Pre-operative radiotherapy prolongs survival in operable esophageal carcinoma: a randomized, multicenter study of pre-operative radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The second Scandinavian trial in esophageal cancer

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The comparison of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains inconclusive, and the optimal regimen is still under investigation.

METHODS

Prospective randomized clinical trials were systematically searched in electronic databases from inception to Oct 2023. A graphical reconstructive algorithm was employed to extract time-to-event outcomes from Kaplan-Meier curves presented in the original studies. Using reconstructed individual patient data, summary overall survival (OS) and disease progression-free survival (DFS) for nCRT versus nCT, primarily doublet chemotherapy were recalculated. Hazard Ratios (HRs) of OS and DFS reported were also pooled by the fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 6 randomized clinical trials comprising 1162 patients were included in our analysis. In the individual patient data (IPD) pooled analysis, a significant OS benefit was found for nCRT in ESCC (HR=0.81, 95 %CI:0.67-0.98, p=0.029), compared with the treatment of nCT. The median overall survival time were 53 months (95 %CI:41.9-67.7 m) and 66 months(95 %CI:57.2-NA) respectively in the nCT and nCRT groups. Additionally, a significant improvement in PFS for nCRT compared to nCT in the IPD pooled analysis (HR=0.79,95 %CI:0.64-0.98; p=0.027). Consistent with above results, the pooled HRs of OS and DFS for nCRT versus nCT were 0.78 (95 % CI 0.65-0.92, p=0.004) and 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.65-0.97, p=0.02), respectively. Notably, no substantial heterogeneity across studies was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that nCRT offers better survival outcomes for ESCC, at least when compared to neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy.This evidence continues to support the clinical practice of employing nCRT in locally advanced resectable ESCC.

Does neoadjuvant therapy contribute to increased risk in anastomotic leakage of esophageal cancer? A network meta-analysis

AIM

Conflicting results have been reported about the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy. We aimed to unravel the potential effect of neoadjuvant therapy on AL after esophagectomy through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed by retrieving relevant literature from PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies (RS) comparing the following treatment modalities were included: neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nR), neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT), and surgery alone (SA). Subgroup analyses by radiation dose, examined lymph nodes (ELN), route of reconstruction, site of anastomosis, and surgical approach were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies with 12,746 patients were included for the present study, among which 17 were RCTs. There were no significantly statistical differences observed among the five treatment modalities in AL for both RCTs (nCRT-nICT: risk ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 0.52-4.4; nCT-nICT: 1.71, 0.56-5.08; nICT-nR: 0.79, 0.12-8.02; nICT-SA: 0.59, 0.2-1.84) and RS (nCRT-nICT: odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.84; nCT-nICT: 1.56, 0.87-2.88; nICT-SA: 0.6, 0.31-1.12; nICT-nR: 1.08, 0.09-36.02). Subgroup analysis revealed that no significant difference in AL was observed among the five treatment modalities except for the impact of nCRT versus nCT (0.21, 0.05-0.73) on AL with a radiation dose ≥41.4 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant therapy do not significantly increase the incidence of AL after esophagectomy. Administration of irradiation with a moderate dose is not associated with elevated risk in AL. Clinicians can be less apprehensive about prescribing nCRT.

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.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, the optimal treatment for neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer is not clear, and there is no evidence that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT). Due to the publication of new clinical trials and defects in previous meta-analyses, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nCRT and nCT.

METHODS

The following databases were searched for studies: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library (updated to April 22, 2023). All randomized trials comparing nCRT with nCT in locally advanced esophageal cancer met the inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (Cochrane collaboration software). Primary outcomes assessed from the trials included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), pathological complete response (pCR), R0 resection rate, postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, and grade 3 or higher adverse events (3 + AEs).

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 7 randomized controlled studies involving 1372 patients (686 receiving nCRT and 686 receiving nCT). Compared with nCT, nCRT significantly improved OS (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.94), PFS (HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66-0.93), pCR (OR = 13.00; 95% CI: 7.82-21.61) and R0 resection (OR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.32-2.57), but was associated with higher postoperative mortality (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.26-4.25) and grade 3 + AEs (OR = 2.21; 95% CI: 1.36-3.58). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between nCRT and nCT (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.82-1.61). Subgroup analysis showed significant survival benefit in squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.98), but not in adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.63-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis found superior efficacy associated with nCRT compared with nCT in both tumor regression and prolonged survival, but increased the risk of postoperative mortality and grade 3 + AEs. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was more likely to benefit from nCRT than esophageal adenocarcinoma in the term of OS.

Present situation and prospect of immunotherapy for unresectable locally advanced esophageal cancer during peri-radiotherapy

Four major studies (Checkmate577, Keynote-590, Checkmate649 and Attraction-4) of locally advanced esophageal cancer published in 2020 have established the importance of immunotherapy, represented by anti-programmed death protein (PD)-1 in postoperative adjuvant treatment and advanced first-line treatment of locally advanced or advanced esophageal cancer and esophagogastric junction cancer, from the aspects of proof of concept, long-term survival, overall survival rate and progression-free survival. For unresectable or inoperable nonmetastatic esophageal cancer, concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy is the standard treatment recommended by various guidelines. Because its curative effect is still not ideal, it is necessary to explore radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the future, and it is considered to be promising to combine them with immunotherapeutic drugs such as anti-PD-1. This paper mainly discusses how to combine radical concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy with immunotherapy for unresectable local advanced esophageal cancer.

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.

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.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy do not significantly increase the incidence of anastomotic leakage after esophageal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

This study investigated whether neoadjuvant therapies, such as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT), would affect the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophageal cancer surgery. Published randomized controlled trials were reviewed, and the incidence of AL after esophageal cancer was statistically analyzed in each study. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman and Stata software. A total of 17 randomized controlled trials with 2874 patients were reviewed showing that, in general, preoperative neoadjuvant therapies were not significant risk factors for AL after esophageal cancer surgery (relative risk [RR] = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.64-1.04). NCRT and NRT did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative AL in patients with esophageal cancer (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.63-1.05; RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.14-2.97, respectively). Moreover, NCT has no significant correlation with the occurrence of AL (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.57-1.80). NCRT, NCT, and NRT do not significantly increase the incidence of gastroesophageal AL after esophageal cancer surgery.

Comparison of different neoadjuvant treatments for resectable locoregional esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The best pattern of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable locoregional esophageal cancer has not been determined. Our study evaluated the efficacy and postoperative events of different treatments using the Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We systematically tracked randomized clinical trials from the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The following treatments were included: neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (NCRT + S), neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NCT + S), neoadjuvant radiotherapy followed by surgery (NRT + S), and surgery alone (S). The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were used to assess the quality of included trials. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival or disease-free survival (PFS/DFS) were assessed through hazard ratios (HR). Locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, postoperative mortality, and postoperative morbidity were assessed through odds ratios (OR). These outcomes were compared between different treatments through Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty trials with 4384 patients were included. Compared with S, only NCRT + S could significantly improve OS for patients with esophageal cancer (HR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.88). NCRT + S and NCT + S significantly improved PFS/DFS compared with S (NCRT + S vs. S, HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81; NCT + S vs. S, HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.97). NCRT + S significantly reduced both locoregional recurrence (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.88) and distant metastasis (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.90) compared with S. There were no differences in postoperative morbidity between the four treatments. However, NCRT + S also increased postoperative mortality compared with S (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.09-2.82) and NCT + S (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.11-3.51).

CONCLUSION

NCRT + S is the most efficient neoadjuvant treatment for resectable locoregional esophageal cancer. However, NCRT + S increases the risk of postoperative mortality but not morbidity.

Survival and complications after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal squamous cell cancer: A meta-analysis

Objectives

To compare the survival and complications of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM, and VIP databases from inception to November 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan (version 5.3) and Stata version 15.0.

Results

A total of 18 studies were included, which involved 3137 patients, The results of the metaanalysis showed that the pathological complete remission rate (odds ratio [OR] = 5.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.85–9.50, p<0.00001) and complete tumor resection rate (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.57–3.41, p<0.0001) in the NCRT group were significantly better than those in the NCT group. Our meta-analysis results showed that 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (1-year overall survival [OS]: OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.11–2.05, p = 0.009; 3-year OS: OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.36–2.21, p<0.0001; 5-year OS: OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.30–1.99, p<0.00001) in the NCRT group were significantly higher than those in the NCT group. NCRT can lead a significant survival benefit compared with NCT and there was no significant difference between the two neoadjuvant treatments in terms of postoperative complications.

Conclusion

The use of NCRT in the treatment of patients with ESCC patients showed significant advantages in terms of survival and safety relative to the use of NCT.

Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for Resectable Proximal Gastric, Gastroesophageal Junction and Distal Esophageal Cancer

Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for resectable proximal gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and distal esophageal cancer have evolved over several decades. Treatment recommendations differ based on histologic type-squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) versus adenocarcinoma (AC)-as well as the exact location of the tumor. Recent and older clinical trials in this area were critically reviewed. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with concurrent taxane- or fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has an established role for both AC and SCC of the distal esophagus and GEJ. The use of perioperative chemotherapy for gastric AC is based on the FLOT4 and MAGIC trials; however, the utility of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in this setting requires further evaluation. Additional clinical trials evaluating chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and radiation that are currently in process are highlighted, given the need for further disease control.

Shrinkage versus fragmentation response in neoadjuvantly treated oesophageal adenocarcinoma: significant prognostic relevance

Aims

No consensus exists on the clinical value of tumour regression grading (TRG) systems for therapy effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Existing TRG systems lack standardization and reproducibility, and do not consider the morphological heterogeneity of tumour response. Therefore, we aim to identify morphological tumour regression patterns of oesophageal adenocarcinoma after nCRT and their association with survival.

Methods and results

Patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma, who underwent nCRT followed by surgery and achieved a partial response to nCRT, were identified from two Dutch upper‐gastrointestinal (GI) centres (2005–18; test cohort). Resection specimens were scored for regression patterns by two independent observers according to a pre‐defined three‐step flowchart. The results were validated in an external cohort (2001–17). In total, 110 patients were included in the test cohort and 115 in the validation cohort. In the test cohort, two major regression patterns were identified: fragmentation (60%) and shrinkage (40%), with an excellent interobserver agreement (κ = 0.87). Here, patients with a fragmented pattern had a significantly higher pathological stage (stages III/IV: 52 versus 16%; P < 0.001), less downstaging (48 versus 91%; P < 0.001), a higher risk of recurrence [risk ratio (RR) = 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.5–5.6] and poorer 5‐year overall survival (30 versus 80% respectively, P = 0.001).

Conclusions

The validation cohort confirmed these findings, although had more advanced cases (case‐stages = III/IV 91 versus 73%, P = 0.005) and a higher prevalence of fragmented‐pattern cases (80 versus 60%, P = 0.002). When combining the cohorts in multivariate analysis, the pattern of response was an independent prognostic factor [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.0–3.0]. In conclusion, we established an externally validated, reproducible and clinically relevant classification of tumour response.

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.

Survival of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Therapy Compared With Surgery Alone for Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

The optimal treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains controversial. Surgery is the primary treatment but with poor results. Attempts to improve patient survival have been made by introducing chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both. However, randomized comparisons for all these strategies are not always available. This network meta-analysis compared the overall survival of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy with surgery alone to identify the most effective approach.

Methods

We systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for relevant studies published before April 2021. Only phase II and III randomized controlled trials comparing the following treatments were included: surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), radiotherapy (NRT) or chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), radiotherapy (ART), or chemoradiotherapy (ACRT). The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of overall survival (OS) was identified as the measurement of effectiveness. A network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the evidence under the Bayesian framework, and the relative effects of all possible comparisons were made. The ranking analysis was performed to support the decision in clinical practice.

Results

A total of 19 relevant trials with 3,749 patients were identified. Compared with surgery alone, NCRT (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65–0.89) and NCT (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70–0.94) significantly improved OS, while other treatments, including NRT (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66–1.08), ACRT (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.49–1.08), ACT (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75–1.21), and ART (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66–1.14), provided no significant survival advantage. None of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments showed a statistically significant difference in OS to each other when compared in pairs.

Conclusion

For resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, this network meta-analysis showed that NCRT may be the optimal strategy, NCT may be the second choice, while other multimodality treatments could not improve OS compared with surgery alone. It remains unclear whether ESCC will benefit from adding radiotherapy into the neoadjuvant treatment.

Systematic Review Registration

We registered this meta-analysis protocol at the prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=172745 (Identification code: CRD42020172745).

Individual patient data meta-analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus upfront surgery for carcinoma of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction

INTRODUCTION

Which neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced thoracic oesophagus (TE) or gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma is best remains an open question. Randomised controlled trials variously accrued patients with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, making strong conclusions hard to obtain. The primary objective of this individual participant data meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible trials should have closed to accrual before 2016 and compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery (CS) to surgery alone. All relevant published and unpublished trials were identified via searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings and clinical trial registers. The main end-point was OS. Investigators were contacted to obtain the individual patient data, which was recorded, harmonised and checked. A random-effects Cox model, stratified by trial, was used for meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were preplanned.

RESULTS

16 trials were identified as eligible. Individual patient data were obtained from 12 trial and 2478 patients. CS was associated with an improved OS versus surgery, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.83 [0.72-0.96], p < 0.0001, translating to an absolute benefit of 5.7% at 5-years from 16.8% to 22.5%. Treatment effects did not vary substantially between adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.73 [0.62-0.87]) and squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 0.91 [0.76-1.08], interaction p = 0.26). A somewhat more pronounced effect was observed in gastro-oesophageal junction (HR = 0.68 [0.50-0.93]) versus TE (HR = 0.87 [0.75-1.00], interaction p = 0.07). CS was also associated with a greater disease-free survival (HR = 0.74 [0.64-0.85], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy conferred a better OS than surgery alone and should be considered in all anatomical location and histological subtypes.

A Survival Prediction Nomogram for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Surgery

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) followed by surgery is a component of the standard treatment for resectable locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and the parameters for survival prediction are not clear yet. Our study aimed to construct a survival prediction nomogram for ESCC with NCRT followed by surgery.

Methods

We analyzed hematological parameters and related-derivative indexes from 122 ESCC patients treated with NCRT followed by surgery. Univariate and multivariate Cox survival analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors to establish a nomogram and predict overall survival (OS). The predictive value of the nomogram for OS was evaluated by the concordance index (C-index), decision curve analysis (DCA), the clinical impact curve (CIC), net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).

Results

The pretreatment nutritional candidate, prognostic nutrition index, inflammation-related absolute monocyte count and TNM staging were entered into the nomogram for ESCC with NCRT followed by surgery. The C-index of the nomogram for OS was 0.790 (95% CI = 0.688–0.893), which was higher than that of TNM staging (0.681; 95% CI = 0.565–0.798, P = 0.026). The DCA, CIC, NRI, and IDI of the nomogram showed moderate improvement in predicting survival. Based on the cut point calculated according to the constructed nomogram, the high-risk group had poorer OS than that of the low-risk group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

A novel nomogram based on nutrition- and inflammation-related indicators might help predict the survival of ESCC treated with NCRT followed by surgery.

Combination of 35-Gene Mutation Profile and Radiotherapy Dosimetry Predicts the Therapeutic Outcome of Definitive Chemoradiation in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Esophageal cancer is a common malignancy worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been widely used to treat locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In this study, we evaluated the predictive power of a 35-gene mutation profile and radiation parameters in patients with ESCC. Data from 44 patients with ESCC who underwent definitive CCRT were retrospectively reviewed. A 35-gene mutation profile, derived from reported ESCC-specific next-generation sequencing results, and radiation dosimetry parameters were examined using the Kaplan–Meier curve and Cox proportional hazards model. All patients were native Chinese and underwent CCRT with a median follow-up time of 22.0 months. Significant prognostic factors affecting progression-free survival in the multivariable Cox regression model were clinical nodal staging ≥2 (hazard ratio, HR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.15–5.54, p = 0.022), ≥10% lung volume receiving ≥30 Gy (V30) (HR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.08–5.17, p = 0.032), and mutation of fibrous sheath interacting protein 2 (FSIP2) (HR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01–0.58, p = 0.013). For overall survival, significant prognostic factors in the multivariable Cox regression model were lung V30 ≥10% (HR: 3.71, 95% CI: 1.48–9.35, p = 0.005) and mutation of spectrin repeat containing nuclear envelope protein 1 (SYNE1) (HR: 2.95, 95% CI: 1.25–6.97, p = 0.014). Our cohort showed higher MUC17 (79.5% vs. 5.7%), FSIP2 (18.2% vs. 6.2%), and SYNE1 (38.6% vs. 11.0%) mutation rates and lower TP53 (38.6% vs. 68.7%) mutation rates than the ESCC cohorts from The Cancer Genome Atlas. In conclusion, by using a combination of a 35-gene mutation profile and radiotherapy dosimetry, mutations in FSIP2 and SYNE1 as well as lung V30 were identified as potential predictors for developing a prediction model for clinical outcomes in patients with ESCC administered definitive CCRT.

(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.

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of heart function-based volumetric modulated arc therapy planning in patients with esophageal cancer

Radiotherapy for esophageal cancer entails high-dose irradiation of the myocardium owing to its close anatomical proximity to the esophagus. This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric impact of functional avoidance planning for the myocardium with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with esophageal cancer and determine the feasibility of functional planning. Ten patients with early stage esophageal cancer were included in this study. The prescribed dose was 60 Gy administered in 30 fractions. An experienced physician contoured the left ventricle (LV) of the myocardium. For each patient, an anatomical plan (non-LV-sparing plan) and a functional plan (LV-sparing plan) were created using the VMAT. In the functional plan, the mean percentage of LV volume receiving a dose of ≥ 30 and ≥ 40 Gy was 6.0% ± 6.7% and 2.4% ± 2.7%, respectively, whereas in the anatomical plan, they were 11.7% ± 13.1% and 4.9% ± 6.5%, respectively. There were no significant differences with respect to the dose to the hottest 1 cm³ of the planning target volume (PTV) and the minimum dose of the gross tumor volume and the dosimetric parameters of other normal tissues between the anatomical and functional plans. We compared the anatomical and functional plans of patients with esophageal cancer undergoing VMAT. Our results demonstrated that the functional plan reduced the dose to the LV with no significant differences in the organs at risk and PTV, indicating that avoidance planning can be safely performed when administering VMAT in patients with 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.

Impact of pathological tumor response after CROSS neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery on long-term outcome of esophageal cancer: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

With increasing interest in organ-preserving strategies for potentially curable esophageal cancer, real-world data is needed to understand the impact of pathological tumor response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on patient outcome. The objective of this study is to assess the association between pathological tumor response following CROSS neoadjuvant CRT and long-term overall survival (OS) in a nationwide cohort.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients diagnosed in the Netherlands with potentially curable esophageal cancer between 2009 and 2017, and treated with neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy were included. Through record linkage with the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA), pathological data were obtained. The primary outcome was pathological tumor response based on ypTNM, classified into pathological complete response (ypT0N0) and incomplete responders (ypT0N+, ypT+N0, and ypT+N+). Multivariable logistic and Cox regression models were used to identify predictors of pathological complete response (pCR) and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 4946 patients were included. Overall, 24% achieved pCR, with 19% in adenocarcinoma and 42% in squamous cell carcinoma. Patients with pCR had a better estimated 5-year OS compared to incomplete responders (62% vs. 38%, p< .001). Of the patients with incomplete response, ypT+N+ patients (32% of total population) had the lowest estimated 5-year OS rate, followed by ypT0N+ and ypT+ N0 (22%, 47%, and 49%, respectively, p< .001). Adenocarcinoma, well to moderate differentiation, cT3-4, cN+, signet ring cell differentiation and lymph node yield (≥15) were associated with lower likelihood of pCR.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based study, pathological tumor response based on the ypTNM-stage was associated with different prognostic subgroups. A quarter of patients achieved ypT0N0 with favorable long-term survival, while one-third had an ypT+N+ response with very poor survival. The association between pathological tumor response and long-term survival could help in more accurate assessments of individual prognosis and treatment decisions.

The Impact of Radiotherapy Dose in Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy

Objective: For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by planned esophagectomy is used as a curative treatment modality. However, the impact of radiotherapy dose remains undefined. Method: A total of 141 patients with stage III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC; as defined by the 7th American Joint Committee on Cancer), receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 2000 and 2015 at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, were retrospectively reviewed. The radiotherapy dose of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (36 Gy before 2009 and 50–50.4 Gy after 2009) and other clinicopathological parameters were collected and correlated with the response to chemoradiotherapy and treatment outcome. Result: Of these 141 patients, the radiotherapy dose was 36 Gy in 59 (42%) patients and 50 Gy in 82 (58%) patients. A complete pathological response was noted in 12 (20%) of 59 patients receiving 36 Gy radiotherapy, and 37 (45%) of 82 patients receiving 50 Gy radiotherapy (p = 0.002). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 31% and 25% in patients receiving 36 Gy radiotherapy, and 54% and 46% in patients receiving 50–50.4 Gy radiotherapy, respectively (p = 0.023 for overall survival; p = 0.047 for disease-free survival). Multivariate analysis showed that a higher radiotherapy dose was associated with increased pathological complete response (p = 0.003, hazard ratio: 3.215), better overall survival (p = 0.024, hazard ratio: 1.585), and superior disease-free survival (p = 0.049, hazard ratio: 1.493). However, higher radiotherapy doses revealed more surgical complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (p = 0.048) and anastomosis leaks (p = 0.004). Conclusion: For patients with locally advanced ESCC, preoperative chemoradiotherapy with higher radiotherapy doses led to increased pathologic complete response rates and improved survival.

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.

Survival and complications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Objectives: To identify the effective approach between neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) and chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) by comparing patient survival and complications. Methods: A systematic literature search of articles published between January 1980 and October 2020 was conducted. Data were extracted and analyzed with STATA 12.0. Results: Five randomized trials and 15 retrospective studies, including 4529 patients (NCT: 2035; NCRT: 2494), were enrolled. Compared with NCT, NCRT provided a higher 3-year survival benefit, higher R0 resection and pathological complete response rates and lower local recurrence and distant metastasis rates, but no increase in 5-year survival. Perioperative mortality and cardiovascular complications were more common in patients with adenocarcinoma. Conclusions: Further studies should concentrate on identifying the optimal neoadjuvant approach and suitable beneficiaries.

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.

Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Staging and Multimodal Therapy of Esophageal and Gastric Tumors

Gastric and esophageal tumors are diverse neoplasms that involve mucosal and submucosal tissue layers and include squamous cell carcinomas, adenocarcinomas, spindle cell neoplasms, neuroendocrine tumors, marginal B cell lymphomas, along with less common tumors. The worldwide burden of esophageal and gastric malignancies is significant, with esophageal and gastric cancer representing the ninth and fifth most common cancers, respectively. The approach to diagnosis and staging of these lesions is multimodal and includes a combination of gastrointestinal endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, and cross-sectional imaging. Likewise, therapy is multidisciplinary and combines therapeutic endoscopy, surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic chemotherapeutic tools. Future directions for diagnosis of esophageal and gastric malignancies are evolving rapidly and will involve advances in endoscopic and endosonographic techniques including tethered capsules, optical coherence tomography, along with targeted cytologic and serological analyses.

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.

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.

Smoking behavior and smoking index as prognostic indicators for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent surgery: A large cohort study in Guangzhou, China

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the association between smoking and smoking index with clinical outcomes of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis conducted on consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy from January 2005 to December 2010. All patients had pathologically confirmed esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The association between smoking and sociodemographic characteristics with overall survival and disease-free survival was analyzed. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen was measured using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay.

RESULTS

A total of 944 patients were enrolled. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients who smoked had a significantly worse prognosis in terms of both overall survival (p=0.007) and disease-free survival (p= 0.010). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age (p=0.001), carcinoembryonic antigen (p=0.012), tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging (p<0.001) and smoking (p=0.048) were independently correlated with overall survival, while only TNM stage (p<0.001) and smoking (p=0.041) were identified as independent factors of disease-free survival. We divided the smoking population into two groups (smoking index <400 and ≥400). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated that a smoking index <400 was associated with a significantly better prognosis in terms of both overall survival (p=0.003) and favorable disease-free survival (p=0.032). Multivariate analysis showed that age (p<0.001), TNM staging (p<0.001), and smoking index (p=0.025) were independent factors of overall survival, whereas for disease-free survival, only TNM stage (p=0.001) and smoking index (p=0.025) were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall survival was significantly associated with smoking in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients. For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients who smoke, a higher smoking index is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Therefore, smoking may be used as a predictive indicator for pretreatment evaluation and adjustment of treatment regimen.

Validity of studies suggesting preoperative chemotherapy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer: A critical appraisal of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

In 2015, Kidane published a Cochrane review and meta-analysis to summarise the impact of preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone on survival for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. The authors concluded that preoperative chemotherapy improved overall survival (OS).

AIM

The aim of this article was to assess the validity of the three most powerful studies included in the Cochrane review and the meta-analysis supporting the advantage of preoperative chemotherapy and to investigate the impact of an exclusion of these three studies on the result of the meta-analysis.

METHODS

OS was selected as the endpoint of interest. Among the ten included papers which analysed this endpoint, we identified the three publications with the highest weights influencing the final result. The validity of these papers was analysed using the CONSORT checklist for randomized controlled trials. We performed a new meta-analysis without the three studies to assess their impact on the general result of the original meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The three analysed studies revealed several inconsistencies. Inappropriate answers were found in up to one third of the items of the CONSORT checklist. Missing information about sample-size calculation and power, unclear or inadequate randomisation, and missing blinded set-up were the most common findings. When the three criticized studies were excluded in the meta-analysis, preoperative chemotherapy showed no benefit in OS.

CONCLUSION

The three most powerful publications in the Cochrane review show substantial deficits. After the exclusion of these studies from the meta-analysis, preoperative chemotherapy does not seem to result in an advantage in survival. We suggest a more critical appraisal regarding the validity of single studies.

Positive Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Expression Predicts Poor Treatment Outcomes in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Background: Programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is present in a subgroup of cancer patients who may be favorable targets for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. However, the significance of the PD-L1 expression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy remains unclear. Methods: By means of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 22C3 pharmDx assay, we evaluate the PD-L1 expression and its association with clinical outcome in 107 ESCC patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Results: Patients with positive PD-L1 expression have significantly lower pathological complete response rates (13% versus 32%; p = 0.036) than those with negative PD-L1 expression. Univariate survival analysis found that positive PD-L1 expression were correlated with poor overall survival (p = 0.004) and inferior disease-free survival (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, positive PD-L1 expression was independently associated with the absence of a pathologically complete response (p = 0.044, hazard ratio: 3.542), worse overall survival (p = 0.006, hazard ratio: 2.017), and inferior disease-free survival (p < 0.001, hazard ratio: 2.516). Conclusions: For patients with ESCC receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, positive PD-L1 expression independently predicts the poor chemoradiotherapy response and worse treatment outcome. Thus, our data suggests that PD-L1 may be an influential biomarker for prognostic classification and for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in ESCC patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

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.

Long-term effects of radiation prior to surgery and chemotherapy on survival of esophageal cancer undergoing surgery

Esophageal cancer (EC) is one of the most common cancers in the world, with continuously growing diagnoses and morbidity. Because it is still unclear how to choose the best treatment for EC patients, a multimodal treatment is necessary to improve the prospect of the malignancy, including a sequence of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, whether alone or combination. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the effect of the sequence of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery on the prognosis and survival rate of patients with EC.The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to extract a dataset of patients who were diagnosed with EC from 1973 to 2015, with follow-up data for 6 years after diagnosis. The data were analyzed using correlation analysis, logistic regression Cox regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.EC patients who had radiation prior to surgery and chemotherapy had a better prognosis than the cases without chemotherapy. Based on univariate logistic regression, the odds radios of vital status recoded for "radiation prior to surgery combined with chemotherapy" is the lowest one among the 8 groups classified by radiation sequence with surgery and chemotherapy (P < .001). Further, radiation prior to surgery and chemotherapy is an independent prognostic factor for better survival among EC patients.In conclusion, in the treatment of EC, administering radiation prior to surgery and chemotherapy is better than no radiotherapy, perioperative radiotherapy, postoperative radiotherapy, and other combinations without chemotherapy.

Predicting lymph node metastases with endoscopic resection in cT2N0M0 oesophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Despite modern imaging modalities, staging of clinically staged T2N0M0 (cT2N0M0) oesophageal cancer is suboptimal, often leading to overtreatment. Endoscopic resection – the first-line therapy for early localised tumours – could be used to improve staging and to attain predictors of nodal upstaging enabling more stage-guided treatment decisions.

Objective

A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis were conducted to assess the prevalence and the pathological risk factors of lymph node metastases in cT2N0M0 oesophageal cancer.

Methods

Databases of PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched for literature. The primary outcome was lymph node metastases determined after primary surgical resection.

Results

Nine studies with a total of 1650 cT2N0M0 patients were included. The prevalence of lymph node metastases was 43% (95% confidence interval: 35–50%) with heterogeneity being high across studies (I² = 0.86, p < 0.001). Factors potentially attainable by endoscopic resection and having a significant association with lymph node metastases were invasion depth, differentiation grade, tumour size, depth of invasion in the muscularis propria and lymphovascular invasion.

Conclusions

Clinical lymph node staging is inaccurate in almost half of cT2N0M0 oesophageal cancer. Endoscopic resection is a promising diagnostic modality that might even be a valid alternative to surgery in selected patients without high-risk features, but further evidence is warranted.

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.

Determining Risk Factors for Gastric and Esophageal Cancers between 2009-2015 in East-Azarbayjan, Iran Using Parametric Survival Models

Background: Esophageal cancer (EC) and Gastric cancer (GC) have been identified as two of the most common cancers in the northeastern regions of Iran. The increasing rates of these types of cancers requires attention. This study aims to assess the potential risk factors for these two cancers and then determine shared risk factors between them in a population of Iranian patients using parametric survival models. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using 127 patients with EC and 184 patients with GC in East Azarbaijan, Iran who were diagnosed and registered during the years 2009-2010 in Iran’s National Cancer Control Registration Program and were followed for five years. Parametric survival models were used to find the risk factors of the patients. Akaike Information Criteria was used to identify the best parametric model in this study. Interaction analysis was used to determine shared risk factors between EC and GC. Results: The mean (±standard deviation) age of diagnoses for EC and GC were 66.92(±11.95) and 66.5(±11.5) respectively. The survival time ranges of GC patients was (0.07-70.33) and the survival time ranges were from 0.10 to 69.03 months for EC patients. Multivariable Log- logistic model showed that being married (OR=2.25, 95% CI: 1.33 - 3.81) for EC patients and Esophagectomy surgery for EC (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.04 – 2.55) and GC (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.02 – 2.53) had significant effects on survival. Age at the time of diagnosis, job status, and Esophagectomy surgery were statistically comparable regarding their magnitude of effect on survival of two cancers (all Ps>0.05). Conclusion: Esophagectomy surgery and being married were important risk factors in EC and GC. The log-logistic model was the most appropriate statistical approach to identify significant risk factors on survival of both cancers.