Definitive chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal carcinoma - A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Time trends in mortality of oesophageal cancer in Finland over 30 years

INTRODUCTION

Oesophageal cancer survival is reported by epidemiological studies, but knowledge on survival trends regarding different histologies and operative treatment status is lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from all patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in Finland in 1987-2016 was collected from national registries. 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were examined stratified by histology (adenocarcinoma (OAC) and squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC)) and treatment strategy (surgery, no surgery). Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for death were provided by multivariable Cox regression, adjusted for confounders.

RESULTS

Of the 9102 patients, 3140 had OAC (1074 [34%] oesophagectomies), and 3778 had OSCC (870 [23%] oesophagectomies). Men were overrepresented in both OAC (77%) and OSCC (55%). The proportion of oesophagectomies decreased in both histologies. From 1987 to 1991 to 2012-2016, 5-year survival increased from 11% to 22% in OAC and from 7% to 13% in OSCC. For patients undergoing oesophagectomy, the corresponding increases were from 20% to 49% in OAC and from 11% to 54% in OSCC, and non-operated patients from 5% to 8% and from 5% to 7%, respectively. Earlier calendar period, older age and comorbidity were associated with mortality in both histologies. Female sex was a protective factor for patients operated for OSCC (HR 1.56 (95% CI 1.33-1.83), men versus women).

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of oesophageal cancer has improved in Finland over the last 30 years in both main histological types. The survival of patients undergoing oesophagectomy has drastically improved, while the prognosis of patients not undergoing surgery is slowly improving but remains poor.

Late Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Definitive Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a treatment option with curative intent for patients with esophageal cancer that could result in late toxicities and affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to investigate the effect of dCRT on late toxicities and HRQoL in esophageal cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO. Prospective phase II and III clinical trials, population-based studies, and retrospective chart reviews investigating late toxicity or HRQoL after dCRT (≥50 Gy) were included. The HRQoL outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed-effect models with restricted cubic spline transformation. Any HRQoL changes of ≥10 points were considered clinically relevant. The risk of toxicities was calculated using the number of events and the total study population.

RESULTS

Among 41 included studies, 10 assessed HRQoL and 31 late toxicity. Global health status remained stable over time and improved after 36 months compared with baseline (mean change, +11). Several tumor-specific symptoms, including dysphagia, eating restrictions, and pain, improved after 6 months compared with baseline. Compared with baseline, dyspnea worsened after 6 months (mean change, +16 points). The risk of any late toxicity was 48% (95% CI, 33%-64%). Late toxicity risk of any grade for the esophagus was 17% (95% CI, 12%-21%), pulmonary 21% (95% CI, 11%-31%), cardiac 12% (95% CI, 6%-17%), and any other organ 24% (95% CI, 2%-45%).

CONCLUSIONS

Global health status remained stable over time, and tumor-specific symptoms improved within 6 months after dCRT compared with baseline, with the exception of dyspnea. In addition, substantial risks of late toxicity were observed.

Chemoradiation for oesophageal cancer: the choice of treatment modality

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced oesophageal cancer can be treated with definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) or with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (nCRT + S), but treatment modality choice is not always clear. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors associated with the choice of treatment modality in locally advanced oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 149 patients treated with dCRT(n = 85) or nCRT + S (n = 64) for oesophageal cancer in Helsinki University Hospital in 2008-2018. Logistic regression was used to analyse factors associated with choice of treatment modality and to compare dosimetric factors with postoperative complications. Multivariate analyses identified factors associated with survival.

RESULTS

Surgery was performed after chemoradiation as planned on 64/91 patients (70%). 28/64 had pathological complete response (44%). Probability of nCRT + S was higher in stages I-III versus IV (OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.53-8.53; P = .003), ECOG 0-1 versus 2 (OR 6.99, 95% CI 1.81-26.96; P = .005) or in the middle/lower vs upper oesophageal tumours (OR 5.61, 95% CI 1.83-17.16, P = .003). Probability for surgery was lower, if patient had lost > 10% of body weight (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.21-0.98, P = 0.043). Patients in the nCRT + S group had significantly better median overall survival (mOS) and local control than the dCRT group (60 vs. 10 months, P < .001 and 53 vs. 6 months, P < 0.0001, respectively). 10/85 (12%) patients died within three months after dCRT. In multivariate analysis, nCRT + S was associated with improved mOS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.44, P < .001). Current smokers had worse mOS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.04-3.92, P = .037) compared to never-smokers. No significant dosimetric factor associated with postoperative complications was found.

CONCLUSION

The overall clinical status of the patients and the stage of the cancer guide the choice of treatment modalities, leading to overtreatment. Patients with better prognoses were more likely operated after chemoradiation, although there is no evidence of OS benefit in previous randomized trials. On the other hand, the prognosis was poor for patients with poor general health and advanced cancers, despite the chemoradiation. Thus, there are signs of overtreatment. MDT practice should be recommended to optimise the choice of treatment modalities. Smoking status is an independent factor associated with survival.

[What does the general and abdominal surgeon need to know about oncologically oriented radiotherapy?]

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is an integral component of most modern multimodal tumor treatment concepts, both in palliative and curative situations and intentions. This also applies to many tumor entities relevant in general as well as abdominal surgery. This can give rise to new challenges in the context of the daily clinical routine and interdisciplinary tumor conferences.

AIM

Practice relevant overview, based on selective references from the current scientific literature in medicine and own experiences obtained in daily work, for the oncological surgeon on radiotherapy-associated options for visceral tumor lesions. A particular focus is on rectal cancer, esophageal cancer, anal cancer and liver metastases.

METHOD

A narrative review is given.

RESULTS (SELECTED CORNER POINTS)

In total neoadjuvant therapy it is possible to avoid resection in rectal cancer if a good response is achieved and close monitoring can be provided. In esophageal cancer neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by resection can be considered the therapeutic regimen of choice for all suitable patients. If surgery is not an option, definitive chemoradiotherapy is an appropriate and favorable alternative, especially with respect to squamous cell carcinoma. Even taking the latest data on the topic into account, definitive chemoradiotherapy remains undisputedly recommended for anal cancer. Liver tumors can be locally ablated by stereotactic radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Close cooperation between disciplines in the context of tumor therapy remains essential for the best possible treatment and outcome of patients.

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.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who achieved clinical complete response when induction chemoradiation finished: A phase II random

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

More than 40% of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) exhibit pathological complete responses (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), and theoretically, these patients may be cured by CRT and omit surgery. This prospectively randomized pilot study compared definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) with nCRT in patients with locally advanced ESCC who achieved clinical complete responses (cCRs) to nCRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single center, randomized, open phase 2 study of 256 patients with locally advanced ESCC enrolled between April 2016 and November 2018. Immediately when nCRT finished, patients enrolled underwent response evaluations within 1 week. Patients with cCR were randomly allocated to undergo surgery (arm A) or complete CRT up to the definitive radiation dose (arm B). The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Finally, 71 patients were randomly assigned to the nCRT (n = 36) and dCRT (n = 35) arms. The median observation time was 35.7 months. The 3-year DFS rate was 56.43% in arm A versus 54.73% in arm B (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.862, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.452 to 1.645, P = 0.652). The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates in arms A and B were 69.5% and 62.3% (HR = 0.824, 95% CI = 403-1.688, P = 0.597), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our treatment response evaluation criteria, survival of the patients with cCR after nCRT was not significant different between nCRT group and dCRT group. An optimized response evaluation strategy soon after nCRT may guide next therapy decisions for patients with locally advanced ESCC.