Radical esophagectomy in elderly patients with esophageal cancer

Outcomes from a single institution cohort of 248 patients with stage I-III esophageal cancer treated with radiotherapy: Comparison of younger and older populations

Outcomes for patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) for non-metastatic esophageal cancer at a single institution were assessed, as well as the impact of factors including age and intensity modulated RT (IMRT) planning on patient outcomes. A retrospective cohort of patients treated with RT for stage I-III esophageal cancer between 2010 and 2018 was identified. Among 248 identified patients, 28 % identified as older (≥75 years of age). Other than histology, there were no other statistically significant differences in patient and tumour characteristics between the younger and older populations. Treatments varied between the two age groups, with significantly less older patients completing trimodality treatments (17 % vs 58 %). Median overall survival (M-OS) and progression-free survival (M-PFS) were 20 months and 12 months for all patients and 40 months and 26 months for trimodality patients, respectively. In the older patients, the M-OS improved from 13 months for all to 34 months for trimodality patients; and M-PFS from 10 months to 16 months. On multivariate analysis, the use of trimodality therapy showed improved OS (HR 0.26, p < 0.001). In the non-surgical older patient group, significantly better survival was seen in patients who had a heart V30Gy under 46 %. There was no significant difference in M-OS in patients planned with IMRT compared with 3D-conformal RT. Clinical outcomes in the treatment of esophageal cancer vary significantly by treatment approach, with the most favourable results in those receiving trimodality therapy. Among older patients deemed fit after assessment by the multidisciplinary team for trimodality treatments, the M-OS is comparable to the younger patient group.

Esophageal Cancer in Elderly Patients, Current Treatment Options and Outcomes; A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Simple Summary

Any given treatment may provide improve survival for elderly patients with oesophageal cancer compared to best supportive care. Although surgery may be related to a higher rate of complications in these patients, it also offers the best chance for survival, especially when combined with perioperative chemo-or chemoradiation. Definitive chemoradiation remains also a valid and widely used curative approach in this population. Quality of life after oesophageal cancer treatment does not seem to be particularly compromised in elderly patients, although the risk of loss of autonomy after the disease is higher. Based on the available data, excluding a priori elderly patients from curative treatment based on age alone cannot be supported. A thorough general health status and geriatric assessment is necessary to offer the optimal treatment, tailored to the individual patient.

Abstract

Esophageal cancer, despite its tendency to increase among younger patients, remains a disease of the elderly, with the peak incidence between 70–79 years. In spite of that, elderly patients are still excluded from major clinical trials and they are frequently offered suboptimal treatment even for curable stages of the disease. In this review, a clear survival benefit is demonstrated for elderly patients treated with neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, and even definitive chemoradiation compared to palliative or no treatment. Surgery in elderly patients is often associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients and may put older frail patients at increased risk of autonomy loss. Definitive chemoradiation is the predominant modality offered to elderly patients, with very promising results especially for squamous cell cancer, although higher rates of acute toxicity might be encountered. Based on the all the above, and although the best available evidence comes from retrospective studies, it is not justified to refrain from curative treatment for elderly patients based on their age alone. Thorough assessment and an adapted treatment plan as well as inclusion of elderly patients in ongoing clinical trials will allow better understanding and management of esophageal cancer in this heterogeneous and often frail population.

The Uptake and Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Older Adults with Locally Advanced Esophogastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Data on Neo+/- adjuvant treatment in older patients with cancer is sparse. The management of locally advanced esophagogastric cancer (LAEC) in older patients was evaluated to determine treatment modalities and identify factors associated with survival.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with LAEC (stage II or III) over 5 years were identified from the National Cancer Registry of Ireland. Treatment was classified as "best supportive care (BSC)," "surgery only," "neo/adjuvant treatment," and "chemo/radiation alone."Survival was assessed. Univariate and multivariate analysis (MVA) of clinicopathological factors and treatment was conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-six percent (n = 580) of the 1251 patients were ≥ 70 years, 11% (n = 134) received BSC, 23% (n = 288) surgery only, 31% (n = 390) had chemo/radiation alone, and 35% (n = 439) had neo/adjuvant treatment. Forty-six percent, 10%, and 0% of patients < 75, ≥ 75, and ≥ 80 years of age, respectively, received neoadjuvant treatment. Age was associated with treatment received (p < 0.001). Older patients were less likely to receive neo/adjuvant treatment, surgery, and any treatment. Median survival (OS) decreased with age (< 70 years: 23 months; 70-74: 19 months; 75-79: 13 months; ≥ 80 years: 10 months). In MVA, older age, smoking, later stage, and higher grade were significantly associated with a higher risk of death. Patients receiving neo/adjuvant treatment had lower risk of death than any other treatment group regardless of age.

CONCLUSION

Older patients were less likely to receive treatment for LAEC than younger patients. Patients aged ≥ 70 years benefit from neo/adjuvant treatment. Prospective clinical trials focusing on older patients and incorporating life expectancy, comorbidities, and geriatric assessment are needed to guide treatment.