A randomized study of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery versus surgery for localized squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

Multimodal Treatment of Resectable Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer recommend a multimodal approach that includes chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Despite advances in treatment, rates of treatment failure, pathologic incomplete response, tumor metastasis, and death remain unacceptably high.

METHODS

This study was a narrative literature review using the terms "resectable esophageal cancer" and "multimodal therapy" to identify prospective trials of neoadjuvant radiation and chemotherapy, individually or combined with surgery, for esophageal cancer. Trials performed between 1984 and 2022 were identified and analyzed.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov was queried to identify ongoing studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-one clinical studies were identified: 15 randomized controlled trials and 6 prospective nonrandomized trials. The results of the randomized trials suggest that multimodal therapy-in the form of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in combination with radiation or chemotherapy alone, followed by surgery-is associated with better rates of local disease control and partial clinical response and, potentially, longer survival than is surgery alone. Immunotherapy is an emerging option for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of patients with resectable esophageal cancer is rapidly evolving. Although previous treatment options have had only limited benefits for patients, significant progress has been made during last 3 decades. The results of the available studies suggest that advances in the treatment of esophageal cancer have the potential to improve survival in these patients; however, questions remain regarding mechanisms of action, patient selection, and the use of personalized approaches that are based on genetics.

Pathologic complete response in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment is mostly limited to patients who exhibit pathologic complete response (pCR). Existing estimates of pCR rates among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy have not been synthesized and lack precision.

METHODS

We conducted an independently funded systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023397402) of pCR rates among patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radiation). Studies were identified from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database searches. Eligible studies included trials published from 1992 to 2022 that focused on nonmetastatic esophageal cancer, including the gastroesophageal junction. Histology-specific pooled pCR prevalence was determined using the Freeman-Tukey transformation and a random effects model.

RESULTS

After eligibility assessment, 84 studies with 6451 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinomas was 9% (95% CI: 6%-14%), ranging from 0% to 32%. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in squamous cell carcinomas was 32% (95% CI: 26%-39%), ranging from 8% to 66%. For adenocarcinoma, the pooled prevalence of pCR was 6% (95% CI: 1%-12%) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 22% (18%-26%) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Under one-third of patients with esophageal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemo(radiation) experience pCR. Patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas had higher rates of pCR than those with adenocarcinomas. As pCR represents an increasingly utilized endpoint in neoadjuvant trials, these estimates of pooled pCR rates may serve as an important benchmark for future trial design.

Treatment options for neoadjuvant strategies of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (Review)

Compared with postoperative adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy has more potential advantages, such as decreasing tumor stage, killing micrometastatic cells. Because of these advantages, neoadjuvant therapy is recommended for numerous types of tumor, such as breast, lung and rectal cancer. To determine the role of neoadjuvant therapy on overall survival and adverse for patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma. we summarized clinical studies on 7 types of neoadjuvant therapies in this review. Currently, patients with esophageal cancer (EC) in China mainly receive postoperative treatment with <30% of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. One reason for the limited use of neoadjuvant therapy in China is inaccurate staging based on imaging and neoadjuvant treatment may increase difficulties in surgery. After neoadjuvant therapy, there may be tissue edema, blurry surgical field of view and unclear tissue gaps, resulting in greater difficulty in surgical procedures. However, oncologists are interested in neoadjuvant treatment, especially neoadjuvant immunotherapy to treat EC. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the most common neoadjuvant treatment regimen and increases the pathological complete response (pCR) and 5- and 10-year survival rates. Preoperative induction chemotherapy and sequential concurrent chemoradiotherapy are currently the most widely treatments used in clinical practice in China. However, this treatment strategy does not yield long-term survival. The pCR rate of neoadjuvant immunotherapy is greater than that of concurrent chemoradiotherapy but, to the best of our knowledge, no evidence of long-term survival benefit has been found in phase I and II clinical trials. Neoadjuvant treatment should be considered for patients with locally advanced ESCC.

Nivolumab adjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer: a review based on subgroup analysis of CheckMate 577 trial

Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Approximately 50% of patients have locally advanced disease. The CROSS and NEOCRTEC5010 trials have demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment for patients with resectable disease. However, a pathological complete response is frequently not achieved, and most patients have a poor prognosis. The CheckMate 577 trial demonstrates that nivolumab adjuvant therapy improves disease-free survival in patents without a pathological complete response. However, there are still numerous clinical questions of concern that remain controversial based on the results of the subgroup analysis. In this review, we aim to offer constructive suggestions addressing the clinical concerns raised in the CheckMate 577 trial.

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma

PURPOSE

The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158).

RESULTS

IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.

Updates of perioperative multidisciplinary treatment for surgically resectable esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer has one of the poorest prognoses among all cancer types, due to the propensity for an early spread through the lymphatics and the difficulty to perform surgical treatment. To improve the prognosis, the management of esophageal cancer has been developed through the conduct of several clinical trials worldwide. In western societies, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been established as the standard treatment approach, as indicated by the results of the CROSS trial. Recently, the Japanese JCOG1109 trial demonstrated the significant improvement of survival by neoadjuvant triplet chemotherapy. As an adjuvant treatment, an immune checkpoint inhibitor has shown promising results in the CheckMate-577 trial. Including adjuvant S-1 mono therapy as another option, a randomised control phase III study will determine the ideal treatment for surgically resectable esophageal cancer. Furthermore, the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant cisplatin +5-fluorouracil or DCF plus nivolumab are examined in the JCOG1804E (FRONTiER) study. In addition to definitive chemoradiation therapy, the SANO trial is examining the safety and efficacy of active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, which might give us the choice to adopt organ preservation approach. The development of treatment has progressed dramatically with the advent of immunotherapy. Considering the biomarkers to predict the treatment response and prognosis, individualised multidisciplinary treatment strategies should be established for esophageal cancer patients.

Current neoadjuvant therapy for operable locally advanced esophageal cancer

Locally advanced esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis, while an increasing number of patients are diagnosed with that. Neoadjuvant therapy has become a hot topic in treating locally advanced esophageal cancer to improve its survival benefit. The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery has been confirmed by many studies, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are included in the guidelines. In recent years, targeted therapy and immunotherapy have emerged, and more studies are evaluating the efficacy of combining them with neoadjuvant therapy for operable esophageal cancer patients. Even though the preliminary data is disappointing, many trials are still under investigation without improving survival benefits. New indexes used as surrogate endpoints (e.g., major pathologic response and pathological complete response) are emerging to accelerate the development and approval of neoadjuvant drugs. This review summarized the research progress in neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer and discussed which primary endpoint should be used in neoadjuvant therapy trials.

The Key Clinical Questions of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer—A Review

Over 50% of individuals with esophageal cancer (EC) present with advanced stages of the disease; therefore, their outcome following surgery alone is poor, with only 25%–36% being alive 5 years post-surgery. Based on the evidence that the CROSS and NEOCRTEC5010 trials provided, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is now the standard therapy for patients with locally advanced EC. However, there are still many concerning clinical questions that remain controversial such as radiation dose, appropriate patient selection, the design of the radiation field, the time interval between chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery, and esophageal retention. With immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) rapidly becoming a mainstay of cancer therapy, along with radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery, the combination mode of immunotherapy is also becoming a hot topic of discussion. Here, we try to provide constructive suggestions to answer the perplexing problems and clinical concerns for the progress of nCRT for EC in the future.

Does Loosening the Inclusion Criteria of the CROSS Trial Impact Outcomes in the Curative-Intent Trimodality Treatment of Oesophageal and Gastroesophageal Cancer Patients?

AIM

To determine the efficacy of preoperative chemoradiotherapy as per the CROSS protocol for oesophageal/gastroesophageal junction cancer (OEGEJC), when expanded to patients outside of the inclusion/exclusion criteria defined in the original clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively on 229 OEGEJC patients referred for curative-intent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Outcomes including pathological complete response (pCR), overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients who met CROSS inclusion criteria (MIC) versus those who failed to meet criteria (FMIC) were determined.

RESULTS

In total, 42.8% of patients MIC, whereas 57.2% FMIC; 16.6% of patients did not complete definitive surgery. The MIC cohort had higher rates of pCR, when compared with the FMIC cohort (33.3% versus 20.6%, P = 0.039). The MIC cohort had a better RFS, cancer-specific survival and OS compared with the FMIC cohort (P = 0.006, P = 0.004 and P = 0.009, respectively). Age >75 years and pretreatment weight loss >10% were not associated with a poorer RFS (P = 0.541 and 0.458, respectively). Compared with stage I-III patients, stage IVa was associated with a poorer RFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.158; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.339-3.480, P = 0.001). Tumours >8 cm in length or >5 cm in width had a trend towards worse RFS (HR = 2.060; 95% CI = 0.993-4.274, P = 0.052).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the robust requirements of the CROSS trial may limit treatment for patients with potentially curable OEGEJC and can be adapted to include patients with a good performance status who are older than 75 years or have >10% pretreatment weight loss. However, the inclusion of patients with celiac nodal metastases or tumours >8 cm in length or >5 cm in width may be associated with poor outcomes.

Comparison of outcomes between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) followed by surgery are two standard strategies in treating locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC). We aim to compare NCRT and NCT in the management of locally advanced EC patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and conferences were systematically searched for clinical trials published up to September 2021. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) by reporting the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020170619).

FINDINGS

25 trials with 4563 EC patients met inclusion criteria. NCRT improved OS (HR: 0·72, 95%CrI: 0·63-0·82) and DFS (HR: 0·72, 95%CrI: 0·63-0·81) compared to surgery alone. NCRT improved OS (HR: 0·83, 95%CrI: 0·69-0·99) and DFS (HR: 0·83, 95%CI: 0·69-0·99) compared to NCT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that both NCRT (HR: 0·77, 95%CrI: 0·65-0·90) and NCT (HR: 0·81, 95%CrI: 0·67-0·99) improved OS than surgery in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. No significant differences were observed between NCRT and NCT regarding OS (HR: 0·95, 95%CrI: 0·75-1·19) and DFS (HR: 0·90, 95%CrI: 0·50-1·62) in ESCC. The short-term outcomes were similar between NCRT and NCT. The three treatment strategies were comparable in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) subpopulations.

INTERPRETATION

The study corroborated current guidelines in addressing the importance of analysing EC according to histopathological types. The analysis suggested that in locally advanced ESCC patients, both NCRT and NCT improved OS as compared to surgery alone, whereas no clear evidence supported the optimal strategies between NCRT and NCT. More RCTs comparing different therapeutic strategies in EAC patients are warranted.

FUNDING

Köln Fortune Program, University of Cologne.

(Neo)adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy is Beneficial to the Long-term Survival of Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the most effective and safest treatment mode for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through a network meta-analysis.

METHOD

A Bayesian model was used for a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Thirty clinical studies, including thirty-one articles, 4866 patients, were analyzed. Overall survival rate: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were significantly advantageous over surgery alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.93; HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.65-0.86]. There was no statistically significant difference between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.75-1.28]. Disease-free survival rate: Compared with surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had significant benefits [HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.78]; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had similar, but not significant benefits [HR 0.7, 0.95%CI 0.45-1.06]. The difference between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was also not statistically significant [HR 0.94, 0.95%CI 0.61-1.43]. Surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: The R0 resection rate was significantly improved [relative risk (RR) 0.25, 95%CI 0.07-0.86], but the overall postoperative morbidity rate and 30-day postoperative mortality rate tended to increase [RR 1.27, 95%CI 0.8-2.01; RR 1.59, 95%CI 0.7-3.22]. Neither neoadjuvant chemotherapy nor neoadjuvant radiotherapy significantly altered the surgical safety or R0 resection rate.

CONCLUSION

Both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy appear to be the best supplements to surgery for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

History and current situation of neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed malignant tumors, especially in north China. Surgery is one of the major treatments. However, for locally advanced cases, surgery alone does not achieve an ideal prognosis. As a result of rapid development in recent years, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery are becoming the “standard treatment pattern” for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, and an improvement in prognosis is evident. With the gradual application of immunotherapy in esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant immunotherapy has also shown an important role. This article mainly focuses on the history and current status of neoadjuvant treatment and its future role in the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Trimodality Approach for Esophageal Malignancies

Trimodality therapy, or the use of concurrent chemoradiation followed by surgery, is the cornerstone of contemporary management of esophageal cancer. This article discusses the landmark trials and most current data to understand the concepts, applications, and outcomes from trimodality therapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Survival outcomes for patients with four treatments in stages I-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a SEER analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer (EC) is globally acknowledged as one of the most common malignancies among all gastrointestinal cancers. Furthermore, in Eastern Asia, squamous cell carcinoma is the main pathological type of EC. There are different treatments for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but there is still a lack of large-sample analysis of prognosis among different treatments, especially for different tumor stages. The analysis of the prognosis of ESCC patients with different treatments may be helpful to choose the treatment methods for different stages ESCC.

METHODS

A total of 3,346 patients with pathological ESCC between 1976 and 2016 were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. All clinical factors associated with prognosis were collected and analyzed to achieve the difference of prognosis among different treatments in ESCC patients, such as ages, sex, race, tumor grade, anatomic location and so on. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analysis were used to compare survival of different treatments in ESCC patients with stage I-III.

RESULTS

The overall survival (OS) in all ESCC patients who had received surgery and surgery plus radiation therapy or/and chemotherapy are superior than that had not received any treatments and radiation therapy or/and chemotherapy. The OS in ESCC patients with stage I who had received surgery and surgery plus radiation therapy or/and chemotherapy are superior than that had not received any treatments and radiation therapy or/and chemotherapy. The OS in ESCC patients with stage II/III who had received surgery and surgery plus radiation therapy or/and chemotherapy are superior than that in other groups. Age, race and grade as an independent predictive factor for survival (P<0.05). A nomogram model was constructed to show surgery group had better 1-, 3- and 5-year OS than radiation therapy or/and chemotherapy group (OS: 78.5% vs. 59.2%, 37.9% vs. 18.4%, 16.9% vs. 6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery is still the first choice for all ESCC patients with stage I-III. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy could improve the survival rate in ESCC patients with stage II-III who have received surgery.

A network meta-analysis for neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments for resectable squamous cell carcinoma of esophagus

The optimal treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is still a debatable point; however, randomized trials for strategies including neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) are not always available. This network meta-analysis aimed to identify an effective approach through indirect comparisons. An extensive literature search comparing multimodality treatment and surgery was performed, and a network meta-analysis was conducted with the frequentist method. Twenty-three trials including a total of 3636 ESCC patients were included. Neoadjuvant CRT and neoadjuvant CT, which were recommended by most guidelines for esophageal cancer, were associated with an overall survival advantage compared with surgery alone (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.73; HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.32-1.59). A statistically significant survival benefit from neoadjuvant CRT compared with neoadjuvant CT could not be demonstrated in our study (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.32-1.17, P = 0.08). Our network meta-analysis showed that both neoadjuvant CRT and neoadjuvant CT were effective in improving the survival of patients with ESCC. Individual clinical decisions need further study in the future.

The Optimal Treatment for Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of 6168 Patients

The optimal treatment for resectable esophageal cancer remains unclear. This network meta-analysis compares the efficacy of different treatments. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically screened. Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of different treatments for resectable esophageal cancer were included. Hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, or disease-free survival, and odds ratios for locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis rates were identified as the measurements of efficacy. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. In this study, 26 studies were included. Patients received either surgery alone; neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT), or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery; or surgery followed by adjuvant CT, adjuvant RT, or adjuvant CRT. Neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery (pooled HR = 0.76, 95% credible interval: 0.67–0.85) and neoadjuvant CT followed by surgery compared with surgery alone were the only two showing statistically confident improvement on OS. Ranking analysis showed that neoadjuvant CRT with surgery was likely to be the best option in terms of efficacy. Therefore, for patients with resectable esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant CRT with surgery is the optimal treatment. Future studies should focus on the optimization of neoadjuvant CRT regimens.

Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is among the ten most common types of cancer worldwide. More than 80% of the cases and deaths related to the disease occur in developing countries. Local socio-economic, epidemiologic and healthcare particularities led us to create a Brazilian guideline for the management of oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) carcinomas. The Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours invited 50 physicians with different backgrounds, including radiology, pathology, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, genetics, oncological surgery, radiotherapy and clinical oncology, to collaborate. This document was prepared based on an extensive review of topics related to heredity, diagnosis, staging, pathology, endoscopy, surgery, radiation, systemic therapy (including checkpoint inhibitors) and follow-up, which was followed by presentation, discussion and voting by the panel members. It provides updated evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical management of oesophageal and OGJ carcinomas in several scenarios and clinical settings.

EphA5 Silencing Increases the Radiosensitivity of ESCC Cells Through ATM-Dependent Pathway

Background

Radiotherapy is one of the most important treatments for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Previously, we found that EphA5 expression was increased in ESCC cells and tumor tissues. Studies from other groups reported that EphA5 is abnormally expressed in numerous malignant tumors and may be involved in the radiosensitivity of lung cancer. However, the role of EphA5 in radiotherapy for ESCC remains unclear.

Methods

The siRNA sequences against human EPHA5 were transfected to the ESCC cells (KYSE150 and KYSE450). After ionizing radiation (IR), cell viability and colony formation assays were used to test the changes of cell proliferation in EphA5-silenced cells. Flow cytometry analysis was performed to investigate the cell apoptosis and cycle in the irradiated cells interfered by siRNA. The key molecules involved in cell cycle checkpoints and DNA damage repair were evaluated by Western blot and immunofluorescence.

Results

CCK8 assay and clonogenic assay showed that the proliferation of EphA5-silenced ESCC cells was inhibited after IR. At 24 h post-IR treatment, we found that the G1/S checkpoint triggered by DNA damage in EphA5-silenced cells was defective. γ-H2AX foci in the irradiated EphA5-silenced cells were impaired at 0.5 h post-IR treatment as well as ATM activation. The defective activation of ATM resulted in a decrease of p-Chk2, p-p53 and p21 expression.

Conclusion

In conclusion, these results indicate that EphA5 silencing increases radiosensitivity in ESCC cells through ATM-dependent pathway, which provides a potential target for the radiotherapy in ESCC.

Impact of Radiation Dose on Survival for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Purpose: Radiation dose used in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) varies in different trials and clinical practice. Methods and Materials: Data from patients diagnosed with ESCC receiving NCRT followed by esophagectomy were retrospectively collected from February 2013 to December 2017. Lower dose (LD) radiotherapy was defined as ≤45 Gy, and >45 Gy was considered as higher dose (HD). Survival rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with long-rank test. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify variables associated with survival. Results: A total of 118 patients treated with NCRT were included in our analysis: 62 patients received LD radiotherapy, and 56 patients received HD radiotherapy. The median follow-up time was 24.3 months (0.67-65.3 m). Two-years overall survival (OS) rates were 75.0 and 79.0% in HD and LD group, respectively (P = 0.360), and complete pathological remission (pCR) rates in two groups were 42.9 and 30.6%, respectively (P = 0.17). The incidences of toxic effects including post-operative complications were not significantly different between two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor T stage, M1a disease, smoking history, and pCR rate were significantly associated with OS. Conclusions: In ESCC patients treated with NCRT followed by surgery, higher radiation dose was not significantly associated with a higher pCR rate and longer survival. Lower radiation dose might be a preferable time-dose fraction scheme. Our finding needs to be further validated by randomized trials.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for clinical node-negative esophageal carcinoma

Background

The impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) on early stage esophageal cancer is unknown. Here, we compared the outcomes after esophagectomy alone or nCRT plus surgery for clinically staged node‐negative esophageal cancer.

Methods

We searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for patients with clinically node‐negative (cN0) esophageal cancer from 2004 to 2016 who underwent surgery alone or nCRT plus surgery. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis were used to identify covariates associated with overall survival and cancer‐specific survival.

Results

A total of 1587 patients were retrospectively identified, of whom 49.8% (n = 791) received nCRT and 80.2% (n = 1273) were truly node‐negative diseases. For the entire cohort, surgery alone was associated with a statistically significant but modest absolute increase in survival outcomes (P < 0.01). After matching, nCRT was associated with improved five‐year overall survival for pT3‐4N0 (localized) disease (59.6% vs. 37.7%; P < 0.001) and pathological node‐positive disease (60.5% vs. 40.7%; P = 0.002). Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed that the addition of nCRT for truly node‐negative patients with tumor length ≥ 3 cm, pT1‐2N0 (early‐staged) and localized disease were independent risk factors for survival than surgery alone (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Compared with surgery alone, patients with cN0 esophageal cancer with pathological node‐positive or localized true node‐negative disease gain a significant survival benefit from nCRT. However, nCRT plus surgery was associated with decreased survival for early‐staged true node‐negative patients. This finding may have significant implications on the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with cN0 disease.

The Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Inconclusive results are available as to whether chemo/radiotherapy should be administered to resectable esophageal cancer patients before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) or after surgery (adjuvant therapy). The paper, via a meta-analysis of effects of treatment modalities when administering chemo/radiotherapy, aims to systematically evaluate the effect of timing of chemo/radiotherapy and surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for clinical trials of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal cancer. Using meta-analysis, we conducted direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of overall survival, complete resection rate (R0 resection), perioperative mortality, leakage rate and local recurrence in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies involving 7985 patients with esophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Twenty-five randomized controlled studies indirectly compared neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy with surgery alone, while five non-randomized controlled studies and two randomized controlled studies directly compared neoadjuvant with adjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, compared with surgery along with adjuvant therapy, showed a significant overall survival advantage in our pooled analysis (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Directly compared with adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy demonstrated a lower local recurrence rate (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.43-0.74) with low heterogeneity (I² = 1%). Neoadjuvant therapy, comparing to surgery with or without adjuvant therapy, showed a significantly higher R0 resection rate (OR 2.86; 95% CI 2.02-4.04) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 38%) and no significant differences in postoperative anastomotic leakage (P = 0.50). However, neoadjuvant therapy, compared with surgery adjuvant therapy, significantly increased perioperative mortality in both direct and indirect comparisons (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher overall survival and R0 resection rate without increasing postoperative anastomotic leakage for patients with resectable esophageal cancer, whereas neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher perioperative mortality after esophagectomy.

Clinical evidence for association of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy with efficacy and safety in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma (NewEC study)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment over surgery alone and that of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) over neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in resectable esophageal carcinoma remains inconclusive. This study (NewEC) used global data to comprehensively evaluate these comparisons and to provide a preferable strategy for patient subsets.

METHODS

This study included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from inception to May 2019 from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and congresses and a registry-based cohort study with patients from Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts, USA) and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangzhou, China) recruited from November 2000 and June 2017, to cross-validate the comparisons among NCRT versus NCT versus surgery. The GRADE approach was used to assessed quality of evidence in meta-analysis. Neural network machine learning propensity score-matched analysis was used to account for confounding by patient-level characteristics in the cohort study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The study was registered with PROSPERO CRD42017072242 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04027543.

FINDINGS

Of 22,070 studies assessed, there were 38 (n = 6,993 patients) eligible RCTs. Additionally, 423 out of 467 screened patients were included in the cohort study. The results from trials showed that NCT had a better OS than surgery alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·79-0·98; high quality) and was only favorable for adenocarcinoma (HR 0·83, 95% CI 0·72-0·96; moderate quality). High-quality evidence showed a significantly better OS for NCRT than surgery alone (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·66-0·82) for both adenocarcinoma (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·62-0·86) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·65-0·83). The OS benefit of NCRT over NCT was seen in the pairwise (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·62-0·99; high quality) and network (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·72-0·93; high quality) meta-analyses, with similar results before (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·40-0·91) and after (HR 0·44, 95% CI 0·25-0·77) matching in the cohort study, leading to a significantly increased 5-year OS rate in both adenocarcinoma and SCC before and after matching. The increased benefits from NCT or NCRT were not associated with the risk of 30-day or in-hospital mortality.

INTERPRETATION

NewEC Study provided high-quality evidence supporting the survival benefits of NCRT or NCT over surgery alone, with NCRT presenting the greatest benefit for resectable esophageal carcinoma.

FUNDING

National Science and Technology Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Guangzhou Science and Technology Major Program, the Medical artificial intelligence project of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, the Guangdong Science and Technology Department, the Guangdong Province Medical Scientific Research Foundation, and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital Intermural Program.

Comparative Perioperative Outcomes by Esophagectomy Surgical Technique

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is vital in the curative management of patients with esophageal cancer. However, a myriad of surgical procedures exists based on surgeon preference and training. We report on the perioperative outcomes based on esophagectomy surgical technique.

METHODS

A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy from 1996 and 2016. Basic demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were recorded and analyzed by comparison of transhiatal vs Ivor-lewis and minimally invasive (MIE) vs open procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 856 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 543 patients (63.4%). There were 504 (58.8%) open esophagectomies and 302 (35.2%) MIE. There were 13 (1.5%) mortalities and this did not differ among techniques (p = 0.6). While there was no difference in overall complications between MIE and open, complications occurred less frequently in patients undergoing RAIL and MIE IVL compared to other techniques (p = 0.003). Pulmonary complications also occurred less frequently in RAIL and MIE IVL (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks were less common in patients who underwent IVL compared to trans-hiatal approaches (p = 0.03). MIE patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.001), have lower blood loss (p < 0.001), have longer operations (p < 0.001), and higher lymph node harvests (p < 0.001) compared to open patients.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis techniques demonstrated substantial benefits in post-operative complications. Oncologic outcomes similarly favor MIE IVL and RAIL.

Treatment-related complications in patients with esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to compare the available treatments of esophageal cancer, in terms of pulmonary, cardiovascular complications, anastomotic leakage, and esophagitis after treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched. The randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had compared the treatment -related complications of treatments for esophageal SCC were included. We included 39 randomized control trials in a network meta-analysis. The Chi2-test was used to assess of heterogeneity. The loop-specific and design-by-treatment interaction methods were used for assessment of consistency assumption. The risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to report the effect-sizes in the network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The pulmonary complication, cardiac complication, anastomotic leakage, and esophagitis were reported in 31, 11, 17, and 15 RCTs respectively. Video-assisted thoracoscopy + laparoscopy (VATS) was rank as the first and second treatment in terms of lower risk for pulmonary complication and anastomotic leakage. There was no statistically significant difference between treatments in terms of lower risk of cardiovascular complications. However, Surgery + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil (SCF) was ranked as better treatment. 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy + Docetaxel + Cisplatin (3DCRTDC) was the best treatment in terms of lower risk for esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of this study, it seems the risk of pulmonary, cardiovascular, anastomotic leakage and esophagitis complications for VATS, SCF, surgery + radiotherapy (SRT), and 3DCRTDC was lower than other treatments respectively in the networks.

Neoadjuvant strategies in resectable carcinoma esophagus: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The survival benefit of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable carcinoma esophagus has been elucidated. We performed a meta-analysis in light of new studies and long-term results of past trials. The search strategy was refined to include only "neoadjuvant" so that any bias by adjuvant treatment is eliminated.

METHODS

A detailed search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was done. Only published randomized English language trials were included. Data were categorized as neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (NACRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NART), and neoadjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT). Meta-analysis was done using odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI using fixed/random effects model. Heterogeneity was tested by chi-square and I2 test. Z probability calculated significant difference across subgroups. Outcomes assessed were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years, respectively, mortality (30/90 day) and failures (local/systemic).

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized trials involving 5272 patients were included for quantitative analysis. NACRT was evaluated in 12 studies (2676 patients). Superior 3-year OS (OR = 0.68 CI 0.52-0.90, p = 0.007), 3-year DFS (OR = 0.55 CI 0.45-0.68, p = 0.00001), and 5-year DFS (OR = 0.59 CI 0.47-0.74, p = 0.00001), with lower failures (OR = 0.52 CI 0.37-0.73, p = 0.0001), were seen in favor of NACRT at the cost of increased perioperative mortality (OR = 1.79 CI 1.15-2.80, p = .01). However, 5-year OS (OR = 0.78 CI 0.60-0.1.01, p = 0.06) was not found to be significantly superior. NACT, NART, and SCRT were not found to have any benefit over surgery alone.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis presents strong evidence favoring NACRT over upfront surgery. It also shows no survival advantage of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Elective nodal irradiation versus involved-field irradiation in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a network meta-analysis

Background

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and involved-field irradiation (IFI) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (nCRTS).

Material and methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and major meetings were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two of the following treatment regimens: nCRTS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (nCTS), and surgery (S) alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcomes of interest, reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare all regimens simultaneously.

Results

Twenty-nine RCTs with a total of 5212 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both nCRTS adopting ENI (nCRTS-ENI) (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48–0.83) and nCRTS adopting IFI (nCRTS-IFI) (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66–0.86) significantly improved OS compared to S alone. No significant differences in OS, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, R0 resection and postoperative mortality were observed between nCRTS-ENI and nCRTS-IFI. In subgroup analyses, nCRTS-IFI showed a significant OS advantage over nCTS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63–0.96) and S alone (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38–0.68) for esophagus squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but nCRTS-ENI did not; nCRTS-ENI using three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-RT) resulted in an improved OS compared to that with 2D-RT (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34–0.99). Based on treatment ranking in term of OS, nCRTS-IFI (0.90) and nCRTS-ENI (0.96) was ranked the most effective treatment for ESCC and esophagus adenocarcinoma (EAC), respectively.

Conclusion

Either adopting ENI or IFI, nCRTS is likely to be the optimal treatment for resectable EC, and nCRTS-IFI and nCRTS-ENI seem to be more effective for patients with ESCC and EAC, respectively. Future head to head comparison trials are needed to confirm these findings.

A propensity-score matching analysis comparing long-term survival of surgery alone and postoperative treatment for patients in node positive or stage III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after R0 esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Surveillance was recommended for patients after R0 esophagectomy by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. However, local failure was high in locally advanced patients (48-78%). The present study aimed to determine whether adjuvant treatment improved survival for stage IIb-III thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (TESCC).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients diagnosed as esophageal carcinoma at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Cancer hospital, between January 2004 and December 2011, was performed. A database compiling 975 patents with node positive or stage III thoracic esophageal carcinoma after R0 surgery with or without postoperative radiation/chemoradiation was created. A 1:1 matched study group was generated by the Greedy method after propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Survival curves were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

975 patients were enrolled in the study, 510 patients (52.3%) did not receive any postoperative treatment after R0 surgery and 465 patients had either postoperative chemoradiation or radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 69.2 months. After PSM, 222 well-balanced patients in each group demonstrated the same results. The 3-year, 5-year survival rates and median survival in surgery group (33.0%, 26.4%, 24.3 months) were inferior to those in postoperative treatment group (48.3%, 37.1% and 34.3 months), (P = 0.002). Compared with radiotherapy, postoperative chemoradiation did not improve DFS and OS (P = 0.692; P = 0.368). N stage and adjuvant treatment are independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant treatment could improve survival for patients with stage IIb-III TESCC.

Analysis of the National Cancer Database Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in the United States

BACKGROUND

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has been poorly studied, approached with therapeutic nihilism, and likely undertreated. We studied the impact of clinical and patient factors on the survival of ESCC in the United States.

METHODS

We selected patients with stage I to III ESCC from 2004 to 2013, using the National Cancer Database. Patients were categorized into the following treatment modalities: (1) definitive chemoradiation therapy (CR), (2) neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophageal resection (ER), (3) ER alone, and (4) ER followed by adjuvant therapy. Our main outcome measure was overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified 11,229 patients with ESCC undergoing definitive CR (78.6%); neoadjuvant therapy followed by ER (8.5%), ER alone (10.1%), and ER followed by adjuvant therapy (2.6%). Compared with neoadjuvant therapy, both ER alone and definitive CR were associated with substantially increased mortality. Patients treated at high-volume centers (>20), regardless of whether they underwent ER, had improved survival compared with facilities that performed 10 to 19, 5 to 9, and less than 5 ERs per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated at high-volume facilities were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy, and there was a marked inverse relationship between annual surgical volume and long-term survival for both surgically and non-surgically treated patients with stage I to III ESCC.

Optimal radiation dosing in concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiation for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is the first meta-analysis to study optimal radiation dose in the setting of concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (cnCRT) for esophageal cancer (EC). We sought to compare outcomes between high dose radiotherapy (HDRT) [>48.85 Gy biologically effective dose (BED)] group and low dose radiotherapy (LDRT) (≤48.85 Gy BED) for patients with EC receiving cnCRT.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched independently by two members of our team on August 07, 2017. Articles were screened using Covidence. Study quality was assessed via CONSORT. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing cnCRT vs. surgery alone in full-text English. Those with induction or sequential chemoradiotherapy were excluded. We captured data points including radiation dose, hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), and treatment-related mortality (TRM). We analyzed HRs for OS and risk ratio (RR) for TRM and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) as the summary statistic. We used both fixed- and random-effects models in the presence of heterogeneity. The primary outcome was OS; secondary endpoint was treatment related mortality (TRM). We compared outcomes by HDRT vs. LDRT. To minimize chemotherapy heterogeneity, we performed a pre-planned analysis excluding the CROSS trial.

RESULTS

The eleven included studies contained a total of 1,697 patients. Eight hundred forty-eight were randomized into the cnCRT. Of these 848 patients, 287 received HDRT and 561 received LDRT. HR for OS was not statistically different between LDRT (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.8) and HDRT (HR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91). Excluding the CROSS trial, there was still no difference in outcomes between LDRT and HDRT. TRM was similar between LDRT and HDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

With no difference in OS or TRM between LDRT and HDRT, 48.85 Gy BED cnCRT may be a sufficient radiation dose for cnCRT for patients with EC fit for surgery.

Managing Squamous Cell Esophageal Cancer

This article reviews the pathophysiology, risk factors, clinical presentation/diagnosis, and management of SCC.

Combined Modality Therapy for Management of Esophageal Cancer: Current Approach Based on Experiences from East and West

Human evolutionary genetic divergence and distinctive environmental exposures have contributed to the development of clinicopathologic variations of esophageal cancer in Eastern and Western countries. Different treatment strategies have derived from the disparate regional experiences. Treatment strategy is more standardized in the West. Trimodality treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery is widely accepted as the standard treatment of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Trimodality treatment has not been adopted in many Eastern countries, and standard treatment is neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Several randomized trials are ongoing that may alter the standard management of esophageal cancer worldwide.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Treatment for Resectable Esophago-Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) remains controversial in the treatment of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) carcinomas.

Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of Neoadjuvant CRT plus surgery comparing with neoadjuvant CT plus surgery or surgery alone. Feasible studies were searched from electronic databases. The outcomes of survival, R0 resection rate and adverse effects were analyzed. The outcomes were measured with relative risk (RR) and odds ratio(OR).

Results: Seventeen records including 4095 patients were included. Neoadjuvant CRT improved 1-,2-,3-and 5-year survival. The relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI),P value] was respectively 1.08(1.03-1.14,0.002), 1.21(1.12-1.32,<0.00001),1.31(1.09-1.58,0.004),1.38(1.17-1.62, <0.001).In subgroup analysis, patients with squamous cell carcinoma benefited more survival advantage from neoadjuvant CRT than those with adenocarcinoma[1.23(1.15-1.33)vs1.11 (1.03-1.19)]. A significant advantage was observed in analysis of neoadjuvant CRT for PFS [1.32 (1.22-1.44),<0.00001]. Tests for DFS between neoadjuvant CRT and neoadjuvant CT or surgery alone were not statistically significant[1.06 (0.97-1.17,0.19)]. Neoadjuvant CRT was associated with higher R0 resection [2.58(1.75-3.82),<0.00001] and pCR rate [4.37(2.68-7.13),<0.00001]. Neoadjuvant CRT lowered the local recurrence rate [0.52(0.39-0.69),<0.00001] and didn't control distant metastasis rate[0.85(0.67-1.08),0.19].There was no evidence that neoadjuvant CRT increased the treatment-related mortality[1.27(0.95-1.71),0.11]. Neoadjuvant CRT plus surgery did not increase the risk of adverse events morbidity[1.14(0.99-1.32),0.08].

Conclusion: Patients with oesophagus or GOJ carcinomas can obtain a survival advantage from neoadjuvant CRT. The addition of radiation was efficacy and safe in range. However, these results need further high-quality prospective RCTs confirmation.

Chemotherapy and novel targeted therapies for operable esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional cancer

During the past decades, several treatment strategies such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy have been shown to improve the prognosis of resectable esophageal cancer. Patients with squamous cell tumors respond better to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to adenocarcinoma. Therefore, in squamous tumors neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is the preferred strategy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy are both effective in patients with adenocarcinoma. Chemoradiotherapy trials have shown higher rates of pCR, pN0 and R0 resection rates compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials. Nonetheless, it is still unclear whether one strategy should be preferred over the other in terms of overall survival for adenocarcinoma. Based on the currently available evidence, the addition of targeted agents, such as VEGF and EGFR inhibitors, to the aforementioned strategies does not lead to survival benefit. Novel targeted treatment strategies that are currently being investigated include inhibition of HER2, PD-1 or the PD-1 ligand. Molecular subgroup analysis can contribute to better understanding of disease pathogenesis and prediction of response to treatment.

A rationale multidisciplinary approach for treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: Accurate review of management and perspectives

Cancer of the esophagus and of gastroesophageal junction can be cured, even if with lacking cure rate. Different approaches have been developed, mostly when carcinoma has loco-regional pattern. Multimodality therapy showed a survival rate superior than 10% if compared to a single approach. This is a systematic review, carried to assess the following matters: Which therapeutic opportunities are available? Who could benefit of them? Which adverse reactions could possibly verify? How can physicians definitely choose the proper strategy? Which is the role of surgery? We mean to give either General Practitioner or specialists clear and efficient updates about current treatment of this tumour, starting from physical examination. Four eminent guidelines were consulted for our study: Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care, NCCN, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre and Esmo.

[Surgery after upfront radiochemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer: To do or not to do?]

The treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer is still evolving. Surgery was considered as the backbone of the therapeutic management for a long time. Nowadays, chemoradiation has taken a major place in the neoadjuvant setting or as an exclusive treatment. Although some patients benefit from esophagectomy after chemoradiotherapy, a large subset of patients has no benefit and morbi-mortality rates are increased with a trimodality strategy. Patients who will have a local failure are at high risk of distant metastases in the follow-up. A third group of patients will have persistent locoregional disease after chemoradiotherapy and may benefit from surgery, but only a minority of patients with locally advanced disease are eligible. The impact of surgery after upfront chemoradiotherapy on survival and the quality of life of patients with locally advanced squamous cell esophageal cancer remain uncertain. An active surveillance strategy after chemoradiation or salvage esophagectomy for a locally residual disease might improve the prognosis of these patients. An optimized bimodality such as chemoradiotherapy delivering at least 50Gy is still standard and salvage surgery for local persistent disease or a local failure must be discussed in the framework of a multidisciplinary group for selected patients only.

A network meta-analysis of the treatments for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in terms of survival

We aimed to compare treatments for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in terms of survival. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had compared esophageal SCC treatments were included. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was used to summarize the effect measures in the Bayesian network meta-analysis. Out of 23,256 references, 43 RCTs with 34 treatments were included. Carboplatin and paclitaxel plus radiotherapy plus surgery (carbo-pacli + RT + S) compared with surgery alone decreased risk of death (HR = 0.49; 95% CrI: 0.26, 0.90). The HRs for carbo-pacli + RT + S versus surgery plus cisplatin and fluorouracil and surgery plus cisplatin and vindesine were 0.44 (0.22, 0.86) and 0.41 (0.20, 0.83), respectively. Among all treatments in network, carbo-pacli + RT + S ranked as first treatment. It seems carbo-pacli + RT + S was a better treatment among available treatments in network in terms of survival in patients with esophageal SCC.

Concomitant Chemotherapy and External Radiotherapy plus Brachytherapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer Results of a Retrospective Multicenter Study

Aims and Background

In October 1995, the Piedmont AIRO (Italian Society of Radiation Oncology) Group started a multi-institutional study of radiochemotherapy on locally advanced esophageal cancer, characterized by external radiotherapy followed by an intraluminal high dose-rate brachytherapy boost. Most patients were re-evaluated for surgery at the end of the program. The primary aim of the study was to assess efficacy of curative radiochemotherapy regarding overall survival and local control rates. The secondary aim was to evaluate the ability of radiochemotherapy to make resectable lesions previously considered inoperable.

Methods and Study Design

Between January 1996 and March 2000, 75 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer were enrolled. All were treated with definitive radiotherapy; due to age or high expected toxicity, chemotherapy was employed only in 53 of them. Treatment schedule consisted of 60 Gy external radiotherapy (180 cGy/d, 5 days/week for 7 weeks) concomitant with two 5-day cycles of chemotherapy with cisplatin and fluorouracil (weeks 1 and 5). One or two sessions of 5-7 Gy intraluminal high dose-rate brachytherapy were carried out on patients whose restaging showed a major tumor response. Surgery was performed in 14 patients.

Results

At the end of radiotherapy, dysphagia disappeared in 46/75 cases (61%), and in 20/75 (27%) a significant symptom reduction was recorded. Complete objective response at restaging after radiotherapy was obtained in 33% of patients and a partial response in 53%. At the end of the multimodal treatment program, including esophagectomy, complete responses were 34 (45%); 4 of 14 (28.5%) cases proved to be disease free (pTO) at pathological examination. No G3-G4 toxicity was recorded. Two- and 5-year overall survival rates of all patients were, respectively, 38% and 28%; 2- and 5-year local control rates were, respectively, 35% and 33%. In a subgroup of 20 nonsurgical patients in complete response after radiochemotherapy, the overall survival rate at 3 and 5 years was 65% and the local control rate at 3 and 5 years was 75%. According to multivariate analysis, prognostic factors for survival were Karnofsky index and esophagectomy.

Conclusions

For patients with locally advanced disease, radiochemotherapy showed improved clinical and pathologic tumor response and survival compared to surgery or radiotherapy alone. Intraluminal brachytherapy with a small fraction size allows an increased dose to the tumor without higher toxicity. Esophagectomy following radiochemotherapy could improve survival rates compared to definitive radiochemotherapy, but it is necessary to optimize selection criteria for surgery at the re-evaluation phase.

Prognosis of surgery combined with different adjuvant therapies in esophageal cancer treatment: a network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether the efficacy of surgery with adjuvant therapies, including radiotherapy (RT+S), chemotherapy (CT+S), and chemoradiotherapy (CRT+S) have better performance in esophageal cancer treatment and management. PubMed and EMBASE were used to search for relevant trials. Both conventional pair-wise and network meta-analyses were carried out. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank interventions based on the efficacy of the treatment method. As for 3-year overall survival (OS), CRT+S showed the highest efficacy (CRT+S vs.

SURGERY

HR=0.81, 95% CrI =0.73-0.90; CRT+S vs. CT+S: HR=0.82, 95% CrI =0.70-0.95; CRT+S vs. RT+S: HR=0.77, 95% CrI =0.62-0.95). For disease-free survival, CRT+S showed efficacy over CT+S ((HR =0.70, 95% CrI =0. 59-0.83). In conclusion, CRT+S showed a better performance for survival outcomes and ranks best among all therapies. The results of our study can provide guidance for medical decisions and treatment options that may help clinical practitioners improve the efficacy of EC treatment.

Neoadjuvant treatments for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer: A network meta-analysis

The relative survival benefits and postoperative mortality among the different types of neoadjuvant treatments (such as chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only or chemoradiotherapy) for esophageal cancer patients are not well established. To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies in resectable esophageal cancer, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications up to May 2016. ASCO and ASTRO annual meeting abstracts were also searched up to the 2015 conferences. Randomized controlled trials that compared at least two of the following treatments for resectable esophageal cancer were included: surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome assessed from the trials was overall survival. Thirty-one randomized controlled trials involving 5496 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival when compared to all other treatments including surgery alone (HR 0.75, 95% CR 0.67-0.85), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.83. 95% CR 0.70-0.96) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.82, 95% CR 0.67-0.99). However, the risk of postoperative mortality increased when comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to either surgery alone (RR 1.46, 95% CR 1.00-2.14) or to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 1.58, 95% CR 1.00-2.49). In conclusion, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival but may also increase the risk of postoperative mortality in patients locally advanced resectable esophageal carcinoma.

Esophageal Cancer: Recent advances

Esophageal carcinoma has, over the past decade, undergone a sea of change, not only in its pathological distribution, but also in the diagnosis, staging and subsequent management. Although the advent of better imaging techniques has helped in diagnosing patients at an earlier period, the majority of them have unresectable disease at the time of presentation. Despite aggressive treatment protocols involving either one or a combination of the options of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, the five-year survival remains dismal in the order of 10 to 15%. The two most commonly used surgical techniques for resecting the esophagus, the Ivor Lewis and the trans-hiatal esophagectomy, have similar results in terms of morbidity, mortality and, more importantly, five-year survival following resection. There has been an increasing interest in the surgical treatment of carcinoma esophagus by a minimally invasive approach, as meta-analysis of clinical series have shown that a faster recovery time without any statistically significant difference in the in-hospital mortality or morbidity when compared to conventional surgery. Nonrandomized studies suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant chemo-radiation have a five year survival advantage compared with those treated with surgery alone, especially if they had a complete histological response to the preoperative regimen. Lastly, palliative procedures, form the mainstay of management of patients with non-resectable disease.

Neoadjuvant Treatment for Locally Invasive Esophageal Cancer

Locally advanced esophageal carcinoma has a poor prognosis, and epidemiologic trends show that more patients are being diagnosed with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma and with adenocarcinoma histology. This prompts a review and evaluation of the field regarding standard of care treatment for patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma, both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. We review the evidence showing the moderate benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy compared to perioperative chemotherapy plus esophagectomy in patients who are good operative candidates. Also, we summarize the emerging clinical trial landscape in the perioperative setting primarily seeking to apply targeted therapies against HER2 (trastuzumab or pertuzumab) or immune checkpoint inhibitors against programmed death 1 (PD-1; pembrolizumab and nivolumab) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1; durvalumab). Understanding the foundations that have determined the current standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma will aid in interpreting the clinical trial results that will soon appear with the novel treatment strategies.

Complete pathologic response is independent of the timing of esophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer

Background

The relationship of complete pathologic response (cPR) with the timing of esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) is not well defined. We sought to determine if a delay in esophagectomy after nCRT would result in increased likelihood of cPR and improved survival.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of all patients treated with nCRT and esophagectomy between 2004 and 2014. Patients were divided into two groups based on timing of esophagectomy (≤50 vs. >50 days) after completion of nCRT. Survival outcomes were compared using standard Kaplan-Meier curves, and multivariable analyses were performed using Cox regression models.

Results

This study included 226 patients (males, 211 and median age, 61 years) for analysis. Fifty-two patients (23%) in the early group (≤50 days) were compared to 174 patients (77%) in the delayed group (>50 days). The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, comorbid conditions, ECOG status, location, grade, and tumor histology. There was no statistically significant difference in cPR rate between the early and late groups (26.9% vs. 19.0%, respectively, P=0.24). On multivariable analysis, lower age, absence of signet cell histology, better ECOG status, shorter length of stay and cPR were independent predictors of improved survival. The median follow-up was 52 months (range, 2-110 months), and there was no difference in the median overall survival (OS) between the early and late groups (48.9 vs. 42.6 months, respectively, P=0.73).

Conclusions

This analysis of a large cohort of patients with esophageal cancer undergoing multi-modality therapy shows that cPR is independent of the timing of esophagectomy. Other considerations for the timing of surgery, including recovery from nCRT and patient performance, may have more relevant roles than cPR when deciding when to perform esophagectomy.

Pilot study of serial FLT and FDG-PET/CT imaging to monitor response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy of esophageal adenocarcinoma: correlation with histopathologic response

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective pilot study was to investigate the potential of serial FLT-PET/CT compared to FDG-PET/CT to provide an early indication of esophageal cancer response to concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

METHODS

Five patients with biopsy-proven esophageal adenocarcinomas underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (Tx) prior to minimally invasive esophagectomy. The presence of residual tumor was classified histologically using the Mandard et al. criteria, categorizing patients as pathologic responders and non-responders. Participants underwent PET/CT imaging 1 h after intravenous administration of FDG and of FLT on two separate days within 48 h of each other. Each patient underwent a total of 3 scan "pairs": (1) pre-treatment, (2) during treatment, and (3) post-treatment. Image-based response to therapy was measured in terms of changes in SUVmax (ΔSUV) between pre- and post-therapeutic FLT- and FDG-PET scans. The PET imaging findings were correlated with the pathology results after surgery.

RESULTS

All tumors were FDG and FLT avid at baseline. Lesion FLT uptake was lower than with FDG. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation resulted in a reduction of tumor uptake of both radiotracers in pathological responders (n = 3) and non-responders (n = 2). While the difference in the reduction in mean tumor FLT uptake during Tx between responders (ΔSUV = - 55%) and non-responders (ΔSUV = - 29%) was significant (P = 0.007), for FDG it was not, [responders had a mean ΔSUV = - 39 vs. - 31% for non-responders (P = 0.74)]. The difference in the reduction in tumor FLT uptake at the end of treatment between responders (ΔSUV = - 62%) and non-responders (ΔSUV = - 57%) was not significant (P = 0.54), while for FDG there was a trend toward significance [ΔSUV of responders = - 74 vs. - 52% in non-responders (P = 0.06)].

CONCLUSION

The results of this prospective pilot study suggest that early changes in tumor FLT uptake may be better than FDG in predicting response of esophageal adenocarcinomas to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. These preliminary results support the need to corroborate the value of FLT-PET/CT in a larger cohort.

Traditional and cumulative meta-analysis: Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma

The role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRTS) compared with surgery alone (SA) for resectable esophageal carcinoma has been established by several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The present study aimed to investigate the difference in survival between the two treatments by a review of meta-analyses. Related research indicators were extracted from RCTs investigating CRTS or SA for resectable esophageal carcinoma by searching electronic databases for eligible articles. Outcomes were synthesized by adopting a fixed- or random-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 22 RCTs including 3,419 patients were selected. The odds ratio (OR) (95% CI, P-value), expressed as CRTS vs. SA, was 1.06 (0.94-1.19, P=0.348) for 1-year overall survival rate (OSR1y), 1.38 (1.20-1.58, P<0.001) for 3-year overall survival rate (OSR3y), and 1.42 (1.22-1.66, P<0.001) for 5-year overall survival rate (OSR5y). The R0 resection rate increased in patients treated by CRTS (OR=2.76, 95% CI: 2.15-3.53, P<0.001). CRTS lowered the locoregional cancer recurrence (OR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.36-6.65, P<0.001) and distant metastasis rate (OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, P=0.02). However, the incidence of postoperative mortality was similar between the two groups (OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.72-1.32, P=0.87). The subgroup analysis revealed that OSR3y and OSR5y for Asian, European and American populations were significantly higher in the CRTS group compared with those in the SA group (P<0.05). When comparing the OSR1y between the two groups for patients in all three continents, there was no significant difference (P>0.05). Histological subgroup analysis indicated that patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma may benefit from CRTS in terms of OSR1y (OR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.09-2.20, P=0.01), OSR3y (OR=1.77, 95% CI: 1.34-2.36, P<0.0001) and OSR5y (OR=1.92, 95% CI: 1.34-2.75, P=0.0004). The pooled OR of squamous cell carcinoma in terms of OSR3y and OSR5y between the two groups was 1.57 (95% CI: 1.21-2.04, P=0.0006) and 1.69 (95% CI: 1.32-2.16, P<0.0001), respectively, but there was no statistical difference in terms of OSR1y (OR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.88-1.45, P=0.35). Thus, neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery may improve long-term survival and surgical parameters, and reduce locoregional cancer recurrence and distant metastasis.