Potential of Proton Therapy to Reduce Acute Hematologic Toxicity in Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

Advanced esophageal cancer with bone metastases: Prognostic biomarkers and palliative treatment

Esophageal cancer (EC) is a common and devastating tumor of the upper digestive tract. Unfortunately, by the time any symptoms have manifested, the disease has often progressed to an advanced stage and is accompanied by macro- and micrometastases, including in the bones. The treatment of esophageal cancer with bone metastases remains clinically challenging, given the poor prognosis associated with this condition. Effective prognostic biomarkers can help medical staff choose the appropriate operation and treatment plan, that is for most beneficial for making patients. Current treatments for esophageal cancer with bone metastases include pain-relieving drugs, surgical therapy, radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT, including molecular-targeted drug therapy), endocrine therapy (ET), bisphosphonates (BPs) and interventional therapy. Of these robust measures, radiotherapy has emerged as a particularly promising therapy for bone metastases from esophageal cancer. Substantial progress has been made in radiation therapy techniques since the discovery of X-rays by Roentgen in 1895. In its palliative capacity, the key goals of radiotherapy are to relieve the patients' bone pain and debilitate effects, including relieving spinal cord compression, correcting the spinal deformity and restoring spinal stability. However, it is worth mentioning that RT for esophageal cancer has various side effects. Currently, the available studies focused exclusively on radiotherapy for ECBM are too small to draw any definitive conclusions, and each of these studies has significant limitations. In this review, in addition to the epidemiology described at the beginning, we will explore the current prognostic biomarkers and radiotherapy for esophageal cancer, with a particular focus on those with bone metastases.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy using proton beams can reduce cardiopulmonary morbidity in esophageal cancer patients: a systematic review

This systematic review was performed to investigate the superiority of proton beam therapy (PBT) to photon-based radiotherapy (RT) in treating esophageal cancer patients, especially those with poor cardiopulmonary function. The MEDLINE (PubMed) and ICHUSHI (Japana Centra Revuo Medicina) databases were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 for studies evaluating one end point at least as follows; overall survival, progression-free survival, grade ≥ 3 cardiopulmonary toxicities, dose-volume histograms, or lymphopenia or absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) in esophageal cancer patients treated with PBT or photon-based RT. Of 286 selected studies, 23 including 1 randomized control study, 2 propensity matched analyses, and 20 cohort studies were eligible for qualitative review. Overall survival and progression-free survival were better after PBT than after photon-based RT, but the difference was significant in only one of seven studies. The rate of grade 3 cardiopulmonary toxicities was lower after PBT (0-13%) than after photon-based RT (7.1-30.3%). Dose-volume histograms revealed better results for PBT than photon-based RT. Three of four reports evaluating the ALC demonstrated a significantly higher ALC after PBT than after photon-based RT. Our review found that PBT resulted in a favorable trend in the survival rate and had an excellent dose distribution, contributing to reduced cardiopulmonary toxicities and a maintained number of lymphocytes. These results warrant novel prospective trials to validate the clinical evidence.

Efficacy and Safety in Proton Therapy and Photon Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Importance

Radiotherapy plays an important role in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Proton therapy has unique physical properties and higher relative biological effectiveness. However, whether proton therapy has greater benefit than photon therapy is still unclear.

Objective

To evaluate whether proton was associated with better efficacy and safety outcomes, including dosimetric, prognosis, and toxic effects outcomes, compared with photon therapy and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of proton therapy singly.

Data Sources

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases was conducted for articles published through November 25, 2021, and updated to March 25, 2023.

Study Selection

For the comparison of proton and photon therapy, studies including dosimetric, prognosis, and associated toxic effects outcomes were included. The separate evaluation of proton therapy evaluated the same metrics.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data on study design, individual characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. If I2 was greater than 50%, the random-effects model was selected. This meta-analysis is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were organs at risk (OARs) dosimetric outcomes, prognosis (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and objective response rate [ORR]), and radiation-related toxic effects.

Results

A total of 45 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For dosimetric analysis, proton therapy was associated with significantly reduced OARs dose. Meta-analysis showed that photon therapy was associated with poor OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61; I2 = 11%), but no difference in PFS was observed. Subgroup analysis showed worse OS (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.78; I2 = 34%) and PFS (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; I2 = 7%) in the radical therapy group with photon therapy. The pathological complete response rate was similar between groups. Proton therapy was associated with significantly decreased grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis and pericardial effusion, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia. Single-rate analysis of proton therapy found 89% OS and 65% PFS at 1 year, 71% OS and 56% PFS at 2 years, 63% OS and 48% PFS at 3 years, and 56% OS and 42% PFS at 5 years. The incidence of grade 2 or higher radiation esophagitis was 50%, grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis was 2%, grade 2 or higher pleural effusion was 4%, grade 2 or higher pericardial effusion was 3%, grade 3 or higher radiation esophagitis was 8%, and grade 4 or higher lymphocytopenia was 17%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis, proton therapy was associated with reduced OARs doses and toxic effects and improved prognosis compared with photon therapy for esophageal cancer, but caution is warranted. In the future, these findings should be further validated in randomized clinical trials.

A Review of Advances in Radiotherapy in the Setting of Esophageal Cancers

Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer worldwide and is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related mortality. The paradigm has shifted to include a multimodality approach with surgery, chemotherapy, targeted therapy (including immunotherapy), and radiation therapy. Advances in radiotherapy through techniques such as intensity modulated radiotherapy and proton beam therapy have allowed for the more dose homogeneity and improved organ sparing. In addition, recent studies of targeted therapies and predictive approaches in patients with locally advanced disease provide clinicians with new approaches to modify multimodality treatment to improve clinical outcomes.

Proton Therapy in the Management of Luminal Gastrointestinal Cancers: Esophagus, Stomach, and Anorectum

Simple Summary

Radiation treatment plays a major role in the management of luminal gastrointestinal cancers, mainly esophageal and anorectal cancers. There is a growing interest in the application of protons for gastrointestinal cancers, mainly owing to its dosimetric characteristics in decreasing dose to nearby organs at risk. We present here an up-to-date comprehensive review of the dosimetric and clinical literature on the use of proton therapy in the management of luminal gastrointestinal cancers.

Abstract

While the role of proton therapy in gastric cancer is marginal, its role in esophageal and anorectal cancers is expanding. In esophageal cancer, protons are superior in sparing the organs at risk, as shown by multiple dosimetric studies. Literature is conflicting regarding clinical significance, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that protons yield similar or improved oncologic outcomes to photons at a decreased toxicity cost. Similarly, protons have improved sparing of the organs at risk in anorectal cancers, but clinical data is much more limited to date, and toxicity benefits have not yet been shown clinically. Large, randomized trials are currently underway for both disease sites.

[The role of proton therapy in esophageal cancer]

Because of the physical properties of proton beam radiation therapy (PT), which allows energy to be deposited at a specific depth with a rapid energy fall-off beyond that depth, PT has several theoretical advantages over photon radiation therapy for esophageal cancer (EC). Protons have the potential to reduce the dose to healthy tissue and to more safely allow treatment of tumors near critical organs, dose escalation, trimodal treatment, and re-irradiation. In recent years, larger multicenter retrospective studies have been published showing excellent survival rates, lower than expected toxicities and even better outcomes with PT than with photon radiotherapy even using IMRT or VMAT techniques. Although PT was associated with reduced toxicities, postoperative complications, and hospital stays compared to photon radiation therapy, these studies all had inherent biases in relation with patient selection for PT. These observations were recently confirmed by a randomized phase II study in locally advanced EC that showed significantly reduced toxicities with protons compared with IMRT. Currently, two randomized phase III trials (NRG-GI006 in the US and PROTECT in Europe) are being conducted to confirm whether protons could become the standard of care in locally advanced and resectable esophageal cancers.

Current status and application of proton therapy for esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer remains one of the leading causes of death from cancer across the world despite advances in multimodality therapy. Although early-stage disease can often be treated surgically, the current state of the art for locally advanced disease is concurrent chemoradiation, followed by surgery whenever possible. The uniform midline tumor location puts a strong importance on the need for precise delivery of radiation that would minimize dose to the heart and lungs, and the biophysical properties of proton beam makes this modality potential ideal for esophageal cancer treatment. This review covers the current state of knowledge of proton therapy for esophageal cancer, focusing on published retrospective single- and multi-institutional clinical studies, and emerging data from prospective clinical trials, that support the benefit of protons vs photon-based radiation in reducing postoperative complications, cardiac toxicity, and severe radiation induced immune suppression, which may improve survival outcomes for patients. In addition, we discuss the incorporation of immunotherapy to the curative management of esophageal cancers in the not-too-distant future. However, there is still a lack of high-level evidence to support proton therapy in the treatment of esophageal cancer, and proton therapy has its limitations in clinical application. It is expected to see the results of future large-scale randomized clinical trials and the continuous improvement of proton radiotherapy technology.

Proton therapy for patients with esophageal cancer: History, characteristics, clinical outcome and future direction of proton beam therapy

After the second war, Wilson who participated in development of the atomic bomb in Los Alamos studied peaceful use of atomic energy and proposed a property of proton beam that has potential to treat cancer. According to his proposal, the first patient was treated with proton beam therapy at the University of California Berkley in 1954. The first series of proton beam therapy for patients with esophageal cancer was reported from Japan in 1993. After that many proton facilities in Japan reported the clinical outcome of patients with esophageal cancer. Many dosimetric and clinical studies showed proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer was less toxic than photon beam therapy, however there is a paucity of randomized trials and evidence that proton beam therapy has clearly superior survival compared to photon therapy. Only one randomized trial has been conducted to study less toxicity for proton beam compared with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), which was stopped early because toxicities of IMRT were higher. A phase III study comparing overall survival between proton beam therapy and IMRT is now activated. A cost reduction for proton therapy is necessary to facilitate patient care and establishment of clinical evidence.

The Promise of Proton Beam Therapy for Oesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Dosimetric and Clinical Outcomes

AIMS

Due to its physical advantages over photon radiotherapy, proton beam therapy (PBT) has the potential to improve outcomes from oesophageal cancer. However, for many tumour sites, high-quality evidence supporting PBT use is limited. We carried out a systematic review of published literature of PBT in oesophageal cancer to ascertain potential benefits of this technology and to gauge the current state-of-the-art. We considered if further evaluation of this technology in oesophageal cancer is desirable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using structured search terms was carried out. Inclusion criteria included non-metastatic cancer, full articles and English language studies only. Articles deliberating technical aspects of PBT planning or delivery were excluded to maintain a clinical focus. Studies were divided into two sections: dosimetric and clinical studies; qualitatively synthesised.

RESULTS

In total, 467 records were screened, with 32 included for final qualitative synthesis. This included two prospective studies with the rest based on retrospective data. There was heterogeneity in treatment protocols, including treatment intent (neoadjuvant or definitive), dose, fractionation and chemotherapy used. Compared with photon radiotherapy, PBT seemed to reduce dose to organs at risk, especially lung and heart, although not for all reported parameters. Toxicity outcomes, including postoperative complications, were reduced compared with photon radiotherapy. Survival outcomes were reported to be at least comparable with photon radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting PBT use in oesophageal cancer. Wide variation in intent and treatment protocols means that the role and 'gold-standard' treatment protocol are yet to be defined. Current literature suggests significant benefit in terms of toxicity reduction, especially in the postoperative period, with comparable survival outcomes. PBT in oesophageal cancer holds significant promise for improving patient outcomes but requires robust systematic evaluation in prospective studies.

Knowledge-based intensity-modulated proton planning for gastroesophageal carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate the performance of a narrow-scope knowledge-based RapidPlan (RP) model, for optimisation of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans applied to patients with locally advanced carcinoma in the gastroesophageal junction.

METHODS

A cohort of 60 patients was retrospectively selected; 45 were used to 'train' a dose-volume histogram predictive model; the remaining 15 provided independent validation. The performance of the RP model was benchmarked against manual optimisation. Quantitative assessment was based on several dose-volume metrics.

RESULTS

Manual and RP-optimised IMPT plans resulted dosimetrically similar, and the planning dose-volume objectives were met for all structures. Concerning the validation set, the comparison of the manual vs RP-based plans, respectively, showed for the target (PTV): the homogeneity index was 6.3 ± 2.2 vs 5.9 ± 1.2, and V98% was 89.3 ± 2.9 vs 91.4 ± 2.2% (this was 97.2 ± 1.9 vs 98.8 ± 1.1 for the CTV). Regarding the organs at risk, no significant differences were reported for the combined lungs, the whole heart, the left anterior descending artery, the kidneys, the spleen and the spinal canal. The D_0.1 cm3 for the left ventricle resulted in 40.3 ± 3.4 vs 39.7 ± 4.3 Gy(RBE). The mean dose to the liver was 3.4 ± 1.3 vs 3.6 ± 1.5 Gy(RBE).

CONCLUSION

A narrow-scope knowledge-based RP model was trained and validated for IMPT delivery in locally advanced cancer of the gastroesophageal junction. The results demonstrate that RP can create models for effective IMPT. Furthermore, the equivalence between manual interactive and unattended RP-based optimisation could be displayed. The data also showed a high correlation between predicted and achieved doses in support of the valuable predictive power of the RP method.

Proton beam therapy can achieve lower vertebral bone marrow dose than photon beam therapy during chemoradiation therapy of esophageal cancer

Chemoradiation therapy plays an important role in both the neoadjuvant and definitive management of esophageal cancer (EC). Prior studies have suggested that advanced planning techniques can better spare organs at risk including the heart. Although multiple toxicities can result from esophageal radiotherapy, one less studied acute toxicity is that of myelosuppression, which can result, in part, from the combination of chemotherapy and incidental radiotherapy administration to the vertebral bodies (VBs), which abut the posterior aspect of the esophagus, especially in the lower thoracic esophagus. Traditionally, VB bone marrow doses are not accounted during EC radiation therapy planning. We sought to compare the doses to VBs between proton and photon radiation therapy as part of chemoradiation therapy for EC treatment. By reducing doses to the vertebrae, radiation therapy can decrease treatment-related myelosuppression, which can avoid delays or chemotherapy dose reductions in therapy, which likely affect long-term patient survival. Dose constraints are not routinely employed for bone marrow in radiation treatment planning. In our previous work, we identified thresholds to avoid grade ≥3 leukopenia, including VB V10Gy, VB V20Gy, and a mean VB dose (MVD) of 18.8 Gy. Herein we perform a retrospective dosimetric planning study comparing passive- or double-scattering proton beam therapy (PS-PBT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) (photon-based), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (photon-based) in 25 patients with locally advanced EC who were treated originally with photon RT at our institution between 2011 and 2016. The aforementioned dose constraints were included in the retrospective planning process for PS-PBT, VMAT, and IMRT to determine the feasibility of achieving these VB constraints while maintaining reasonable target coverage and planned, consistent constraints to other organs at risk including lungs, spinal cord, and stomach. PS-PBT plans were found to achieve lower doses for VB V10Gy, V20Gy, and MVD than VMAT and static IMRT plans while achieving the same target coverage. PS-PBT resulted in lower organs at risk dosimetric parameters than the photon plans, with p < 0.0001. Student's paired t-test p-values in favor of proton therapy's ability to spare organs were as follows: for PS-PBT vs VMAT and PS-PBT vs IMRT in mean doses for lung, liver, and VB and VB V10Gy and VB V20Gy were all <0.001 (Bonferroni corrected α=0.017). One-way ANOVA found that VB doses (VB V10Gy, VB V20Gy, and MVD) were significantly lower for proton therapy (p < 0.006) among the 3 planning techniques.

Review of clinical results of charged-particle therapy for esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is one of the common causes of cancer-related death. The treatment for esophageal cancer, particularly unresectable cases, is a difficult problem. Reports about charged-particle therapy including proton beam therapy and carbon-ion radiotherapy for esophageal cancer have increased. The objective of this study was to review the clinical results of charged-particle therapy for esophageal cancer. Charged-particle therapy was used with an expectation of increasing overall survival with reducing toxicities because charged-particle therapy can reduce the irradiated dose for normal tissues around the target tumor due to its characteristics, hence the name Bragg peak. Proton beam therapy showed a superior distribution of irradiation dose over X-ray therapy including intensity-modulated radiotherapy in silico, but clinical results were not the same. Some reports suggested that proton beam therapy may reduce acute and late toxicities, particularly in the heart and lung, during and after treatment, although it cannot lead to a higher overall survival than that in X-ray therapy. On the other hand, there are a few reports about carbon-ion radiotherapy for esophageal cancer. The special feature of carbon-ion radiotherapy is that hypofractionated radiotherapy is possible as compared to that in X-ray therapy or proton beam therapy. However, the true clinical impact of proton beam therapy or carbon-ion radiotherapy remains unclear because there are no prospective clinical trials comparing charged-particle therapy to X-ray therapy. In view of charged-particle therapy may become one of the treatment choices for esophageal cancer, further studies are needed.

Comparative Effectiveness of Proton vs Photon Therapy as Part of Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Cancer

Importance

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard-of-care curative treatment for many cancers but is associated with substantial morbidity. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy administered with proton therapy might reduce toxicity and achieve comparable cancer control outcomes compared with conventional photon radiotherapy by reducing the radiation dose to normal tissues.

Objective

To assess whether proton therapy in the setting of concurrent chemoradiotherapy is associated with fewer 90-day unplanned hospitalizations (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4 [CTCAEv4], grade ≥3) or other adverse events and similar disease-free and overall survival compared with concurrent photon therapy and chemoradiotherapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective, nonrandomized comparative effectiveness study included 1483 adult patients with nonmetastatic, locally advanced cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy with curative intent from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2016, at a large academic health system. Three hundred ninety-one patients received proton therapy and 1092, photon therapy. Data were analyzed from October 15, 2018, through February 1, 2019.

Interventions

Proton vs photon chemoradiotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was 90-day adverse events associated with unplanned hospitalizations (CTCAEv4 grade ≥3). Secondary end points included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status decline during treatment, 90-day adverse events of at least CTCAEv4 grade 2 that limit instrumental activities of daily living, and disease-free and overall survival. Data on adverse events and survival were gathered prospectively. Modified Poisson regression models with inverse propensity score weighting were used to model adverse event outcomes, and Cox proportional hazards regression models with weighting were used for survival outcomes. Propensity scores were estimated using an ensemble machine-learning approach.

Results

Among the 1483 patients included in the analysis (935 men [63.0%]; median age, 62 [range, 18-93] years), those receiving proton therapy were significantly older (median age, 66 [range, 18-93] vs 61 [range, 19-91] years; P < .01), had less favorable Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (median, 3.0 vs 2.0; P < .01), and had lower integral radiation dose to tissues outside the target (mean [SD] volume, 14.1 [6.4] vs 19.1 [10.6] cGy/cc × 107; P < .01). Baseline grade ≥2 toxicity (22% vs 24%; P = .37) and ECOG performance status (mean [SD], 0.62 [0.74] vs 0.68 [0.80]; P = .16) were similar between the 2 cohorts. In propensity score weighted-analyses, proton chemoradiotherapy was associated with a significantly lower relative risk of 90-day adverse events of at least grade 3 (0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002), 90-day adverse events of at least grade 2 (0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; P = .006), and decline in performance status during treatment (0.51; 95% CI, 0.37-0.71; P < .001). There was no difference in disease-free or overall survival.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this analysis, proton chemoradiotherapy was associated with significantly reduced acute adverse events that caused unplanned hospitalizations, with similar disease-free and overall survival. Prospective trials are warranted to validate these results.

Association of Chemoradiotherapy With Thoracic Vertebral Fractures in Patients With Esophageal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

The association of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with a thoracic vertebral fracture in patients with esophageal cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether CRT is associated with thoracic vertebral fractures in patients with esophageal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with clinical stages I to III thoracic esophageal cancer who visited the Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan, from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2013. Data were analyzed from April 6, 2018, to June 4, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT group) or surgery or endoscopic treatment (non-CRT group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome of this study was the cumulative incidence rate of thoracic vertebral fractures in 36 months. The incidence rate was calculated taking censoring into account. Possible risk factors, including CRT, were explored in the multivariable analysis. The association of irradiated doses with fractured vertebrae was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 315 patients (119 for the CRT group and 196 for the non-CRT group) were included. The median age of patients was 65 (range, 32-85) years. Fifty-six patients (17.8%) were female and 259 (82.2%) were male. The median observation time was 40.4 (range, 0.7-124.1) months. Thoracic vertebral fractures were observed in 20 patients (16.8%) in the CRT group and 8 patients (4.1%) in the non-CRT group. The 36-month incidence rate of thoracic vertebral fractures was 12.3% (95% CI, 7.0%-19.1%) in the CRT group and 3.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-7.5%) in the non-CRT group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.41 [95% CI, 1.50-7.73]; P = .003). The multivariable analysis showed that the HR of the thoracic vertebral fracture in the CRT group to non-CRT group was 3.91 (95% CI, 1.66-9.23; P = .002) with adjusting for sex, 3.14 (95% CI, 1.37-7.19; P = .007) with adjusting for age, and 3.10 (95% CI, 1.33-7.24; P = .009) with adjusting for the history of vertebral or hip fractures. The HR of the thoracic vertebral fracture for a 5-Gy increase in the mean radiation dose to the single vertebra was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.04-1.36; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that chemoradiotherapy was associated with thoracic vertebral fractures in patients with esophageal cancers. A reduced radiation dose to thoracic vertebrae may decrease the incidence of fractures.

Current status of radiotherapy for patients with thoracic esophageal cancer in Japan, based on the Comprehensive Registry of Esophageal Cancer in Japan from 2009 to 2011 by the Japan Esophageal Society

BACKGROUND

Although esophagectomy is the standard treatment for resectable esophageal cancer, chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone is also selected for some cases. However, there have been very few detailed studies conducted on a large scale on the efficacy of these treatments in Japan.

METHODS

Of the patients enrolled in the Comprehensive Registry of Esophageal Cancer in Japan by the Japan Esophageal Society for the 2015-2017 surveys (patients treated between 2009 and 2011), the data of 388 patients treated by definitive radiotherapy alone (RTx) and 1964 patients treated by definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRTx) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 78 years in the RTx group and 69 years in the CRTx group; thus, the proportion of elderly patients was significantly higher in the RTx group than in the CRTx group (p < 0.0001). With regard to the rates of treatment by the two modalities according to the depth of invasion, extent of lymph node metastasis, and disease stage, the treatment rate by CRTx increased more significantly than that by RTx as the disease progressed (p < 0.0001). With regard to the distribution of the total irradiation dose, 11.4% and 2.3% of patients in the RTx and CRTx groups, respectively, received a dose of 67 Gy or more; thus, the RTx group received significantly higher total irradiation doses (p < 0.0001). In the RTx group, the 5-year overall survival rate was 23.2%, and the rates in patients with cStage 0-I, II, III, and IV disease were 41.8%,18.5%, 9.3%, and 13.9%, respectively. In the patients of the RTx group showing complete response (CR), the 5-year overall survival rate was 46.6% and the rates in patients with cStage 0-I, II, III, and IV disease were 54.8%, 39.6%, 32.4%, and 38.9%, respectively. In the CRTx group, the 5-year overall survival rate was 30.6% and the rates in patients with cStage 0-I, II, III, and IV disease were 57.8%, 47.8%, 23.4%, and 13.0%, respectively. In the patients of the CRTx group showing CR, the 5-year overall survival rate was 59.2% and the rates in patients with cStage 0-I, II, III, and IV disease were 67.9%, 59.5%, 56.5%, and 39.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the current status of treatment of esophageal cancer in Japan, and we think that we have been able to establish the grounds for explaining to patients with esophageal cancer and their families the treatment decisions made for them in daily clinical practice.

Predictive value of lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The survival rate of patients with advanced oesophageal cancer is very low and can vary significantly, even among patients with the same TNM stage. It is important to look for indicators that are economical and readily available to predict overall survival. The aim of this study was to determine whether lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) could be potential predictors of survival in patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

Differences in survival among 204 patients with advanced oesophageal cancer who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy were collected and analysed. Univariate and multivariate COX regression analyses were used to investigate the association between blood inflammatory markers and patient survival before treatment.

RESULTS

Univariate COX regression analyses showed that a history of alcohol use, neutrophil count, LMR, NLR, tumour length, and N stage were significantly associated with the survival of tumour patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Multivariate COX regression analysis showed that NLR and LMR were predictors of outcome in tumour patients receiving chemoradiotherapy. According to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the AUC of LMR and NLR was 0.734 and 0.749, and the best cutoff point for LMR and NLR was 3.03 and 2.64, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMR and NLR can be used to predict the survival of patients with advanced oesophageal cancer receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy, thereby providing clinicians with suggestions for further treatment options.

Vertebral body irradiation during chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer contributes to acute bone marrow toxicity

BACKGROUND

Hematologic toxicity (HT) commonly occurs during chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for esophageal cancer. We sought to determine radiation doses that correlate with declines in blood counts due to vertebral body (VB) irradiation during CRT.

METHODS

We analyzed 53 esophageal cancer patients who were treated with weekly neoadjuvant carboplatin, paclitaxel and RT with weekly complete blood counts (CBC) available during treatment. HTs were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 (CTCAE v4.0). Dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters of Vx, defined as percentage of entire bony vertebra (body, pedicles, laminae, processes) receiving at least x Gy of radiation, were collected for VB V5 (VBV5), VBV10-VBV60 in increments of 10, and mean vertebral dose (MVD). Linear and logistic regressions were performed to identify associations between leukopenia nadirs and DVH parameters. Receiver operator curves identified thresholds to avoid grade ≥3 leukopenia.

RESULTS

A proportion of 32.1% of patients (n=17) developed grade 3 leukopenia and 5.7% (n=3) developed grade 4 leukopenia. VBV5, VBV10, VBV20, VBV30, and MVD were significantly associated with worsening leukopenia on univariate and multivariate analysis. Associations with leukopenia were not seen with VBV40 and VBV50 DVH values. Thresholds to avoid grade ≥3 leukopenia were VBV10 <49.1%, VBV20 <45.6%, and MVD <17.2 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

VBV5, VBV10, VBV20, VBV30 associate with leukopenia during CRT for esophageal cancer patients. Improved radiation sparing of the VB may decrease HT and may improve tolerability of concurrent chemotherapy and allow for intensification of systemic therapy during RT.