grade were indicated in the table

^b Mann–Whitney test

^c Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Kruskal–Wallis

^d Logistic regression

^e Student’s t-test

^18F-FDG-PET/CT F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, pGR pathologic good responders, pPR pathologic poor responders, TRG tumor regression grade according to Mandard, SUV_max maximum standardized uptake value, SUV_mean mean standardized uptake value, TLG total lesion glycolysis, MTV metabolic tumor volume, SUVratio standardized uptake value ratio, NM not mentioned, pCR pathologic complete response, BMI body mass index

ΔSUV_max was evaluated in six studies.^{21,32,34, 35,38,40} Kukar et al. and van Rossum et al. showed that ΔSUV_max was higher in pathologic good responders (p = 0.03, p = 0.01, respectively).^34,40 Moreover, Li et al. assessed ΔSUV_max as an independent predictor for pCR (p = 0.002).²¹ However, Arnett et al. and Lee et al. found no significant difference between ΔSUV_max in good and poor responders.^38,47

Four studies assessed the effect of percentage reduction SUV_max,^34,37‐39 of which two showed no significant difference between pathologic good and poor responders.^38,48 Kukar et al. showed that pathologic good responders had a higher percentage reduction SUV_max,³⁴ while Dewan et al. set a cut-off of 72.32% reduction of SUV_max to be predictive for pCR.³⁷

TLG was evaluated in two studies, showing that a high TLG before and after CRT was associated with poor PR (p = 0.0318, p = 0.01, respectively).^36,40

Four studies assessed the effect of MTV,^32,33,36,40 of which two showed that a high post-CRT MTV was correlated with a poor PR (p = 0.0005, p = 0.01, respectively).^36,40 The other two studies showed no correlation with PR (p = 0.6, p = 0.472, respectively).^32,33

ΔSUV_mean was assessed in three studies, of which two showed no correlation between pathologic response.^32‐34 However, Kukar et al. assessed that pathologic good responders had a higher ΔSUV_mean compared with poor responders (p = 0.03).³⁴

Only one study evaluated body mass index on PR, which showed no significant prediction for pCR (p = 0.9879).²²

Effect of Metabolic and Immune Markers on Clinical Response and Pathologic Response (¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT)

ESM Table 2 shows the effect of immune and metabolic markers on PR and CR. Both studies divided the assessed groups into pCR (TRG1) or no pCR (TRG2–5).

Wang et al. evaluated the effect of obesity as a metabolic marker on CR, which showed not to be a significant predictor (p = 0.46).²² Li et al. assessed the correlation between immune markers neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and PET markers on prediction of PR, which showed that ΔNLR <3 and ΔSUV_ratio >58% gave the best positive predictive value (84.8%) for pCR.²¹

Risk-of-Bias Assessment

Risks of bias was assessed for all included studies (n = 21) [ESM Fig. 1]. The individual risk-of-bias scores can be found in ESM Table 3 and ESM Table 4, on each risk of bias for each included study separately.

Discussion

Metabolic and immune biomarkers of the TME have a pivotal role in providing tumor cells the optimal condition to survive and proliferate while also influencing their response to therapy. Due to intratumoral and microenvironmental heterogeneity after nCRT, all available information from the tumor, its TME, and the pathological specimen was included. Here, we provide an overview of potential metabolic and immune TME biomarkers that might play a role in PR and CR after nCRT in EC.

Current research in targeting the metabolic TME is based on ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT imaging of the altered glycolytic tumor metabolism with acidification of the TME. TME acidification induces hypoxia response pathways and leads to evasion of the immune system, which is associated with high metastatic potential and treatment resistance.⁴⁹ As such, the upregulation of glycolysis as a measure of extracellular acidification remains a critical step in the activation of immune cells. In this intricate interaction of heterogeneous tumor cells, a variety of secretory cytokines and chemokines from non-malignant cells, i.e., stroma and immune cells, are involved in the efficacy of anticancer therapy. Metabolic remodeling with inflammatory response and oxidative phosphorylation is important in the resistance to neoadjuvant treatment in EC. Recently, a promising novel ex vivo method showed the significance of oxidative phosphorylation in measuring real-time metabolic profiles of treatment-naïve EC biopsies. In clinical imaging of hypoxic response and glycolytic metabolism in malignant tumors, ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT is most commonly used.⁵⁰ Based on the assessment of histopathology, the corresponding ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT response and promising biomarkers markers, nCRT combined with immunotherapy might be considered as an organ-preserving treatment approach in the near future.

Metabolic Tumor Microenvironment (TME) Markers

There were no studies on metabolic TME markers in EC that also assessed the influence of these markers on PR and/or CR after nCRT. Diabetes was suggested as a surrogate metabolic marker. However, the result of this study shows a limited role of DM on PR after nCRT. An overexpression of insulin receptors and insulin-like growth factors lead to the promotion of cell cycle progression and inhibition of apoptosis.^51,52 The overexpressed insulin receptors on cancer cells of diabetic patients, who are also characterized by hyperinsulinemia, may be activated, leading to the ability of cancer cells to evade destruction by chemoradiotherapy, resulting in an unfavorable PR and CR.⁵³ As a result, hypoxia and hyperglycemia occur, which might help remodeling the TME into an even more aggressive environment, leading to poorer response to nCRT.⁵⁴

Immune TME Biomarkers

We showed that high CD3 and CD4 infiltration were generally correlated with better PR. Even though some studies showed no significant difference in CD8 between good and poor pathologic responders, CD8 infiltration in treatment-naïve biopsies was generally significantly associated with a better PR.^24,27 One study showed that nCRT was useful to induce CD4 and CD8 infiltration within the TME, suggesting that an elevated level of lymphocytes before nCRT might be a surrogate of a strong immune response induced by tumor cell necrosis caused by chemotherapy.⁵⁵

The activation of CD8 cells after nCRT might be impaired by persistent high expression of the CXCL12/CXCR4 axis in EC stem cells resulting in a downregulation of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules and upregulating immunosuppressive cytokines.⁵⁶ nCRT can also cause inflammation, leading to an influx of CD8 immune cells. These patients could benefit from the upcoming immune-directed treatment strategies such as PD-1/PD-L1 blockade.^57‐60 In this study, CD8 pre/post-nCRT and CD3/CD4 after nCRT seem to be involved in the antitumor response. Moreover, the location (i.e., tumoral or stromal) at which the CD8 influx occurs might affect active immune behavior. The extracellular matrix or other immune-suppressive cells within the tumor and the TME might barricade the function of tumoral CD8,^61,62 resulting in an inefficient function of CD8 intratumorally.

The potential clinical value of tumoral PD-L1 expression in EC patients with residual disease after nCRT with surgery has shown to be significant for DFS after adjuvant anti-PD-1 nivolumab in the Checkmate-577 study, and showed a better PR in the Keynote-590 study with anti-PD-1 pembrolizumab and nCRT.^3,7 The included studies also showed that a high proportion of PD-L1 in positive treatment-naïve tumor samples may affect PR; however, the exact mechanism behind this is still unknown. PD-L1 expression in pretreatment biopsies might be different due to intratumoral heterogeneity of EC, in which PD-L1 expression can only be partially captured. However, further investigation is needed.

We also showed that a higher expression of tumoral or stromal PD-L1 after nCRT is generally associated with a poor PR to chemoradiotherapy. Therefore, PD-L1 might be a potential target in EC patients receiving nCRT in order to improve therapy response. Together with the other predictive immune biomarkers, PD-L1 expression in the tumor and its microenvironment could be used to define EC patients with major or poor pathologic response after nCRT with resection and/or a clinical prognostic high- versus low-risk profile. PD-L1 positivity can be expressed by using both the tumor cell (TC ≥ 1% in at least 100 tumor cells in the PD-L1-stained slide) and combined positivity score (CPS ≥10 PD-L1-stained cells, including tumor cells, lymphocytes, macrophages in the associated infiltration). Based on the histologic EC subtypes, these clinical prognostic risk biomarkers and the different predictive response biomarkers between tumor-naïve biopsies and the resected residual tumor material potential biomarkers may be identified for the ypCR and non-ypCR groups.

¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT Biomarkers

An ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT scan is commonly used in EC patients undergoing the CROSS regimen, to monitor treatment response. Many studies aimed to find a correlation between the semi-quantitative parameters of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT with PR. However, our included studies showed contradictory evidence for the value of parameters such as SUV, ΔSUV_max and SUV_max in predicting PR and CR.

A low SUV might be associated with hypoxic tumors, as is the case in EC. An hypoxic environment could emerge if the tumor became more resistant to chemoradiotherapy, leading to a poor pathologic response.⁶³ Moreover, a wide heterogeneity between studies could account for contradictory results, such as different methods and experience at performing and interpreting ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT scans, methods to calculate PET parameters, physiological factors that may affect SUV uptake (i.e., inflammation) to the esophageal mucosa, scanner technology, chemoradiotherapy schedules, sample size, and methods of data collection. Studies also vary regarding the time interval of post-treatment ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT after completion of nCRT, which may affect the interpretation of predictive accuracy.

Therefore, the predictive value of other clinical ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT-based markers needs to be explored. We showed that TLG and MTV might have more potential to predict pathological and clinical outcome, which is also in line with recent studies.^64,65 These volume-based ¹⁸F-FDG-PET parameters might provide more valuable information that supplement SUV uptake for predicting PR and CR. Future studies should thus focus on combining these parameters and find a clear cut-off value.

The present study has some limitations. Treatment-naïve EC biopsies contain a highly heterogenous inflammatory secretion profile. It is plausible that pretreatment-naïve biopsies are not representative enough. Therefore, it is important to know which specimen has been used in determining the predictive role of biomarkers. First, tumor heterogeneity may be missed in these small standard diagnostic tumor biopsies, and second, we should be aware of changes in biomarkers during chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.⁶⁶ Furthermore, biology from resected tissue alone may not reflect tumor biology at diagnosis. Moreover, patients attaining pCR (ypT0/N0) who commonly exhibit a good prognosis will not likely receive adjuvant therapy. Furthermore, we included articles of various markers that were assessed in different ways, i.e., mRNA expression of assessed markers, assessments conducted in healthy esophageal mucosa, and overall density of assessed markers. These differences in assessing various markers made it difficult to interpret the results.

Conclusion

Our systematic review showed that CD8, CD4, CD3, and PD-L1 are promising immune markers in predicting PR. Moreover, we showed that TLG and MTV have potential in predicting CR and PR. Additional research should focus more on combining histopathology and nuclear imaging features in EC before and after nCRT to assess metabolic and immune TME markers.

Disclosures

Conflicts of interest to disclose that are relevant to this article.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

Print-Titel

Das Abo mit mehr Tiefe

Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.

Jetzt informieren

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt bestellen und 100 € sparen!

Jetzt testen ¹

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1722 KB)

Van Hagen P, Hulshof MCCM, Van Lanschot JJB, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2074–84. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1112088.CrossRefPubMed

Faiz Z, Kats-Ugurlu G, Mui VEM, et al. Locoregional residual Esophageal cancer after Neo-Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and surgery regarding anatomic site and radiation target fields: a histopathologic evaluation study. Ann Surg. 2022;275(6):E759–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004242.CrossRefPubMed

Sun J-M, Shen L, Shah MA, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2021;398(10302):759–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01234-4.CrossRefPubMed

Wang ZX, Cui C, Yao J, et al. Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in treatment-naïve, advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (JUPITER-06): a multi-center phase 3 trial. Cancer Cell. 2022;40(3):277-288.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2022.02.007.CrossRefPubMed

Doki Y, Ajani JA, Kato K, et al. Nivolumab combination therapy in advanced Esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(5):449–62. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2111380.CrossRefPubMed

Luo H, Lu J, Bai Y, et al. Effect of camrelizumab vs placebo added to chemotherapy on survival and progression-free survival in patients with advanced or metastatic esophaageal squamous cell carcinoma: the ESCORT-1st randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326(10):916–25. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.12836.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Digklia A, Duran R, Homicsko K, et al. Cancer immunotherapy: a simple guide for interventional radiologists of new therapeutic approaches. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42(9):1221–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-018-2074-1.CrossRefPubMed

Kelly RJ, Ajani JA, Kuzdzal J, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(13):1191–203. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2032125.CrossRefPubMed

Park S, Sun JM, Choi YL, et al. Adjuvant durvalumab for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, phase II study. ESMO Open. 2022;7(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100385.CrossRef

10.

Shah MA, Kennedy EB, Alarcon-Rozas AE, et al. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy for advanced gastroesophageal cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(7):1470–91. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02331.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mastracci L, Grillo F, Parente P, et al. PD-L1 evaluation in the gastrointestinal tract: from biological rationale to its clinical application. Pathologica. 2022;114(5):352–64. https://doi.org/10.32074/1591-951X-803.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Salem ME, Puccini A, Xiu J, et al. Comparative molecular analyses of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, esophageal adenocarcinoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma. Oncologist. 2018;23(11):1319–27. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0143.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Rice TW, Patil DT, Blackstone EH. 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: application to clinical practice. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;6(2):119–30. https://doi.org/10.21037/acs.2017.03.14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2509–20. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1500596.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Macheda ML, Rogers S, Best JD. Molecular and cellular regulation of glucose transporter (GLUT) proteins in cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2005;202(3):654–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.20166.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wood IS, Trayhurn P. Glucose transporters (GLUT and SGLT): expanded families of sugar transport proteins. Br J Nutr. 2003;89(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn2002763.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Fonteyne P, Casneuf V, Pauwels P, et al. Expression of hexokinases and glucose transporters in treated and untreated oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Histol Histopathol. 2009;24(8):971–7. https://doi.org/10.14670/HH-24.971.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Schreurs LMA, Smit JK, Pavlov K, et al. Prognostic impact of clinicopathological features and expression of biomarkers related to 18F-FDG Uptake in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(12):3751–7. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3848-6.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, The PRISMA, et al. statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2020;2021:372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.CrossRef

20.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:4–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.CrossRef

21.

Li C, Lin J-W, Yeh H-L, Chuang C-Y, Chen C-C. Good prediction of treatment responses to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer based on preoperative inflammatory status and tumor glucose metabolism. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):11626. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-90753-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Wang J, Myles B, Wei C, et al. Obesity and outcomes in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma. Dis Esophagus. 2014;27(2):168–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12074.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Fassan M, Cavallin F, Guzzardo V, et al. PD-L1 expression, CD8+ and CD4+ lymphocyte rate are predictive of pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell cancer of the thoracic esophagus. Cancer Med. 2019;8(13):6036–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2359.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Goedegebuure RSA, Harrasser M, de Klerk LK, et al. Pre-treatment tumor-infiltrating T cells influence response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal adenocarcinoma. Oncoimmunology. 2021;10(1):1954807. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2021.1954807.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Huang W-T, Lu H-I, Wang Y-M, et al. Positive Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Expression Predicts Poor Treatment Outcomes in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy. J Clin Med. 2019;8(11). doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111864

26.

Kotsafti A, Scarpa M, Cavallin F, et al. Immune surveillance activation after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma and complete response. Oncoimmunology. 2020;9(1):1804169. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2020.1804169.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Soeratram TT, Creemers A, Meijer SL, et al. Tumor-immune landscape patterns before and after chemoradiation in resectable esophageal adenocarcinomas. J Pathol. 2022;256(3):282–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.5832.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Göbel HH, Distel LVR, Aigner T, Büttner-Herold MJ, Grabenbauer GG. PD-1 and PD-L1 expression predict regression and prognosis following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2022;34:90–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2022.04.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Haddad R, Zlotnik O, Goshen-lago T, et al. Tumor lymphocyte infiltration is correlated with a favorable tumor regression grade after neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Pers Med. 2022;12(4):627. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12040627.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Koemans WJ, Van Dieren JM, Den Van Berg JG, et al. High CD8 tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte density associates with unfavourable prognosis in oesophageal adenocarcinoma following poor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Histopathology. 2021;79:238–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14361.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Alvarado CE, Kapcio KC, Lada MJ, Linden PA, Towe CW, Worrell SG. The effect of diabetes on pathologic complete response among patients with esophageal cancer. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;35(2):429–36. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2021.10.016.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Fang P, Musall B, Ma J, et al. Interim FDG-pet imaging as an early response biomarker for pathologic response to chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99(2):S14–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.050.CrossRef

33.

Gillham CM, Lucey JA, Keogan M, et al. 18FDG uptake during induction chemoradiation for oesophageal cancer fails to predict histomorphological tumour response. Br J Cancer. 2006;95(9):1174–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603412.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Kukar M, Alnaji RM, Jabi F, et al. Role of repeat 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography examination in predicting pathologic response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(6):555–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.3867.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Arnett ALH, Merrell KW, Martin Macintosh EL, et al. Utility of [18F]FDG positron emission tomography for predicting histopathologic response in esophageal carcinoma following chemoradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2016;96(2):E139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.940.CrossRef

36.

Choi Y, Choi JY, Hong TH, et al. Trimodality therapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the role of volume-based PET/CT in patient management and prognostication. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(2):751–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05487-w.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Dewan A, Sharma SK, Dewan AK, et al. Impact on Radiological and Pathological Response with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation and Its Effect on Survival in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Thoracic Esophagus. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2017;48(1):42–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-016-9870-0.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Lee J, Choi JY, Lim SW, et al. Utility of positron emission–computed tomography for predicting pathological response in resectable oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg. 2021;58(5):1019–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/EJCTS/EZAA181.CrossRef

39.

Piessen G, Petyt G, Duhamel A, Mirabel X, Huglo D, Mariette C. Ineffectiveness of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of tumor response after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):66–76. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31828676c4.CrossRefPubMed

40.

van Rossum PSN, Fried DV, Zhang L, et al. The value of (18)F-FDG PET before and after induction chemotherapy for the early prediction of a poor pathologic response to subsequent preoperative chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(1):71–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3478-2.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Boyd JK, Jones DR, Kozower B, Lau C, Sanoff HK. The impact of diabetes mellitus and obesity on pathologic complete response rate of neoadjuvant chemoradation for gastroesophageal cancer: a retrospective review. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15 Suppl):e14627. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.15_SUPPL.E14627.CrossRef

42.

Schneider PM, Baldus SE, Metzger R, et al. Histomorphologic tumor regression and lymph node metastases determine prognosis following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy for esophageal cancer: Implications for response classification. Ann Surg. 2005;242(5):684–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000186170.38348.7b.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Chirieac LR, Swisher SG, Ajani JA, et al. Posttherapy pathologic stage predicts survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma receiving preoperative chemoradiation. Cancer. 2005;103(7):1347–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20916.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Fassan M, Cavallin F, Guzzardo V, et al. CD4+ and CD8+ lymphocyte rate and PDL-1 leukocyte expression are predictive of clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell cancer of the thoracic oesophagus. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2017;5(5):A589. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640617725676.CrossRef

45.

Goedegebuure RSA, De Klerk LK, Bass AJ, Derks S, Thijssen VLJL. Combining radiotherapy with anti-angiogenic therapy and immunotherapy; A therapeutic triad for cancer? Front Immunol. 2019;10(Jan):1-15. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.03107

46.

47.

Arnett ALH, Merrell KW, Macintosh EM, et al. Utility of (18)F-FDG PET for predicting histopathologic response in esophageal carcinoma following chemoradiation. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(1):121–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.08.136.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Piessen G, Robb WB, Petyt G, et al. Ineffectiveness of 18f-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of tumour response after completion of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in oesophageal cancer. Eur Surg Res. 2013;50(2):195–6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000351963.CrossRef

49.

Barsoum IB, Koti M, Siemens DR, Graham CH. Mechanisms of hypoxia-mediated immune escape in cancer. Cancer Res. 2014;74(24):7185–90. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-2598.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Buckley AM, Dunne MR, Morrissey ME, et al. Real-time metabolic profiling of oesophageal tumours reveals an altered metabolic phenotype to different oxygen tensions and to treatment with Pyrazinib. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12105. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68777-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Avgerinos KI, Spyrou N, Mantzoros CS, Dalamaga M. Obesity and cancer risk: Emerging biological mechanisms and perspectives. Metabolism. 2019;92:121–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2018.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Calle EE, Kaaks R. Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(8):579–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1408.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Armengol-Alonso A, Tusquets I, Servitja S, et al. Association between insulin resistance (Ir) and pathologic complete response (Pcr) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Nac) among no diabetic women with localized infiltrating breast cancer (Libc). Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 4):iv114. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu328.13.CrossRef

54.

Rojas A, Lindner C, Schneider I, et al. Diabetes mellitus contribution to the remodeling of the tumor microenvironment in gastric cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021;13(12):1997–2012. https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v13.i12.1997.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Tsuchikawa T, Miyamoto M, Yamamura Y, Shichinohe T, Hirano S, Kondo S. The immunological impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the tumor microenvironment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(5):1713–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1906-x.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Wu X, Zhang H, Sui Z, Wang Y, Yu Z. The biological role of the CXCL12/CXCR4 axis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Biol Med. 2021;18(2):401–10. https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0140.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Jiralerspong S, Palla SL, Giordano SH, et al. Metformin and pathologic complete responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in diabetic patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(20):3297–302. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.19.6410.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Kang YK, Boku N, Satoh T, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer refractory to, or intolerant of, at least two previous chemotherapy regimens (ONO-4538-12, ATTRACTION-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10111):2461–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31827-5.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (Anti–PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(2):134–44. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1305133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Bang YJ, Yañez Ruiz E, Van Cutsem E, et al. Phase III, randomised trial of avelumab versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: Primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(10):2052–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy264.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Bercovici N, Guérin MV, Trautmann A, Donnadieu E. The remarkable plasticity of macrophages: a chance to fight cancer. Front Immunol. 2019;10(JULY):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.01563.CrossRef

62.

Carstens JL, De Sampaio PC, Yang D, et al. Spatial computation of intratumoral T cells correlates with survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15095. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15095.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Vaupel P, Mayer A. Hypoxia in cancer: significance and impact on clinical outcome. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2007;26(2):225–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-007-9055-1.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Tamandl D, Ta J, Schmid R, et al. Prognostic value of volumetric PET parameters in unresectable and metastatic esophageal cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(3):540–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.002.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Malik V, Johnston C, O’Toole D, et al. Metabolic tumor volume provides complementary prognostic information to EUS staging in esophageal and junctional cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(3):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12505.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Shin J, Chung JH, Kim SH, et al. Effect of platinum-based chemotherapy on PD-L1 expression on tumor cells in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(3):1086–97. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.537.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Potential Predictive Immune and Metabolic Biomarkers of Tumor Microenvironment Regarding Pathological and Clinical Response in Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: A Systematic Review
verfasst von: H. H. Wang, BSc
E. N. Steffens, BSc
G. Kats-Ugurlu, MD, PhD
B. van Etten, MD, PhD
J. G. M. Burgerhof, MSc
G. A. P. Hospers, MD, PhD
J. T. M. Plukker, MD, PhD
Publikationsdatum: 30.09.2023
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-14352-z

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Häusliche Gewalt in der orthopädischen Notaufnahme oft nicht erkannt

28.05.2024 Häusliche Gewalt Nachrichten

In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

21.05.2024 Allgemeine Chirurgie Nachrichten

Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.

TAVI versus Klappenchirurgie: Neue Vergleichsstudie sorgt für Erstaunen

21.05.2024 TAVI Nachrichten

Bei schwerer Aortenstenose und obstruktiver KHK empfehlen die Leitlinien derzeit eine chirurgische Kombi-Behandlung aus Klappenersatz plus Bypass-OP. Diese Empfehlung wird allerdings jetzt durch eine aktuelle Studie infrage gestellt – mit überraschender Deutlichkeit.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Supplementary Information

Publisher's Note

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy and Study Selection Process

Quality Assessment

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Results

Identification of Studies

Study Characteristics

Effect of Metabolic Markers on Pathologic Response

Effect of Immune Markers on Pathologic Response

Effect of Clinical Metabolic Markers on Pathological Response

Effect of Metabolic and Immune Markers on Clinical Response and Pathologic Response (18F-FDG-PET/CT)

Risk-of-Bias Assessment

Discussion

Metabolic Tumor Microenvironment (TME) Markers

Immune TME Biomarkers

18F-FDG-PET/CT Biomarkers

Conclusion

Disclosures

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Die Chirurgie

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Supplementary Information

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

ASO Visual Abstract: Characteristics Predicting Short-Term and Long-Term, Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy and Esophagectomy

Surgical Decision Making in Genetically High-Risk Women: Quantifying Postoperative Complications and Long-Term Risks of Supplemental Surgery After Risk-Reducing Mastectomy

Prognostic Significance of Tumor Necrosis in Patients with Gallbladder Carcinoma Undergoing Curative-Intent Resection

The Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy on Esophagectomy for cT2N0M0 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Cytoreduction and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Paclitaxel and Cisplatin for Gastric Cancer with Peritoneal Metastasis

ASO Author Reflections: Tumor Necrosis—A Poor Prognostic Factor of Gallbladder Carcinoma

Update Chirurgie

Effect of Metabolic and Immune Markers on Clinical Response and Pathologic Response (¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT)

¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT Biomarkers