Role of Adjuvant Treatment in Esophageal Cancer With Incidental Pathologic Node Positivity

Optimal lymph node yield in oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a nationwide population-based study

OBJECTIVES

The desirable lymph node count was determined to maximize the survival time expectancy according to the lymph node count among patients who have undergone oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

The data of national Finnish population-based cohort including all patients who have undergone oesophagectomy due to oesophageal cancer during 2002-2016 were used. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) estimates were determined by lymph node count, and the desirable count was determined using locally estimated scatterplot smoothing regression.

RESULTS

A total of 883 patients with the median follow-up time of 3.73 (interquartile range 1.43-7.50) years were included. The lymph node count of 27 (95% confidence interval 25-28) was associated with the highest RMST estimates. Sensitivity analyses indicated that in pN0 patients, the highest RMST estimates was observed at 26 (95% confidence interval 24-28) lymph nodes and in pN+ patients, the RMST estimates peaked at 28 (95% confidence interval 25-33) lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the findings of this study, at least 24 examined lymph nodes is the recommended target for the lymph node count after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. The beneficial effect of this count on survival may be achieved regardless of nodal metastases.

A multicenter randomized, controlled clinical trial of adjuvant sintilimab for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

No adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk of recurrence and incidental pathologic lymph node metastasis for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In this open-label, multicenter, phase III, randomized controlled trial, ESCC patients who did not achieve pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery and clinical T1-2 N0 patients with incidental pathologic lymph node metastasis following initial surgery were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to receive either a sintilimab regimen or observational management (NCT05495152). The primary end point was disease-free survival for all randomized patients. The results of this randomized controlled trial addressed controversy regarding the survival benefits of adjuvant sintilimab treatment for patients with resected locally advanced ESCC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05495152 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Association of survival with adjuvant radiotherapy for pN0 esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to elucidate the link between adjuvant radiotherapy and survival in pathologic node-negative (pN0) esophageal cancer patients with upfront esophagectomy.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2016, patients with pN0 esophageal cancer who underwent upfront esophagectomy were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The association of high-risk covariates with survival after adjuvant radiotherapy was evaluated using propensity score matching and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 3197 patients, 321 (10.0%) underwent postoperative radiotherapy and 2876 (90.0%) underwent esophagectomy alone. In the unmatched cohort, postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a statistically significant but modest absolute decrease in survival outcomes (P < 0.001). In the matched cohort, the survival differences disappeared. Additionally, adjuvant radiotherapy was linked to a 5-year overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with the pT3-4N0 disease (34.8% vs. 27.7%; P = 0.008). Adjuvant radiotherapy for pT3-4N0 disease with tumor length ≥3 cm, adenocarcinoma, and evaluated lymph node count <12 was shown to independently function as a risk factor for improved OS, as per a multivariate analysis (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based trial showed that high-risk patients with pT3-4N0 esophageal cancer had better OS following upfront esophagectomy followed by radiotherapy therapy. This discovery may have major significance in the use of adjuvant radiotherapy following upfront esophagectomy in patients with pN0 esophageal cancer.

Standard Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal and Lung Cancer: Variability in the Number of Examined Lymph Nodes Among Pathologists and Its Survival Implication

AIM

We compared variability in number of examined lymph nodes between pathologists and analyzed survival implications in lung and esophageal cancer after standardized lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

Outcomes of 294 N2 dissected lung cancer patients and 132 2-field dissected esophageal cancer patients were retrospectively examined. The primary outcome was difference in reported lymph node count among pathologists. Secondary outcomes were overall and disease-specific survival related to this count and survival related to the 50% probability cut-off value of detecting metastasis based on the number of examined lymph nodes.

RESULTS

The median number of examined lymph nodes in lung cancer was 13 (IQR 9-17) and in esophageal cancer it was 22 (18-29). The pathologist with the highest median number of examined nodes had > 50% higher lymph node yield compared with the pathologist with the lowest median number of nodes in lung (15 vs. 9.5, p = 0.003), and esophageal cancer (28 vs. 17, p = 0.003). Survival in patients stratified by median reported lymph node count in both lung (adjusted RMST ratio < 14 vs. ≥ 14 lymph nodes 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.10; p = 0.810) and esophageal cancer (adjusted RMST ratio < 25 vs. ≥ 25 lymph nodes 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.15, p = 0.612) was similar. The cut-off value for 50% probability of detecting metastasis by number of examined lymph nodes in lung cancer was 15.7 and in esophageal cancer 21.8. When stratified by this cut-off, no survival differences were seen.

CONCLUSION

The quality of lymphadenectomy based on lymph node yield is susceptible to error due to detected variability between pathologists in the number of examined lymph nodes. This variability in yield did not have any survival effect after standardized lymphadenectomy.

Survival benefit of perioperative chemotherapy for T1-3N0M0 stage esophageal cancer: a SEER database analysis

Background

The effect of perioperative chemotherapy on patients with lymph node-negative esophageal cancer (EC) is controversial. This study explored which EC patients, staged under the T1-3N0M0, would benefit from perioperative chemotherapy.

Methods

Data on patients with diagnosed primary EC were retrieved from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score-matched (PSM) method was performed to balance baseline covariates. Multivariate Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curve were used to assess potential survival difference between patients undergoing surgery plus perioperative chemotherapy (SA + CT) and those undergoing surgery alone (SA).

Results

In a total of 2,711 EC patients (T1–3N0M0), 166 patients underwent SA + CT and 2,545 patients received SA. In the multivariable analysis, T stage was significantly related to prognosis of EC patients before and after matching. Subgroup analysis showed that perioperative chemotherapy was associated with poor cancer-specific survival (CSS) for stage T1 patients. There was no effect of perioperative chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) or CSS for T2 patients, whereas a remarkable improvement in OS and CSS was observed for T3 patients. Survival analysis showed that T3 stage EC patients obtained survival benefit from SA + CT. Prognosis in the SA group was significantly better than in the SA + CT group for T1 patients. However, T2 patients showed no significant increase in survival after undergoing SA + CT compared with SA.

Conclusions

T3 patients benefit more from SA + CT. However, perioperative chemotherapy does not present survival benefit to T1–2 patients, and it is an adverse prognostic factor for T1 patients.

The Role of Adjuvant Therapy in Patients With Margin-Positive (R1) Esophagectomy: A National Analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed a nationwide analysis to assess the impact of adjuvant therapy on survival after a microscopically margin-positive (R1) resection for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with R1 resection for esophageal cancer (2004-2015). Patients were grouped by type of adjuvant therapy. Patients who had other margin status, M1 disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation, missing survival, and no or unknown treatment were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival. A 1:1 propensity score-matched sensitivity analysis was also performed comparing patients who received no adjuvant therapy with those who received adjuvant chemoradiation.

RESULTS

Of 546 patients, 279 (51%) received adjuvant therapy and 267 (49%) did not. Patients receiving adjuvant therapy were more likely to be younger, have more advanced pathologic stage, have nonsquamous histology, and have shorter hospitalization. In multivariable analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation, and chemoradiation were all associated with improved survival compared with no adjuvant therapy. In a propensity score-matched analysis of 123 patient pairs, adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with improved survival compared with no adjuvant therapy (adjusted HR: 0.30; 95% CI: [0.22, 0.40]).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival compared with no adjuvant therapy in patients with R1 resection for esophageal cancer even after adjustment for pathologic stage. Adjuvant therapy should be considered in patients with incompletely resected esophageal cancer in concordance with national guidelines.

Adjuvant radiotherapy for patients with pathologic node-negative esophageal carcinoma: A population based propensity matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of adjuvant treatment for esophageal carcinoma with tumor-negative lymph nodes after upfront radical esophagectomy is still uncertain. This study investigated the effects of postoperative radiotherapy in pT1-3N0 esophageal carcinoma after radical resection.

METHOD

We retrospectively identified pT1-3N0M0 esophageal carcinoma patients between 2000 and 2016 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients with upfront esophagectomy were categorized as having received surgery alone (SA) and surgical resection followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (SA + RT). Propensity score matching, univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to compare overall survival (OS) and cause-specific survival (CSS).

RESULTS

A total of 2862 patients were identified, of whom 274 received SA + RT and 2588 received SA. The median follow-up was 60.4 months (95%CI, 58.7-62.1 months). The five-year OS and CSS were better for SA group compared with SA + RT group (P < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, after matching, the OS and CSS were still significantly better for SA patients. For T subgroup analysis, postoperative radiotherapy was an independent prognostic factor only for pT1 patients with worse OS, without survival differences for pT2 and pT3 patients. However, after multivariate cox analysis, postoperative radiotherapy can provide significantly better OS for pT3 patients with tumor length ≥5 cm (P = 0.03; 95%CI, 0.29-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Among pT1-3N0M0 esophageal carcinoma patients, postoperative radiotherapy can provide significantly better OS for pT3 patients with tumor length ≥5 cm. However, there are no survival benefits for pT1-2 patients after SA + RT procedure. This finding may have significant implications on the use of adjuvant radiation in patients with pN0 disease.

Association of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 gene amplification with poor survival in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate whether FGFR1 gene amplification is associated with clinicopathologic characteristics and its potential impact on survival in patients with resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

Five hundred fifty-six ESCC patients undergoing curative resection of ESCC were retrospectively studied. FGFR1 gene copy number was determined in microarrayed tumor samples using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis. FGFR1 gene amplification status was prespecified as copy number ≥ 6 or FGFR1/CEN 8 ratio ≥ 2.2. FGFR1 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method followed by the log rank test. Correlation with survival was examined using multivariate Cox regression.

RESULTS

FGFR1 amplification was identified in 67 (12.1%) patients; these patients had significantly shorter OS (50.0 vs 32.0 months; log rank; P<0.001) as well as shorter DFS (47.0 vs 28.0 months; log rank; P<0.001) than those without FGFR1 amplification. Under a Cox proportional hazard model, FGFR1 amplification was associated with significantly shorter OS (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]=1.61; 95% CI, 1.10-2.43, P=0.004) and DFS (AHR=1.72; 95%CI, 1.15-2.48; P<0.001). Moreover, cases with high intratumoral FGFR1 expression showed significantly shorter OS and DFS than those with low FGFR1 expression. The frequency of FGFR1 amplification was significantly higher in heavy drinkers than in moderate and light drinkers.

CONCLUSION

FGFR1 amplification is an independent adverse prognostic factor in surgically resected ESCC. FGFR1 may be a promising therapeutic target in patients with ESCC.