Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer: Outcomes and patterns of failure

Comparison of esophageal cancer survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus definitive chemoradiotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy remains the gold standard for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer (EC); however, chemoradiotherapy without surgery has been recommended in specific cases. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyse the survival between surgeries after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy in order to provide a theoretical basis for clinically individualised differential treatment. We conducted an initial search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Library, and Embase for English-only articles that compared treatment regimens and provided survival data. According to the final I2 value of the two survival indicators, the random effect model or fixed effect model was used to calculate the overall hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Cochrane's Q test was used to judge the heterogeneity of the studies, and a funnel plot was used to evaluate for publication bias. A sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the stability of the included studies. A total of 38 studies involving 29161 patients (neoadjuvant therapy: 15401, definitive chemoradiotherapy: 13760) were included in the analysis. The final pooled results (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67-0.82) showed a statistically significant increase in overall survival with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine the effects of heterogeneity, additional treatment regimens, study types, and geographic regions, as well as histologic differences, complications, and recurrence, on the overall results. For people with esophageal cancer that can be removed, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with surgery improves survival compared to definitive chemoradiotherapy. However, more research is needed to confirm these results and help doctors make decisions about treatment.

Survival Outcomes of Patients with Esophageal Cancer Who Did Not Proceed to Surgery after Neoadjuvant Treatment

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study examined outcomes in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients who did not undergo surgical resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

METHODS

Patients receiving nCRT between 2012 and 2020 were divided into two groups: group 1 (scheduled surgery) and group 2 (no surgery). Group 2 was further categorized into subgroups based on reasons for not proceeding to surgery: group 2a (disease progression), group 2b (poor general conditions), and group 2c (patient refusal). Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Group 1 comprised 145 patients, while subgroups 2a, 2b, and 2c comprised 24, 16, and 31 patients, respectively. The 3-year OS rate was significantly lower in group 2 compared with group 1 (34% versus 56%, p < 0.001). A subgroup analysis showed varying 3-year OS rates: 13% for group 2a, 25% for group 2b, and 58% for group 2c (p < 0.001). Propensity score matching for group 2c and group 1 revealed no significant difference in 3-year OS rates (p = 0.91).

CONCLUSION

One-third of ESCC patients receiving nCRT did not undergo surgical resection. Overall survival in this group was generally poorer, except for those who refused surgery (group 2c).

Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in locally advanced esophageal cancer for patients of advanced age or significant comorbidities

The addition of surgery to chemoradiation for esophageal cancer has not shown a survival benefit in randomized trials. Patients with more comorbidities or advanced age are more likely to be given definitive chemoradiation due to surgical risk. We aimed to identify subsets of patients in whom the addition of surgery to chemoradiation does not provide an overall survival (OS) benefit. The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who received either definitive chemoradiation or neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery. Bivariate analysis was used to assess the association between patient characteristics and treatment groups. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models were performed to assess for differences in survival. A total of 15,090 with adenocarcinoma and 5,356 with squamous cell carcinoma met the inclusion criteria. Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and surgery had significantly improved survival by Cox proportional hazards model regardless of histology if <50, 50-60, 61-70, or 71-80 years old. There was no significant benefit or detriment in patients 81-90 years old. Survival advantage was also significant with a Charlson/Deyo comorbidity condition score of 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 in adenocarcinoma squamous cell carcinoma with scores of 2 or ≥3 had no significant benefit or detriment. Patients 81-90 years old or with squamous cell carcinoma and a Charlson/Deyo comorbidity score ≥ 2 lacked an OS benefit from neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with definitive chemoradiation. Careful consideration of esophagectomy-specific surgical risks should be used when recommending treatment for these patients.

Quantitative CT evaluation after two cycles of induction chemotherapy to predict prognosis of patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma before undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the performance of quantitative CT analysis in predicting the prognosis of patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after two cycles of induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy.

METHODS

A total of 110 patients with locally advanced ESCC were retrospectively analysed. Baseline chest CT and CT after two cycles of induction chemotherapy were analysed. A multivariate Cox proportional-hazard regression model was used to identify independent prognostic markers for survival analysis. Then, a CT scoring system was established. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the Kaplan-Meier method were employed for analysing the prognostic value of the CT scoring system.

RESULTS

Body mass index, treatment strategy, change ratios of thickness (ΔTH_max), CT value of the primary tumour (ΔCTV_axial) and the short diameter (ΔSD-LN), and the presence of an enlarged small lymph node (ESLN) after two cycles of chemotherapy were noted as independent factors for predicting overall survival (OS). The specificity of the presence of ESLN for death after 12 months was up to 100%. Areas under the curve value of the CT scoring system for predicting OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were higher than that of the RECIST (p < 0.05). Responders had significantly longer OS and PFS than non-responders.

CONCLUSION

Quantitative CT analysis after two cycles of induction chemotherapy could predict the outcome of locally advanced ESCC patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy. The CT scoring system could contribute to the development of an appropriate strategy for patients with locally advanced ESCC.

KEY POINTS

• Quantitative CT evaluation after two cycles of induction chemotherapy can predict the long-term outcome of locally advanced oesophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy. • A CT scoring system provides valuable imaging support for indicating the prognosis at the early stage of therapy. • Quantitative CT evaluation can assist clinicians in personalising treatment plans.

The Role of Age and Comorbidities in Esophagogastric Cancer Chemoradiation of the Frail Elderly (>70 Years): An Analysis from a Tertiary High Volume-Center

Elderly patients > 70 years of age with esophageal cancer (EC) represent a challenging group as frailty and comorbidities need to be considered. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of curative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with regard to basic geriatric screening in elderly patients in order to elucidate prognostic factors. Thirty-four elderly patients > 70 years with EC treated at our cancer center between May 2014 and October 2018 fulfilled the selection criteria for this retrospective analysis. Treatment consisted of intravenous infusion of carboplatin/paclitaxel or fluorouracil (5-FU)/cisplatin with the intention of neoadjuvant or definite chemoradiation. Clinicopathological data including performance status (ECOG), (age-adjusted) Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), Frailty-scale by Fried, Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form, body mass index, C-reactive protein to albumin ratio, and treatment-related toxicity (CTCAE) were assessed. Data were analyzed as predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). All patients (ten female, 24 male) received combined CRT (22 patients in neoadjuvant, 12 patients in definite intent). Median age was 75 years and the ECOG index between 0 and 1 (52.9% vs. 35.3%); four patients were rated as ECOG 3 (11.8%). Median follow-up was 24 months. Tumors were mainly located in the lower esophagus or esophagogastric-junction with an T3 stage (n = 25; 75.8%) and N1 stage (n = 28; 90.3%). 15 patients (44.1%) had SCC, 19 patients (55.9%) AC. 26 of the patients (76.5%) were scored as prefrail and 50% were in risk for malnutrition (n = 17). In relation to the BMI, ten patients (29.4%) were ranked as overweight, and 15 patients were presented in a healthy state of weight (44.1%). Grade 3 acute toxicity (or higher) occured in nine cases (26.5%). Most of the patients did not show any late toxicities (66.7%). Trimodal therapy provides a significant prolonged OS (p = 0.049) regardless of age, but without impact on PFS. Our analysis suggests that chemoradiation therapy is feasible for elderly patients (>70 years) with tolerable toxicity. Trimodal therapy of EC shows a positive effect on OS and PFS. Further studies are needed to elucidate benefitting subgroups within the elderly. In addition to age, treatment decisions should be based on performance status, nutritional condition and multidisciplinary validated geriatric screening tools.

Chemoradiation for elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with esophageal cancer: a retrospective single-center analysis

Background

Present studies on the efficacy and safety of curative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with esophageal cancer reflect heterogenous results especially in elderly patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of CRT in patients ≥ 65 years. In a cohort, the focus centered around treatment-related toxicity (CTCAE Grade > 3), overall survival as well as progression free survival, comparing these rates in-between patients older than 70 years to those younger than 70 years.

Methods

A total of 67 patients older than 65 years (34 (50.7%) were older than 70 years) met the inclusion criteria for retrospective analysis (period from January 2013 to October 2017). Treatment consisted of radiotherapy and chemotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel or fluorouracil (5-FU)/cisplatin with the intention of neoadjuvant or definite chemoradiation. A sum of 67 patients received CRT (44 (65.6%) patients in neoadjuvant, 23 (34.4%) in definite intent). Of these, 22 and 12 patients were older than 70 years (50% and 52.2% in both treatment groups, respectively). Median age was 71 years and patients had a good physical performance status (ECOG 0: 57.6%, ECOG 1: 27.3%). Median follow-up was 24 months. Most patients had advanced tumour stages (T3 stage: n = 51, 79.7%) and nodal metastasis (N1 stage: n = 54, 88.5%). A subgroup comparison was conducted between patients aged ≤ 70 years and > 70 years.

Results

In severe (CTCAE Grade 3–5) toxicities (acute and late), no significant differences were observed between both patient groups (< 70 years vs. > 70 years). 21% had acute grade 3 events, 4 patients (4%) had grade 4 events, and two patients (3%) had one grade 5 event. Late toxicity after CRT was grade 1 in 13 patients (22%), grade 2 in two (3%), grade 3 in two (3%), grade 4 in four (7%), and grade 5 in one (2%). Median overall survival (OS) of all patients was 30 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 16 months. No significant differences were seen for OS (32 months vs. 25 months; p = 0.632) and PFS (16 months vs. 12 months; p = 0.696) between older patients treated with curative intent and younger ones. Trimodal therapy significantly prolonged both OS and PFS (p = 0.005; p = 0.018), regardless of age.

Conclusion

CRT in elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with esophageal cancer is feasible and effective. Numbers for acute and late toxicities can be compared to cohorts of younger patients (< 65 years) with EC who received the same therapies. Age at treatment initiation alone should not be the determining factor. Instead, functional status, risk of treatment-related morbidities, life expectancy and patient´s preferences should factor into the choice of therapy.

Trimodality Therapy vs Definitive Chemoradiation in Older Adults With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The comparative effectiveness of trimodality therapy vs definitive chemoradiation for treating locally advanced esophageal cancer in older adults is uncertain. Existing trials lack generalizability to older adults, a population with heightened frailty. We sought to emulate a hypothetical trial comparing these treatments using real-world data.

METHODS

A cohort of adults aged 66-79 years diagnosed with locally advanced esophageal cancer between 2004 and 2017 was identified in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. The clone-censor-weight method was leveraged to eliminate time-related biases when comparing outcomes between treatments. Outcomes included overall mortality, esophageal cancer-specific mortality, functional adverse events, and healthy days at home.

RESULTS

A total of 1240 individuals with adenocarcinomas and 661 with squamous cell carcinomas were identified. For adenocarcinomas, the standardized 5-year risk of mortality was 73.4% for trimodality therapy and 83.8% for definitive chemoradiation (relative risk [RR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 0.95). Trimodality therapy was associated with mortality risk reduction for squamous cell carcinomas (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.01). The 1-year incidence of functional adverse events was higher in the trimodality group (adenocarcinomas RR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.22 to 1.65; squamous cell carcinomas RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.49). Over 5 years, trimodality therapy was associated with 160 (95% CI = 67 to 229) and 177 (95% CI = 51 to 313) additional home days in individuals with adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with definitive chemoradiation, trimodality therapy was associated with reduced mortality but increased risk of function-related adverse events. Discussing these tradeoffs may help optimize care plans.

Neoadjuvant versus definitive radiochemotherapy of locoregionally advanced oesophageal cancer-who benefits?

PURPOSE

For years, there have been discussions on whether neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy followed by surgery (nRCT-S) is superior to definitive radiochemotherapy (dRCT) as the standard of care for locoregionally advanced oesophageal cancer (OC). This retrospective study aimed to evaluate our patient cohort regarding differences in survival and recurrence between nRCT‑S and dRCT.

METHODS

Data from 68 patients with dRCT and 33 patients with nRCT‑S treated from 2010 to 2018 were analysed. Comorbidities were recorded using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Recurrence patterns were recorded as in-field or out-field. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare survival data (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and locoregional control [LRC]).

RESULTS

Patients with nRCT‑S showed significantly lower CCI values than those with dRCT (p = 0.001). The median follow-up was 47 months. The median OS times were 31 months for nRCT‑S and 12 months for dRCT (p = 0.009), the median PFS times were 11 and 9 months, respectively (p = 0.057), and the median LRC times were not reached and 23 months, respectively (p = 0.037). The only further factor with a significant impact on OS was the CCI (p = 0.016). In subgroup analyses for comorbidities regarding differences in OS, the superiority of the nRCT‑S remained almost significant for CCI values 2-6 (p = 0.061).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed significantly longer OS and LRC for patients with nRCT‑S than for those with dRCT. Due to different comorbidities in the groups, it can be deduced from the subgroup analysis that patients with few comorbidities seem to especially profit from nRCT‑S.

Salvage Esophagectomy

Salvage esophagectomy is an option for patients with recurrent or persistent esophageal cancer after definitive chemoradiation therapy or those who undergo active surveillance after induction chemoradiation therapy. Salvage resection is associated with higher rates of morbidity compared with planned esophagectomy but offers patients with locally advanced disease a chance at improved long-term survival. Salvage resection should be preferentially performed in a multidisciplinary setting by high-volume and experienced surgeons. Technical considerations, such as prior radiation dosage, radiation field, and choice of conduit, should be taken into account.

[F18] FDG-PET/CT for manual or semiautomated GTV delineation of the primary tumor for radiation therapy planning in patients with esophageal cancer: is it useful?

Background

Target volume definition of the primary tumor in esophageal cancer is usually based on computed tomography (CT) supported by endoscopy and/or endoscopic ultrasound and can be difficult given the low soft-tissue contrast of CT resulting in large interobserver variability. We evaluated the value of a dedicated planning [F18] FDG-Positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PET/CT) for harmonization of gross tumor volume (GTV) delineation and the feasibility of semiautomated structures for planning purposes in a large cohort.

Methods

Patients receiving a dedicated planning [F18] FDG-PET/CT (06/2011–03/2016) were included. GTV was delineated on CT and on PET/CT (GTV_CT and GTV_PET/CT, respectively) by three independent radiation oncologists. Interobserver variability was evaluated by comparison of mean GTV and mean tumor lengths, and via Sørensen–Dice coefficients (DSC) for spatial overlap. Semiautomated volumes were constructed based on PET/CT using fixed standardized uptake values (SUV) thresholds (SUV30, 35, and 40) or background- and metabolically corrected PERCIST-TLG and Schaefer algorithms, and compared to manually delineated volumes.

Results

45 cases were evaluated. Mean GTV_CT and GTV_PET/CT were 59.2/58.0 ml, 65.4/64.1 ml, and 60.4/59.2 ml for observers A–C. No significant difference between CT- and PET/CT-based delineation was found comparing the mean volumes or lengths. Mean Dice coefficients on CT and PET/CT were 0.79/0.77, 0.81/0.78, and 0.8/0.78 for observer pairs AB, AC, and BC, respectively, with no significant differences. Mean GTV volumes delineated semiautomatically with SUV30/SUV35/SUV40/Schaefer’s and PERCIST-TLG threshold were 69.1/23.9/18.8/18.6 and 70.9 ml. The best concordance of a semiautomatically delineated structure with the manually delineated GTV_CT/GTV_PET/CT was observed for PERCIST-TLG.

Conclusion

We were not able to show that the integration of PET/CT for GTV delineation of the primary tumor resulted in reduced interobserver variability. The PERCIST-TLG algorithm seemed most promising compared to other thresholds for further evaluation of semiautomated delineation of esophageal cancer.

Radiochemotherapy with or without cetuximab for unresectable esophageal cancer: final results of a randomized phase 2 trial (LEOPARD-2)

Purpose

To investigate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab when added to radiochemotherapy for unresectable esophageal cancer.

Methods

This randomized phase 2 trial (clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01787006) compared radiochemotherapy plus cetuximab (arm A) to radiochemotherapy (arm B) for unresectable esophageal cancer. Primary objective was 2‑year overall survival (OS). Arm A was considered insufficiently active if 2‑year OS was ≤40% (null hypothesis = H₀), and promising if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was >45%. If that lower limit was >40%, H₀ was rejected. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LC), metastases-free survival (MFS), response, and toxicity. The study was terminated early after 74 patients; 68 patients were evaluable.

Results

Two-year OS was 71% in arm A (95% CI: 55–87%) vs. 53% in arm B (95% CI: 36–71%); H₀ was rejected. Median OS was 49.1 vs. 24.1 months (p = 0.147). Hazard ratio (HR) for death was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.30–1.21). At 2 years, PFS was 56% vs. 44%, LC 84% vs. 72%, and MFS 74% vs. 54%. HRs were 0.51 (0.25–1.04) for progression, 0.43 (0.13–1.40) for locoregional failure, and 0.43 (0.17–1.05) for distant metastasis. Overall response was 81% vs. 69% (p = 0.262). Twenty-six and 27 patients, respectively, experienced at least one toxicity grade ≥3 (p = 0.573). A significant difference was found for grade ≥3 allergic reactions (12.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.044).

Conclusion

Given the limitations of this trial, radiochemotherapy plus cetuximab was feasible. There was a trend towards improved PFS and MFS. Larger studies are required to better define the role of cetuximab for unresectable esophageal cancer.

Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Elderly Esophageal Cancer Patients Not Meeting Age-based Criteria of the CROSS Trial

OBJECTIVES

The CROSS trial established neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (nCRT-S) as superior to surgery alone (S) for locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC). However, because patients above 75 years of age were excluded, this comparison cannot be extrapolated to older patients. This study of a large, contemporary national database evaluated practice patterns in elderly patients ineligible for CROSS, and analyzed overall survival (OS) between nCRT+S, S, and definitive CRT (dCRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base was queried for EC patients with cT1N1M0/T2-3N0-1M0 EC (per the CROSS trial) but 76 years and above of age. Multivariable logistic regression ascertained factors associated with nCRT+S (vs. S). Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated OS; Cox multivariate analysis determined variables associated with OS. Propensity matching aimed to address group imbalances and indication biases.

RESULTS

Of 4099 total patients, 594 (14%) underwent nCRT+S, 494 (12%) underwent S, and 3011 (73%) underwent dCRT. Since 2010, trimodality management has risen, corresponding to declines in S and dCRT. Median OS in the respective groups were 26.7, 20.3, and 17.8 months (P<0.05). Following propensity matching, there was a trend towards higher OS with nCRT-S over S (P=0.077); dCRT showed poorer OS than nCRT-S (P<0.001) but was equivalent to S (P=0.669). Before and following matching, nCRT-S experienced equivalent 30- and 90-day mortality as S (P>0.05), with lower 30-day readmission and postoperative hospital stay (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although most older patients not meeting CROSS criteria undergo dCRT, utilization of trimodality therapy is rising. Despite the trend towards higher OS with trimodality therapy without poorer postoperative outcomes, careful patient selection continues to be essential in this population.

Definitive radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer - a single institution experience

Background Definitive radiochemotherapy is the preferred treatment option in patients with the cancer of the cervical esophagus and a viable treatment option in patients with the cancer of lower two thirds of the esophagus, who decline proposed surgical treatment. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the treatment results with definitive radiochemotherapy of patients with esophageal cancer, treated in a single institution in the period from 2010 to 2017. Patients and methods All available medical data for 55 patients with esophageal cancer, who were treated with definitive radiochemotherapy with curative intent, were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were irradiated to a total dose to the tumor of 70 Gy (2 Gy per fraction) in upper third (cervical) tumors or to the mean total dose of 57.6 Gy (1.8 Gy per fraction) in middle third (intrathoracic) tumors. All but one patient received concomitant chemotherapy, with the majority of them (41 patients; 74.5%) receiving concomitant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil in continuous 96 hours infusion and cisplatin. The main endpoints of the study were overall survival (OS; death of any cause), locoregional control (LRC; local and/or regional disease recurrence) and disease-free survival (DFS; recurrence of any kind and/or new primary malignoma). Univariate analysis testing the impact of different parameters on survivals and analysis of treatment related side effects were performed as well. Results The mean age of patients was 62 years (SD 9 years; range: 29-80 years). Majority of them had squamous cell cancer (53 patients; 96.4%) in the stage T3 or T4 (47 patients; 85.5%) and/or N+ disease (35 patients; 63.6%). Median follow-up time for the whole group of patients was 16.8 months (range: 0.3-81.8 months). At the time of analysis 14 (25.5%) patients were still alive. Rates for OS, LRC and DFS at two and five years were as follows: 47% and 19.4%; 43.7% and 41%; 32.1% and 11.5%, respectively. Conclusions The study results of treatment with definitive radiochemotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer are similar to the results of other studies. Majority of patients ended the treatment according to the protocol, which at least in part can be attributed to the adequate and well organized supportive treatment in our institution.

Outcome of delayed versus timely esophagectomy after chemoradiation for esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Salvage and delayed esophagectomy after chemoradiation therapy (CRT) have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality, but recent series have shown similar outcomes compared to timely esophagectomy. We aim to evaluate outcomes for delayed and salvage esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma utilizing a large national database.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database for 2004 to 2014 was queried for patients with clinical stage II or III esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent preoperative CRT and esophagectomy. Patients who underwent surgery <90 days after CRT were defined as the timely esophagectomy group (n = 7822), and those who underwent surgery ≥90 days after CRT were defined as the delayed esophagectomy group (n = 667).

RESULTS

A total of 8489 patients met our inclusion criteria. The median post-CRT interval was 49 days (range, 40-61 days) for the timely esophagectomy group and 109 days (range, 97-132 days) for the delayed esophagectomy group. The delayed group was more likely to be of black race (2.3% vs 1.2%; P < .01) and more likely to have Medicare (47.9% vs 39.8%; P < .001). There were no significant between-group differences in chemotherapy regimens (P = .17), radiation dose (P = .18), or surgical approach (P = .48). The delayed esophagectomy group had higher rates of pathological complete response (22.2% vs 18.6%; P = .043) and 90-day postoperative mortality (10.4% vs 7.8%; P < .01). On multivariate analysis, delayed esophagectomy was not independently associated with decreased overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective database study, despite increased perioperative mortality, delayed and salvage esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma appear to have similar long-term survival as timely esophagectomy. Delayed and salvage esophagectomy may be offered to patients who do not receive timely esophagectomy after CRT.

Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Versus Trimodality Therapy for Resectable Oesophageal Carcinoma: Meta-analyses and Systematic Review of Literature

BACKGROUND

Standard therapy for loco-regionally advanced, resectable oesophageal carcinoma is trimodality therapy (TMT) consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. Evidence of survival advantage of TMT over organ-preserving definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare survival between TMT and dCRT.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies on resectable, curatively treated, oesophageal carcinoma patients above 18 years were included. Three online databases were searched for studies comparing TMT with dCRT. Primary outcomes were 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for RCTs and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies described in 35 articles were included in this systematic review, and 33 were included in the meta-analyses. Two-, three- and five-year overall survival was significantly lower in dCRT compared to TMT, with relative risks (RRs) of 0.69 (95% CI 0.57-0.83), 0.76 (95% CI 0.63-0.92) and 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.71), respectively. When only analysing studies with equal patient groups at baseline, no significant differences for 2-, 3- and 5-year overall survival were found with RRs of 0.83 (95% CI 0.62-1.10), 0.81 (95% CI 0.57-1.14) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.36-1.12).

CONCLUSION

These meta-analyses do not show clear survival advantage for TMT over dCRT. Only a non-significant trend towards better survival was seen, assuming comparable patient groups at baseline. Non-operative management of oesophageal carcinoma patients might be part of a personalised and tailored treatment approach in future. However, to date hard evidence proving its non-inferiority compared to operative management is lacking.

Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

Background

Multimodal treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (nCRT + S) is the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced or node-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (E-SCC). Those who are unsuitable or who decline surgery can be treated with definitive chemoradiation (dCRT). This study compares the oncologic outcome of nCRT + S and dCRT in E-SCC patients.

Methods

Between 2011 and 2017, 95 patients with E-SCC were scheduled for dCRT or nCRT+ S with IMRT at our department. Patients undergoing dCRT received at least 50 Gy and those undergoing nCRT + S received at least 41.4 Gy. All patients received simultaneous chemotherapy with either carboplatin and paclitaxel or cisplatin and 5-fluoruracil. We retrospectively compared baseline characteristics and oncologic outcome including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and site of failure between both treatment groups.

Results

Patients undergoing dCRT were less likely to have clinically suspected lymph node metastases (85% vs. 100%, p = 0.019) than patients undergoing nCRT + S and had more proximally located tumors (median distance from dental arch to cranial tumor border 20 cm vs. 26 cm, p < 0.001). After a median follow up of 25.6 months for surviving patients, no significant differences for OS and PFS were noticed comparing nCRT + S and dCRT. However, the rate of local tumor recurrence was significantly higher in patients treated with dCRT than in those treated with nCRT + S (38% vs. 10%, p = 0.002). Within a multivariate Cox regression model, age, tumor location, and tumor grading were the only independent parameters affecting OS and PFS. In addition to that, proximal tumor location was the only parameter independently associated with an increased risk for local treatment failure.

Conclusion

In E-SCC patients treated with either dCRT or nCRT + S, a higher rate of local tumor recurrence was seen in patients treated with dCRT than in patients treated with nCRT + S. There was at least a trend towards an improved OS and PFS in patients undergoing nCRT + S. However, this should be interpreted with caution, because proximal tumor location was the only parameter independently affecting the risk of local tumor recurrence.

The Clinical Outcomes of Locally Advanced Cervical Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients Receiving Curative Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy: A Population-Based Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

This study investigated the clinical outcome of locally advanced cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients who received curative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and their differences from thoracic ESCC patients. Among 411 enrolled ESCC patients, including 63 with cervical and 348 with thoracic ESCC, 63 thoracic patients were propensity score-matched to the 63 cervical patients. For cervical ESCC, T4b and high tumor grade were independent prognostic factors of a worse overall survival (OS) in univariate and multivariate analyses. The response rates to curative CCRT between cervical and the matched thoracic ESCC groups were similar but cervical ESCC had a better OS than that of the matched thoracic group (21.4 versus 10.1 months, p = 0.012). Better OS was mentioned to be in the patients with complete response (CR), whether in the cervical or matched thoracic ESCC group. For patients without CR, patients who underwent esophagectomy had superior OS than those without operation in the matched thoracic ESCC group (11.6 versus 11.9 months, p = 0.73). Only three patients received operation in the cervical ESCC group, thus the survival difference was not significant. Curative CCRT may be a reasonable treatment for cervical ESCC in clinical practice, and the role of surgery should be considered as salvage therapy if residual disease is evident.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Whether there is a difference in survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (CRT-S) compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) in patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) remains controversial.

Methods

Patients with SCC who underwent curative treatment from 2008 to 2014 were identified from the Taiwan Cancer Registry. Propensity score matching was undertaken to balance pretreatment clinical variables. Overall survival was compared between patients undergoing CRT-S or dCRT. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for overall survival.

Results

A total of 5832 patients with clinical stage II and III oesophageal SCC receiving CRT-S (1754) or dCRT (4078) were included. After propensity score matching, each group included 1661 patients. The 3-year overall survival rate for patients treated with CRT-S was 41·1 per cent compared with 17·9 per cent for those who had dCRT (P &lt; 0·001). In multivariable analysis, treatment modality was an independent prognostic factor in the overall cohort before propensity score matching: hazard ratio 0·45 (95 per cent c.i. 0·40 to 0·51) for CRT-S versus dCRT (P &lt; 0·001). In separate analyses of patients with clinical stage II and those with stage III disease, CRT-S was associated with significantly better overall survival than dCRT.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy is associated with better overall survival than dCRT in patients with stage II and III oesophageal SCC.

Adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus: neoadjuvant chemoradiation and radical surgery : Long-term results

PURPOSE

To retrospectively evaluate long-term treatment results following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) and radical surgery in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma (AC) of the oesophagus.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2005 and 2015, a total of 102 consecutive patients with a median age of 64 years (range, 44-86 years) and AC of the oesophagus were evaluated of whom 84 received a full CRT. A group of 51 patients was treated with neoadjuvant intent followed by radical surgery. A total dose of 50.4 Gy with mostly weekly paclitaxel/fluorouracil chemotherapy was administered. Six to eight weeks following CRT, a transthoracic subtotal oesophageal and proximal gastric resection was performed. Survival curves for overall survival and no evidence of disease (NED) survival (primary endpoints) were calculated according to Kaplan-Meier, and possible prognostic factors were evaluated by the log-rank test as well as by a Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time of the surviving patients was 48 months (range, 14-134 months). Overall and NED survival rates for patients of the study group (n = 51) were 40 and 32%, respectively, at 5 years. Age (p = 0.04), ypT category (p = 0.1) and the development of distant metastases (p = 0.05) were identified as (marginally) independent prognostic variables with impact on survival. Median survival time for patients of the study group (n = 51) was 45 ± 18 months (95%CI 9-81 months). Clear resection margins were achieved in 46/51 patients (92%). Regression rates with complete regression rare residual cancer and increased number of residual cells, but predominantly fibrosis were 33, 41, and 10%, respectively. Patterns of failure revealed local with distant recurrence in 2/51 (4%), regional recurrence alone in 2/51 (4%), and distant metastases in 27/51 (53%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant CRT in patients with AC of the oesophagus followed by thoracoabdominal surgery is a locally very effective concept. A significant tumour regression in almost 75% of the patients may stimulate prospective trials on the omission of radical surgery for some elderly patients. Due to a high rate of distant metastases further investigations in terms of effective systemic therapy may be warranted.