Purpose: The objective of this study was to determine whether [18F]- fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan could predict the pathological response in esophageal carcinoma after surgery in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Methods This randomized prospective study has been carried out in 30 consecutive patients; 15 in each arm including both males and females of carcinoma esophagus middle and lower 1/3rdof both histologically proven squamous and adenocarcinoma from March 2014 to October 2016 at Department of Radiation Oncology of our institute after obtaining a written informed consent from the patients. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The sample size was calculated keeping in view at the most 5% risk, with minimum 80% power and 5% significance level (significant at 95% confidence level).However, consideration of the past data, which gives idea of variation in the variables, played an important role in calculating the sample size. The sample size estimation was done by calculating intake of locally advanced esophageal cancer, satisfying all inclusion criteria at our center from previous year's hospital records. Eligibility Criteria: For the patients included in the study, the length and width of the tumor was not exceeded 8 cm and 5 cm, respectively. Only patients with tumors of clinical stage T1N1 or T2-3N0-1 with no clinical evidence of metastatic spread (M0), according to the International Union against Cancer (UICC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, were enrolled. Eligible patients were 18 to 75 years of age, had a World Health Organization (WHO) performance status score of 2 or lower (on a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 indicating fully active, 1 unable to carry out heavy physical work, and 2 up and about more than half the day but unable to work), and had lost 10% or less of body weight. Patients also had to have adequate hematologic, renal, hepatic, and pulmonary function, as well as no history of other cancer or previous radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Randomization and treatment: Patients were randomized into two groups using a piece of paper method. The terms NACCRT NACT were written separately on each piece of paper and patients were asked to pick up a random piece of paper at the registration counter in the presence of a blind observer. Patients were assigned to a particular group according to the respective piece of paper picked up by them. In both the groups patients were evaluated with [18F] FDG-PET CT scan in addition to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) and biopsy. After initial work up patients in NACCRT arm received five cycles of weekly chemoradiotherapy intravenous inj carboplatin targeted at an area under the curve of 2 mg/ml/min (AUC 2) and inj paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 of bodysurface area (BSA) for 23 days with concurrent radiotherapy 41.4 Gy, given in 23 fractions of 1.8 Gy on 5 days per week followed by surgery. In NACT arm, the patients received two cycles of 3 weekly chemotherapy with inj paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and inj carboplatin targeted at an area under the curve of 5 mg/ml/min (AUC 5). Post neoadjuvant therapy evaluation: In both the groups a repeat work up involving UGIE and FDG PET-CT was performed to assess the response to NAT after 5 weeks of NACCRT and NACT before patients were taken up for surgery. Whole body FDG PET-CT scan spanning base of skull to mid-thigh was done 45 minutes after intravenous injection of 370 MBq (Millibequerel) of 18-Fluoro-deoxy Glucose (18- FDG) using a whole body full ring dedicated LSO PET-CT scanner. Computed tomography images were obtained using 130 KV and 90mAs (mean) without administration of IV or Oral contrast. Standardized uptake values (SUV) were determined with a small fixed-dimension region of interest (ROI), 8 mm in diameter; and the value was determined using the highest activity inside this area. SUV values were calculated after correction of radioactive decay according to the following formula: SUV = ROI activity (MBq/ml)/injected dose (MBq/body weight g). ROIs were drawn at every level where tumor tissue was detectable, and maximal SUV was the highest detectable value inside the tumor. SUV of the primary tumor was determined at baseline and after therapy. Maximal SUV of the pretreatment scan was labeled as SUV1, and the post-treatment scan SUV2. Change percentage (SUV?%) was expressed as [(SUV1-SUV2)/SUV1]x100. Surgery and histological analysis: Patients in both NACCRT and NACT arms underwent surgery preferably within 5-6 weeks of neoadjuvant treatment. A video assisted thoracoscopicsurgical (VATS) esophagectomy approach was adopted for tumors involving middle and lower 1/3rd. For tumors involving the lower 1/3 rd where VATS was not possible a transhiatal resection was performed. As per histology the specimens were separated into two groups as per Mandard classification with or without regressive changes, while the regressive changes included the stromal changes and cytological alterations.[11] Basing on these changes the tumor regression was classified into five histological TRGs, based on vital tumor tissue at the ratio of fibrosis: TRG 1 was defined as complete regression fibrosis without detectable tissue of tumor; TRG 2 as fibrosis with scattered tumor cells; TRG 3 was fibrosis and tumor cells with preponderance of fibrosis; TRG 4 was fibrosis and tumor cells with preponderance of tumor cells; TRG 5 was tissue of tumor without changes of regression. Patient with TRG 1-2 were considered responders while 3-5 were considered non responders. Statistical analysis All analysis was performed with SPSS version 17.0. All quantitative data were expressed as medians (ranges).The diagnostic accuracy of [18F]- FDG-PET-CT was calculated by the Receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) test. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) provides a measure for the accuracy of a diagnostic test. It ranges from 0.5 to 1.0.The optimum cut off value for differentiation of responding and non-responding tumors was defined by the point of ROC curve with minimum distance from the 0% false positive rate and 100% true positive rate. The correlation between the SUV% and TRG was compared between NACCRT and NACT group using a paired T-test. Results The median age was 58 years, there was a male preponderance. 27/30 (90%) patients had Squamous histopathology with involvement of middle 1/3rd of esophagus. Most patients had stage III disease. Change in SUV values post neoadjuvant treatment in responders and nonresponders: In 33.3% responders in NACCRT group the SUV fell from 12.58±1.68 to 2.36±0.52 respectively (P value < 0.0001).In 20% responders in NACT group SUV fell from 9.7±0.85 to 2.0±0.43 respectively (P value < 0.001) .Though there was a statistically significant reduction in SUV value in both the groups after neoadjuvant treatment but a comparison between the NACCRT and NACT arm lead to a mean SUV value of 57.80 ±22.40 and 45.92±19.23 with a nonsignificant P value of 0.13. This leads to a conclusion that both the treatments result in a significant metabolic response however one does not outperforms the other in a statistically significant manner. TRG 1-2 versus TRG 3-5in NACCRT and NACT group: In NACCRT group of the 15 patients 7(46.6%) had achieved a complete or near complete response (TRG 1-2) while 8 of 15 patients (53.4%) had less or no response (TRG 3-5). While in NACT group 6 out of 15 (40%) patients had TRG 1-2 while 9/15 (60%) patients had TRG 3-5. In NACCRT group TRG had a mean value of 2.53±1.25 while in NACT group TRG had a mean value of 2.93±1.28 with a non significant P value of 0.393. This lead to a conclusion that there is no statistically significant difference between the NACCRT and NACT groups as far as TRG grade is concerned. Correlation between SUV% reduction and TRG: In our study we found a significant correlation between the [%?SUV max] reduction and TRG after analyzing the data of all 30 patients in both NACCRT and NACT group with a significance value of 0.002 where correlation is significant at a value of 0.01 level ( 2-tailed) ROC Curve Analysis: ROC curve analysis for an AUC of 0.693 (Figure-7) and sensitivity and specificity of 18FFDG PET scan of 80% and 46.7% respectively. Conclusion In our study we found that though there was a statistically significant reduction in SUV value in both the groups after NAT but a comparison between the NACCRT and NACT arm lead to a mean SUV value of 57.80 ±22.40 and 45.92±19.23 with a non significant P value of 0.13.This leads to a conclusion that both the treatments result in a significant metabolic response however one does not outperforms the other in a statistically significant manner. An early marker of response offers the greatest potential clinical advantage, particularly if those not benefiting from treatment could be identified and offered alternative approaches, and this was the hypothesis evaluated in this study. However the major drawback of this study was a small sample size. Despite that we could conclude by this study that [18 F]-FDG-PET CT is a good diagnostic modality for response assessment after NAT in locally advanced carcinoma esophagus patients and helps in differentiating between responders and non-responders significantly. TABLE SHOWING (SUV?%) AND TRG IN BOTH GROUPS SERIAL NO SUV(Max) UPTAKE BEFORE NACCRT SUV(Max) UPTAKE AFTER NACCRT (SUV?%) TUMOR REGRESSION GRADE (Mandard) 1. 12.4 2.1 83.06% 3 2. 19.5 12.4 57.25% 3 3. 16.3 9.3 42.94% 2 4. 17.6 10.6 39.72% 3 5. 21.5 14.2 33.95% 4 6. 16.2 9.8 39.50% 4 7. 11.4 1.8 98.2% 1 8. 14.5 9.1 37.24% 4 9. 16.5 10.3 37.57% 3 10. 15.2 8.6 43.42% 2 11. 10.8 2.3 91.8% 1 12. 14.3 7.2 49.65% 1 13. 17.6 8.3 52.84% 3 14. 15.1 2.4 84.10% 2 15. 13.2 3.2 75.75% 1 SERIAL NO SUV(Max) UPTAKE BEFORE NACT SUV (Max)UPTAKE AFTER NACT (SUV?%) TUMOR REGRESSION GRADE (Mandard) 1. 10.5 2.2 79.04% 2 2. 8.8 1.5 82.95% 1 3. 9.8 2.3 76.53% 3 4. 17.5 11.1 36.57% 4 5. 18.6 12.8 31.18% 3 6. 16.8 10.5 37.5% 2 7. 19.1 13.6 28.79% 5 8. 12.5 6.4 48.8% 3 9. 16.5 10.8 52.77% 2 10. 17.5 9.8 44.00% 1 11. 15.3 12.1 20.91% 2 12. 12.4 8.6 30.64% 3 13. 11.5 7.5 34.78% 4 14. 16.8 10.4 38.09% 4 15. 17.5 9.4 46.28% 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]