A phase II randomized trial of induction chemotherapy versus no induction chemotherapy followed by preoperative chemoradiation in patients with esophageal cancer

PET/CT deep learning prognosis for treatment decision support in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The clinical decision-making regarding choosing surgery alone (SA) or surgery followed by postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (SPOCT) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains controversial. We aim to propose a pre-therapy PET/CT image-based deep learning approach to improve the survival benefit and clinical management of ESCC patients.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study included 837 ESCC patients from three institutions. Prognostic biomarkers integrating six networks were developed to build an ESCC prognosis (ESCCPro) model and predict the survival probability of ESCC patients treated with SA and SPOCT. Patients who did not undergo surgical resection were in a control group. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point event. The expected improvement in survival prognosis with the application of ESCCPro to assign treatment protocols was estimated by comparing the survival of patients in each subgroup. Seven clinicians with varying experience evaluated how ESCCPro performed in assisting clinical decision-making.

RESULTS

In this retrospective multicenter study, patients receiving SA had a median OS 9.2 months longer than controls. No significant differences in survival were found between SA patients with predicted poor outcomes and the controls (p > 0.05). It was estimated that if ESCCPro was used to determine SA and SPOCT eligibility, the median OS in the ESCCPro-recommended SA group and SPOCT group would have been 15.3 months and 24.9 months longer, respectively. In addition, ESCCPro also significantly improved prognosis accuracy, certainty, and the efficiency of clinical experts.

CONCLUSION

ESCCPro assistance improved the survival benefit of ESCC patients and the clinical decision-making among the two treatment approaches.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The ESCCPro model for treatment decision-making is promising to improve overall survival in ESCC patients undergoing surgical resection and patients undergoing surgery followed by postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy.

KEY POINTS

ESCC is associated with a poor prognosis and unclear ideal treatments. ESCCPro predicts the survival of patients with ESCC and the expected benefit from SA. ESCCPro improves clinicians' stratification of patients' prognoses.

Esophagogastric Cancer: The Current Role of Radiation Therapy

Radiation therapy is an effective treatment modality in the management of patients with esophageal cancer regardless of tumor location (proximal, middle, or distal esophagus) or histology (squamous cell vs adenocarcinoma). The addition of neoadjuvant CRT to surgery in patients who are surgical candidates has consistently shown a benefit in terms of locoregional recurrence, pathologic downstaging, and overall survival. For patients who are not surgical candidates, CRT has a role as definitive treatment.

Outcomes of Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Chemoradiotherapy Versus Chemoradiotherapy Alone in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Induction chemotherapy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

There is still no definite conclusion regarding the effect of Induction Chemotherapy (IC) combined with concurrent Chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Thus this study was aimed to assess outcomes of IC followed By CRT versus CRT alone in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study performed on 105 patients who underwent CRT and 73 patients who underwent IC+CRT, between January 2016 and December 2018. The primary endpoints were OS (from the date of treatment to the date of death or 3- years follow-Up). The toxicities of CRT were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (version 3.0).

RESULTS

one-year (73.8% vs. 53.2%) and 2-year (53.4% vs. 38.5%) OS rate of the IC+CRT group was significantly higher than that of the CRT group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between the IC+CRT group and the CRT group (31.5% vs. 27.4%) in terms of the 3-year OS rate (p > 0.05). In multivariate logistic regression, age<60 (OR: 1.48; CI 95% 1.02-1.97), clinical staging II (OR: 1.36; CI 95% 1.11-1.88), and the addition of IC (OR: 1.66; CI 95% 1.07-2.19) were independent prognostic factors that affected survival positively.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrated that a combination of IC and CRT might be a promising treatment strategy to further improve OS in ESCC patients.

Pathologic complete response in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment is mostly limited to patients who exhibit pathologic complete response (pCR). Existing estimates of pCR rates among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy have not been synthesized and lack precision.

METHODS

We conducted an independently funded systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023397402) of pCR rates among patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radiation). Studies were identified from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database searches. Eligible studies included trials published from 1992 to 2022 that focused on nonmetastatic esophageal cancer, including the gastroesophageal junction. Histology-specific pooled pCR prevalence was determined using the Freeman-Tukey transformation and a random effects model.

RESULTS

After eligibility assessment, 84 studies with 6451 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinomas was 9% (95% CI: 6%-14%), ranging from 0% to 32%. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in squamous cell carcinomas was 32% (95% CI: 26%-39%), ranging from 8% to 66%. For adenocarcinoma, the pooled prevalence of pCR was 6% (95% CI: 1%-12%) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 22% (18%-26%) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Under one-third of patients with esophageal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemo(radiation) experience pCR. Patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas had higher rates of pCR than those with adenocarcinomas. As pCR represents an increasingly utilized endpoint in neoadjuvant trials, these estimates of pooled pCR rates may serve as an important benchmark for future trial design.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Treatment options for neoadjuvant strategies of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (Review)

Compared with postoperative adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy has more potential advantages, such as decreasing tumor stage, killing micrometastatic cells. Because of these advantages, neoadjuvant therapy is recommended for numerous types of tumor, such as breast, lung and rectal cancer. To determine the role of neoadjuvant therapy on overall survival and adverse for patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma. we summarized clinical studies on 7 types of neoadjuvant therapies in this review. Currently, patients with esophageal cancer (EC) in China mainly receive postoperative treatment with <30% of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. One reason for the limited use of neoadjuvant therapy in China is inaccurate staging based on imaging and neoadjuvant treatment may increase difficulties in surgery. After neoadjuvant therapy, there may be tissue edema, blurry surgical field of view and unclear tissue gaps, resulting in greater difficulty in surgical procedures. However, oncologists are interested in neoadjuvant treatment, especially neoadjuvant immunotherapy to treat EC. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is the most common neoadjuvant treatment regimen and increases the pathological complete response (pCR) and 5- and 10-year survival rates. Preoperative induction chemotherapy and sequential concurrent chemoradiotherapy are currently the most widely treatments used in clinical practice in China. However, this treatment strategy does not yield long-term survival. The pCR rate of neoadjuvant immunotherapy is greater than that of concurrent chemoradiotherapy but, to the best of our knowledge, no evidence of long-term survival benefit has been found in phase I and II clinical trials. Neoadjuvant treatment should be considered for patients with locally advanced ESCC.

Validity of Using Pathological Response as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Neoadjuvant Studies for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathological response is a critical factor in predicting long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer after preoperative therapy. However, the validity of using pathological response as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for esophageal cancer has not yet been established. In this study, a literature-based meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate pathological response as a proxy endpoint for survival in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Three databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies investigating neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. The correlation between pathological complete response (pCR) and OS were assessed using a weighted multiple regression analysis at the trial level, and the coefficient of determination (R2) was calculated. The research design and histological subtypes were considered in the performance of subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 40 trials, comprising 43 comparisons and 55,344 patients were qualified. The surrogacy between pCR and OS was moderate (R2 = 0.238 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.500 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.541 in log settings). pCR could not serve as an ideal surrogate endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (R2 = 0.511 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.460 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.523 in log settings). A strong correlation was observed in studies comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (R2 = 0.595 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.840 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.800 in log settings).

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of surrogacy of pathological response for long-term survival at trial level is established in this study. Hence, caution should be exercised when using pCR as the primary endpoint in neoadjuvant studies for esophageal cancer.

Induction immunochemotherapy followed by radiotherapy for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to investigate the efficacy of induction immunochemotherapy before radiotherapy (RT) for patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer who received induction immunochemotherapy followed by RT (ICIs + RT group) and RT alone (RT group) were retrospectively identified in two cancer centers, respectively. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the potential confounders between the two groups. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and recurrence patterns were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 467 patients were reviewed, and 66 were matched in each group. After PSM, the 1- and 2-year OS rates were 84.6% and 57.9% in ICIs + RT group, and 71.1% and 43.0% in RT group (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-1.00, p = 0.050). The absolute increase of restricted mean survival time (RMST) for OS in ICIs + RT group compared with RT group were 0.89 years (p = 0.023) at one year and 2.59 years at two years (p = 0.030). The median PFS time, 1- and 2-year PFS rates were 20.3 months, 69.3%, and 45.7% in ICIs + RT group, and 12.2 months, 51.4%, and 35.8% in RT group (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-0.99, p = 0.045). The cumulative locoregional recurrence (LRR) rate was significantly lower in ICIs + RT group (1-year rate, 17.4% vs. 38.8%, p = 0.011), and distant metastasis (DM) rates were comparable (p = 0.755). Consolidation ICIs was associated with a trend of improved 1-year OS and PFS.

CONCLUSION

Induction immunochemotherapy followed by RT might improve locoregional control and survival outcomes for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer.

Nivolumab adjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer: a review based on subgroup analysis of CheckMate 577 trial

Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Approximately 50% of patients have locally advanced disease. The CROSS and NEOCRTEC5010 trials have demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment for patients with resectable disease. However, a pathological complete response is frequently not achieved, and most patients have a poor prognosis. The CheckMate 577 trial demonstrates that nivolumab adjuvant therapy improves disease-free survival in patents without a pathological complete response. However, there are still numerous clinical questions of concern that remain controversial based on the results of the subgroup analysis. In this review, we aim to offer constructive suggestions addressing the clinical concerns raised in the CheckMate 577 trial.

The Evolution of Neo-Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Oesophageal and Gastro-Oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinomas

Historically, oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas were associated with a poor prognosis. The advent of neoadjuvant therapy has transformed the management of oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas further and offers the possibility to reverse disease progression, eliminate micrometastasis, and offer potentially better outcomes for these patients. This review provides an overview of landmark clinical trials in this area, with different treatment regimens considered over the years as well as potential therapeutic agents on the horizon that may transform the management of oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas further.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches in gastroesophageal cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite advances in the perioperative treatment of locally advanced (T2-4 and/or N+) gastroesophageal cancer with evolving chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy regimens, prognosis remains poor. Biomarker-based approaches with targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibition present a new opportunity to improve response rate and overall survival. This review aims to shed light on the current treatment strategies and therapy options that are under investigation for the curatively intended perioperative treatment of gastroesophageal cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

A major step for patients with advanced esophageal cancer and insufficient response to chemoradiotherapy was the implementation of immune checkpoint inhibition in the adjuvant treatment with positive effects on survival duration and quality of life (CheckMate577). Various studies that seek to further integrate immunotherapy or targeted therapy into (neo-) adjuvant treatment are on their way and show promising results.

SUMMARY

Ongoing clinical research tries to increase the effectivity of standard of care approaches for the perioperative treatment of gastroesophageal cancer. Biomarker based immunotherapy and targeted therapy bear the opportunity to further improve the outcome.

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy with or without induction chemotherapy for operable locally-advanced esophageal cancer

Background

For patients with operable locally advanced esophageal carcinoma (LA-EC), we hypothesized that pre-operative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (IC-CRT) would improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when compared to chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

Methods

This was a single institution retrospective cohort study including patients with LA-EC who received preoperative-intent IC-CRT vs. CRT between 2013-2019. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess for variables associated with survival. The impact of treatment group on pathologic response was assessed by chi-square.

Results

Ninty-five patients were included for analysis (IC-CRT n=59; CRT n=36) and the median follow-up was 37.7 months (IQR: 16.8-56.1). There was no difference in median PFS or OS for IC-CRT or CRT, 22 months (95% CI: 12-59) vs. 32 months (95% CI: 10-57) (P=0.64) and 39 months (95% CI: 23-not reached) vs. 56.5 months (95% CI: 38-not reached) (P=0.36), respectively. Amongst the subset of patients with adenocarcinoma histology, there was no difference in median PFS or OS, nor was there when analyses were further restricted to those who received ≥3 cycles of induction 5-fluorouracil and platinum, or for those who underwent esophagectomy. Pathologic complete response occurred in 45% vs. 29% (P=0.24) and N-stage regression occurred in 72% vs. 58% (P=0.28) of patients in the IC-CRT and CRT cohorts, respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 44% of patients in each treatment cohort.

Conclusions

For patients with LA-EC, preoperative-intent IC-CRT was not associated with improved PFS or OS when compared with CRT.

Induction FOLFOX and PET-Directed Chemoradiation for Locally Advanced Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of induction FOLFOX followed by PET-directed nCRT, induction CP followed by PET-directed nCRT, and nCRT with CP alone in patients with EAC.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

nCRT with CP is a standard treatment for locally advanced EAC. The results of cancer and leukemia group B 80803 support the use of induction chemotherapy followed by PET-directed chemo-radiation therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified all patients with EAC who underwent the treatments above followed by esophagectomy. We assessed incidences of pathologic complete response (pCR), near-pCR (ypN0 with ≥90% response), and surgical complications between treatment groups using Fisher exact test and logistic regression; disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and evaluated using the log-rank test and extended Cox regression.

RESULTS

In total, 451 patients were included: 309 (69%) received induction chemotherapy before nCRT (FOLFOX, n = 70; CP, n = 239); 142 (31%) received nCRT with CP. Rates of pCR (33% vs. 16%, P = 0.004), near-pCR (57% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), and 2-year DFS (68% vs. 50%, P = 0.01) were higher in the induction FOLFOX group than in the induction CP group. Similarly, the rate of near-pCR (57% vs. 42%, P = 0.04) and 2-year DFS (68% vs. 44%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the FOLFOX group than in the no-induction group.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction FOLFOX followed by PET-directed nCRT may result in better histopathologic response rates and DFS than either induction CP plus PET-directed nCRT or nCRT with CP alone.

Efficacy and toxicity of Iodine-125 seed implantation for lymph node recurrence secondary to esophageal cancer after radiotherapy: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study aimed to explore the efficacy and toxicity of radioactive Iodine-125 seed implantation for lymph node recurrence in patients with esophageal cancer after external radiotherapy.

METHODS

Clinical data of eligible patients from 5 centers in China were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 126 patients between January 2016 and March 2019 were included. The median interval between previous radiotherapy and radioactive Iodine-125 seed implantation was calculated. The target volume was 2.1-128.1 cm³ (median, 22.2 cm³) and the median postoperative D90 is 120.6 Gy (range, 101.7-192). Short-term efficacy of tumor response, the long-term efficacy of local progression-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS), and treatment-related toxicity were reported.

RESULTS

For tumor response, 37 (29.4%), 51 (40.5%), 14 (11.1%), and 24 (19.0%) patients achieved complete response, partial response, stable disease and progressive disease, respectively. The 1-, 2- and 3-year LPFS and OS rates were 48.8%, 23.0% and 15.9%, and 80.2%, 38.8%, and 24.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified Karnofsky performance status (P = 0.041) and tumor response (P = 0.049) as independent prognostic factors for LPFS; initial tumor stage (P = 0.034), lesion volume (P = 0.017), and tumor response (P = 0.004) as independent prognostic factors for OS. In total, 77 (61.1%) patients suffered from skin reactions and the incidence of grade 3-5 skin toxicity was 5.6% (7/126).

CONCLUSION

Radioactive Iodine-125 seed implantation seems efficient with acceptable toxicity for the treatment of lymph node recurrence secondary to esophageal cancer. A head-to-head study is needed to further evaluate the survival benefit.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy of locoregionally advanced solid tumors

Definitive management of locoregionally advanced solid tumors presents a major challenge and often consists of a combination of surgical, radiotherapeutic and systemic therapy approaches. Upfront surgical treatment with or without adjuvant radiotherapy carries the risks of significant morbidities and potential complications that could be lasting. In addition, these patients continue to have a high risk of local or distant disease relapse despite the use of standard adjuvant therapy. Preoperative neoadjuvant systemic therapy has the potential to significantly improve clinical outcomes, particularly in this era of expanding immunotherapeutic agents that have transformed the care of patients with metastatic/unresectable malignancies. Tremendous progress has been made with neoadjuvant immunotherapy in the treatment of several locoregionally advanced resectable solid tumors leading to ongoing phase 3 trials and change in clinical practice. The promise of neoadjuvant immunotherapy has been supported by the high pathologic tumor response rates in early trials as well as the durability of these responses making cure a more achievable potential outcome compared with other forms of systemic therapy. Furthermore, neoadjuvant studies allow the assessment of radiologic and pathological responses and the access to biospecimens before and during systemic therapy. Pathological responses may guide future treatment decisions, and biospecimens allow the conduct of mechanistic and biomarker studies that may guide future drug development. On behalf of the National Cancer Institute Early Drug Development Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Working Group, this article summarizes the current state of neoadjuvant immunotherapy of solid tumors focusing primarily on locoregionally advanced melanoma, gynecologic malignancies, gastrointestinal malignancies, non-small cell lung cancer and head and neck cancer including recent advances and our expert recommendations related to future neoadjuvant trial designs and associated clinical and translational research questions.

Comparison of neoadjuvant regimens for resectable gastroesophageal junction cancer: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials across three decades

BACKGROUND

The optimal perioperative treatment for adenocarcinoma of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) tumor remains uncertain. The systematic review aims to assess the best neoadjuvant modality, namely chemotherapy (CT) versus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for resectable gastric, esophageal and GEJ tumors.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive PubMed database and Cochrane Library search to identify relevant RCTs related to neoadjuvant treatment for resectable GEJ adenocarcinoma. We included all published RCTs (phase 2 or 3) that tested specific neoadjuvant therapies (CT or CRT) if the patient population included GEJ tumors. We applied the Version 2 Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) to all the eligible studies. Outcomes examined included R0 resection and pathological response based on intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, surgical outcomes, notable adverse events, and overall survival (OS). Each randomized group of every study was noted to be neoadjuvant CRT, CT, or surgery alone in order to compare the outcomes among these treatment approaches.

RESULTS

We identified 25 RCTs with 7,855 patients published from 1996 to 2019. Seven studies tested preoperative CT versus surgery alone, 7 tested preoperative radiotherapy (RT) or CRT versus surgery alone, 4 tested preoperative RT or CRT versus preoperative CT, and 7 tested other combinations. The R0 resection ranged 47-100% and the 3-year OS ranged 6-66.1% in all the study arms. In an exploratory analysis, CRT strategies showed a superior R0 resection rate [80.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 79.8-80.6%] to surgery alone (60.9%; 95% CI: 60.4-61.3%; P<0.01) and to preoperative CT (63.9%; 95% CI: 63.6-64.2%; P<0.01). When comparing 3- and 5-year OS, improvement was noted when comparing CRT to surgery alone (P<0.01), and perioperative CT to surgery alone (P<0.01), but no definite difference was noted between CRT versus CT.

DISCUSSION

Preoperative CRT showed improvement in R0 resection rate to surgery alone and preoperative CT. However, there is no significant difference in OS between CRT and CT. Both neoadjuvant strategies remain clinically meaningful options for patients with resectable GEJ tumors. Lack of patient-level data and inconsistent reporting of key outcomes across studies were the main limitations of our study.

Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for Resectable Proximal Gastric, Gastroesophageal Junction and Distal Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

The five-year survival for resectable proximal gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and distal esophageal cancer ranges from 30 to 60% globally. Neoadjuvant and/or perioperative therapy has emerged as a treatment tool to improve patient selection for surgery, resectability, and locoregional control of the disease. As a result, treatment strategies have evolved from the first trials in the late 1980s to the pivotal CROSS trial updated in 2015. The review summarizes current clinical trials and treatment recommendations with regard to neoadjuvant and/or perioperative therapy for patients with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the distal esophagus, GEJ, and proximal stomach.

Abstract

Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for resectable proximal gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and distal esophageal cancer have evolved over several decades. Treatment recommendations differ based on histologic type—squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) versus adenocarcinoma (AC)—as well as the exact location of the tumor. Recent and older clinical trials in this area were critically reviewed. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with concurrent taxane- or fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has an established role for both AC and SCC of the distal esophagus and GEJ. The use of perioperative chemotherapy for gastric AC is based on the FLOT4 and MAGIC trials; however, the utility of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in this setting requires further evaluation. Additional clinical trials evaluating chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and radiation that are currently in process are highlighted, given the need for further disease control.

Progression-Free Survival as Early Efficacy Endpoint in Resectable Esophageal Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review

To investigate literature-based evidence regarding progression-free survival (PFS) as an early efficacy endpoint in patients with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy, this study identified large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with strict quality control. Twenty-four RCTs involving 7,514 patients were included. Trial-level correlation analysis was conducted to analyze the relationship between PFS hazard ratio (HR) and overall survival (OS) HR, Δ median PFS and Δ median OS. Correlation analysis at the neoadjuvant treatment arm level was performed between 1- to 5-year PFS and 5-year OS, median PFS and median OS. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients treated with standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT). The correlation was evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient r in weighted linear regression, with weight equal to patient size. In trial-level correlation, PFS were strongly associated with OS HR (r, 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.97]) and Δ median survival (r, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.54-0.96]). In neoadjuvant treatment arms, there was a strong correlation between 1 to 5-year PFS rates and 5-year OS (r, 0.83-0.95), and median PFS and median OS (r, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]). NCRT subgroup analysis demonstrated acceptable consistency. In conclusion, we recommend PFS as an early efficacy endpoint in resected esophageal or GEJ cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy.

Impact of preoperative endoscopy for predicting treatment response and prognosis in patients with gastric cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Background and study aims  Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) have been the gold standard to preoperatively predict treatment response and prognosis in patients with gastric cancer (GC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC); however, methods for patients without evaluable lesions by RECIST are not yet confirmed. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of preoperative endoscopy for predicting treatment response and prognosis in patients with GC after NAC. Patients and methods  This retrospective study included 105 patients with initially resectable GC who underwent NAC followed by surgical treatment. Preoperative factors for predicting treatment response and survival outcomes were analyzed. Results  The number of patients classified as responders using preoperative endoscopic assessment, RECIST, and postoperative pathological evaluation were 25 (23.8 %), 28 (26.7 %), and 18 (17.1 %), respectively. Forty-three patients (41 %) were classified as non-targeted disease only, and their treatment responses were not evaluable by RECIST. Multivariate analysis identified endoscopic response as an independent preoperative factor to predict postoperative histological treatment response (odds ratio = 4.556, 95 % CI = 1.169-17.746, P  = 0.029). Endoscopic treatment response was the only independent preoperative predictive factor for overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio = 0.419, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.206-0.849, P  = 0.016). Further, endoscopic treatment response was available for 33 patients (76.7 %) with non-targeted disease only, which showed significantly different OS between endoscopic responders (80.0 %) and non-responders (43.5 %) ( P  = 0.025). Conclusions  Endoscopic evaluation was an independent preoperative factor to predict treatment response and prognosis in patients with GC after NAC. Endoscopic assessment may be especially valuable for patients who could not be assessed by RECIST.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in resectable gastroesophageal cancers - a review

Gastroesophageal cancers (GEC) have a poor survival rate of 20–30% at 5 years, often due to delayed presentations. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery or peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery are widely used as the standard of care for patients with resectable GEC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival in metastatic and recurrent GEC which led to their application in resectable GEC. Based on the pivotal CheckMate 577 study results, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab for patients with completely resected high-risk esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). Several ongoing trials with many ICIs could potentially improve resectable GEC outcomes. This review explores the rationale for using ICIs in resectable GEC and discusses the significance of reported clinical trials. Finally, we will examine some ongoing clinical trials and the challenges as well as prospects of ICIs in resectable GEC.

A Clinical Scoring Model to Predict the Effect of Induction Chemotherapy With Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy on Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Prognosis

Purpose

The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcomes of induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCCRT) versus chemoradiotherapy alone in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) on the basis of a clinical scoring model.

Methods

A retrospective review of 599 patients with ESCC treated with dCCRT at our institution from 2010 to 2019 was conducted. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received IC. A clinical scoring model was performed using the significant variables obtained from the multivariate analysis. The PFS and OS rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

During the study period, 182 patients receiving IC followed by dCCRT and 417 dCCRT alone were identified. No significant differences in the PFS and OS rates were observed between the IC group (P=0.532) and the non-IC group (P=0.078). A clinical scoring model was constructed based on independent prognostic factors with scores ranging from 0 to 10.4. The patients were divided into high- and low-risk groups by using the median score as the cutoff value. The PFS rate of patients receiving IC was higher than that of patients treated without IC (P=0.034), while there was no improvement in the OS rate (P=0.794) in the high-risk group. No significant differences in the PFS (P=0.207) or OS (P=0.997) rate were found between the two treatment groups in the low-risk group.

Conclusions

The addition of IC followed by dCCRT for patients with ESCC might be associated with better PFS rates based on a clinical scoring model but has no impact on OS rates. Further prospective studies are warranted for the validation of this model.

Induction Chemotherapy Plus Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with concurrent radiotherapy (nCRT) is an accepted treatment regimen for patients with potentially curable esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether induction chemotherapy (IC) before nCRT is associated with improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and overall survival (OS) when compared with patients who received nCRT alone for esophageal and GEJ adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), patients who received nCRT and curative-intent esophagectomy for esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma from 2006 to 2015 were included. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy start dates were used to define cohorts who received IC before nCRT (IC + nCRT) versus those who only received concurrent nCRT before surgery. Propensity weighting was conducted to balance patient, disease, and facility covariates between groups.

RESULTS

12,460 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 11,880 (95%) received nCRT and 580 (5%) received IC + nCRT. Following propensity weighting, OS was significantly improved among patients who received IC + nCRT versus nCRT (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74-0.92; p < 0.001) with median OS for the IC + nCRT cohort of 3.38 years versus 2.45 years for nCRT. For patients diagnosed from 2013 to 2015, IC + nCRT was also associated with higher odds of pCR compared with nCRT (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.14-2.21; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

IC + nCRT was associated with a significant OS benefit as well as higher pCR rate in the more modern patient cohort. These results merit consideration of a sufficiently powered prospective multiinstitutional trial to further evaluate these observed differences.

Recent Progress in the Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Neoadjuvant therapies, primarily chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, are able to improve the overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer (EC) based on the results of several randomized clinical trials. The advantage of neoadjuvant therapy is chiefly attributed to the decreased risk of local-regional recurrence and distant metastasis. Thus, it has been recommended as standard treatment for patients with resectable EC. However, several fundamental problems remain. First, the combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), and surgery for EC patients with different histological types remain controversial. Furthermore, to reduce the toxicity of preoperative chemotherapy and the risk of complications caused by preoperative radiation therapy, the treatment protocols of nCT and nCRT still need to be investigated and optimized by prospective trials. Moreover, for patients with complete clinical response following neoadjuvant therapy, it is worth ascertaining whether a "watch and wait" surveillance plus surgery-as-needed policy is more favorable, as well as, in addition to preoperative chemoradiotherapy, whether immunotherapy, especially when combined with the traditional neoadjuvant therapy regimens, brings new prospects for EC treatment. In this review, we summarize the recent insights into the research progress and existing problems of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced resectable EC.

Randomized Phase II Study of PET Response-Adapted Combined Modality Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Mature Results of the CALGB 80803 (Alliance) Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of early assessment of chemotherapy responsiveness by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to tailor therapy in patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

After baseline PET, patients were randomly assigned to an induction chemotherapy regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). Repeat PET was performed after induction; change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET nonresponders (< 35% decrease in SUV) crossed over to the alternative chemotherapy during chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (≥ 35% decrease in SUV) continued on the same chemotherapy during chemoradiation. Patients underwent surgery at 6 weeks postchemoradiation. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in nonresponders after switching chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-one eligible patients received Protocol treatment, of whom 225 had an evaluable repeat PET. The pCR rates for PET nonresponders after induction FOLFOX who crossed over to CP (n = 39) or after induction CP who changed to FOLFOX (n = 50) was 18.0% (95% CI, 7.5 to 33.5) and 20% (95% CI, 10 to 33.7), respectively. The pCR rate in responders who received induction FOLFOX was 40.3% (95% CI, 28.9 to 52.5) and 14.1% (95% CI, 6.6 to 25.0) in responders to CP. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, median overall survival was 48.8 months (95% CI, 33.2 months to not estimable) for PET responders and 27.4 months (95% CI, 19.4 months to not estimable) for nonresponders. For induction FOLFOX patients who were PET responders, median survival was not reached.

CONCLUSION

Early response assessment using PET imaging as a biomarker to individualize therapy for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was effective, improving pCR rates in PET nonresponders. PET responders to induction FOLFOX who continued on FOLFOX during chemoradiation achieved a promising 5-year overall survival of 53%.

Induction chemotherapy followed by definitive chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized phase II trial

This randomized phase II trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of induction chemotherapy followed by definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus CRT alone in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) unsuitable for surgery (N = 110). The primary outcome was overall response rate (ORR), whereas the secondary outcome was overall survival. This trial did not meet pre-specified endpoints. The ORR was 74.5% in the induction chemotherapy group versus 61.8% in the CRT alone group (P = 0.152). The 3-year overall survival rate was 41.8% in the induction chemotherapy group and 38.1% in the CRT alone group (P = 0.584; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.54–1.41). Grade 3–5 adverse events were similar. Patients who responded to induction chemotherapy had improved survival in the post-hoc analysis. These results demonstrate no improvement in response rate or survival with the addition of induction chemotherapy to CRT in unselected patients with ESCC. Trial number: NCT02403531.

The benefit of induction chemotherapy before definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for patients with esophageal cancer is still uncertain. The results of this phase II randomized trial show that the addition of induction chemotherapy to CRT does not improve the response rate or survival of patients with unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Induction versus no induction chemotherapy before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicentre randomised phase II trial (NCCTG N0849 [Alliance])

AIM

report primary results from the first multicentre randomised trial evaluating induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy in patients with oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Notably, recent data from a single-institution randomised trial reported that induction chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours.

METHODS

In this phase 2 trial (28 centres in the U.S. NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group [Alliance]), trimodality-eligible patients (T3-4N0, TanyN+) were randomised to receive induction (docetaxel, oxaliplatin, capecitabine; Arm A) or no induction chemotherapy (Arm B) followed by oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/radiation and subsequent surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathologic complete response (pathCR). Secondary/exploratory endpoints were OS and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Of 55 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint, the pathCR rate was 28.6% (8/28) in A versus 40.7% (11/27) in B (P = .34). Given interim results indicating futility, accrual was terminated, but patients were followed. After a median follow-up of 60.4 months, a longer median OS in Arm A versus B was unexpectedly observed (3-year rates 57.1% versus 41.7%, respectively) driven by longer DFS after margin-free surgery. In posthoc analysis, induction (versus no induction) chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer OS and DFS among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours, but not among patients with poorly/undifferentiated tumours (Pinteraction = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy did not improve the primary endpoint, pathCR. However, induction chemotherapy was associated with longer median OS, particularly among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours. These findings may inform further development of curative-intent trials in this disease.

Evolving treatment paradigms in esophageal cancer

A heterogenous disease with a dismal prognosis, esophageal cancer poses a major health challenge worldwide. In recent years, the treatment landscape for esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) has undergone major evolution, with the elucidation of underlying biologic pathways and predispositions. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation has emerged as a leading approach for the management of locoregional esophageal cancer, while perioperative chemotherapy has shown promising outcomes specifically in adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Studies also explore the implementation of chemoradiation in various sequential preoperative strategies, as well as in the adjuvant setting. Definitive chemoradiation is considered a valid alternative for non-surgical candidates with SCC. Clinical trials currently evaluating the potential benefits of different approaches may shed light on existing controversies regarding optimal management of locoregional disease. For patients with metastatic cancer, chemotherapy remains the backbone of antineoplastic treatment alongside palliative care, moreover the discovery of novel biological targets has led to the initiation of targeted and immune therapy for specific subpopulations. Taken together, an era of burgeoning clinical trials and changing paradigms has evolved in esophageal oncology. Multidisciplinary collaboration is key to effective combination and sequencing of treatment modalities tailored per patient and per tumor histology. This work aims to provide a comprehensive overview of state-of-the-art oncological management of esophageal cancer, with consideration of new challenges and obstacles to be overcome.

Induction Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC), and the role of induction chemotherapy (IC) remains unclear. We aimed to study if the addition of IC to standard treatment increases the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR).

METHODS

We assembled a retrospective analysis of patients (pts) diagnosed with locally advanced EC and treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy (CRT+S), preceded or not by IC, between 2009 and 2017. Patients' characteristics, tumor variables, and treatment outcomes were evaluated. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival and the Cox proportional hazard model to evaluate prognostic factors.

RESULTS

One hundred and three patients were studied, with a median age of 62 years (range 37-84). Seventy-five patients (73%) were male, 67 (65%) had squamous cell carcinoma, and 31 (30%) had adenocarcinoma. Forty-three patients (41.7%) received IC followed by CRT+S (IC+CRT+S). The most frequent IC consisted of paclitaxel and platinum chemotherapy (90%), and the median number of cycles was 2. All patients received CRT+S. Concurrent chemotherapy was a combination of paclitaxel and platinum in 94 patients (91%). There was no statistically significant difference in pCR between the IC group and the standard CRT+S group. The pCR was 41.9% and 46.7% in the IC+CRT+S and CRT+S groups (p = 0.628), respectively. In the multivariate analysis, pCR was an independent prognostic factor for time to treatment failure (TTF) (HR 0.35, p = 0.021), but not for overall survival (OS) (p = 0.863). The factor that significantly affected OS in the multivariate analysis was positive lymph node (HR 5.9, 95%, p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the addition of IC to standard CRT + S does not increase the pCR rate in locally advanced EC. No difference in OS was observed between pts. that received or not IC. Regardless of the treatment received, pts. achieving a pCR presented improved TTF.

Executive Summary of the American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Operable Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines

PURPOSE

Limited guidance exists regarding the relative effectiveness of treatment options for nonmetastatic, operable patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). In this systematic review, the American Radium Society (ARS) gastrointestinal expert panel convened to develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) evaluating how neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant treatment regimens compared with each other, surgery alone, or definitive chemoradiation in terms of response to therapy, quality of life, and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used to develop an extensive analysis of peer-reviewed phase 2R and phase 3 randomized controlled trials as well as meta-analyses found within the Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central, and Embase databases between 2009 to 2019. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 4 broadly representative clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi).

RESULTS

For a medically operable nonmetastatic patient with a cT3 and/or cN+ adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or GEJ (Siewert I-II), the panel most strongly recommends neoadjuvant chemoradiation. For a cT2N0M0 patient with high-risk features, the panel recommends neoadjuvant chemoradiation as usually appropriate. For patients found to have pathologically involved nodes (pN+) who did not receive any neoadjuvant therapy, the panel recommends adjuvant chemoradiation as usually appropriate. These guidelines assess the appropriateness of various dose-fractionating schemes and target volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy and/or radiation regimens for esophageal cancer are still evolving with many areas of active investigation. These guidelines are intended for the use of practitioners and patients who desire information about the management of operable esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Total Lesion Glycolysis Assessment Identifies a Patient Fraction With a High Cure Rate Among Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Patients Treated With Definitive Chemoradiation

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether tumor metabolism could be prognostic of cure in L-EAC patients who receive definitive chemoradiation.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Patients with inoperable localized esophageal adenocarcinoma (L-EAC) often receive definitive chemoradiation; however, biomarkers and/or imaging variables to prognosticate cure are missing.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-six patients with L-EAC who had chemoradiation but not surgery were analyzed from the prospectively maintained EAC databases in the Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Texas, USA) between March 2002 and April 2015. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) from the positron emission tomography data were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 266 patients, 253 (95%) were men; the median age was 67 years (range 20-91 yrs) and 153 had poorly differentiated L-EAC. The median SUVmax was 10.3 (range 0-87) and the median TLG was 85.7 (range 0-3227). Both SUVmax and TLG were higher among those with: tumors >5 cm in length, high clinical stage, and high tumor and node categories by TNM staging (all P < 0.0001). Of 234 patients evaluable for cure, 60 (25.6%) achieved cure. In the multivariable logistic regression model, low TLG (but not low SUVmax) was associated with cure (continuous TLG value: odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.92). TLG was quantified into 4 quartile categorical variables; first quartile (Q1; <32), second quartile (Q2; 32.0-85.6), third quartile (Q3; 85.6-228.4), and fourth quartile (Q4; >228.4); the cure rate was only 10.3% in Q4 and 5.1% in Q3 but increased to 28.8% in Q2, and 58.6% in Q1. The cross-validation resulted in an average accuracy of prediction score of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cross-validated model, 59% of patients in the 1st quartile were cured following definitive chemoradiation. Baseline TLG could be pursued as one of the tools for esophageal preservation.

Prognostic Value of Lymph Node-To-Primary Tumor Standardized Uptake Value Ratio in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with Definitive Chemoradiotherapy

We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the relative maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) of metastatic lymph node (LN) compared with that of primary tumor (SUV_LN / SUV_Tumor) based on a pretreatment [¹⁸F]-FDG PET/CT scan in patients with clinically node-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (cN+ ESCC) treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT). We retrospectively evaluated cN+ ESCC patients who underwent a PET/CT scan before dCRT. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed to identify the optimal cutoff value for SUV_LN / SUV_Tumor. Prognostic influences of SUV_LN / SUV_Tumor on distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test for univariate analysis and Cox's proportional hazards regression model for multivariate analysis. We identified 112 patients with newly diagnosed cN+ ESCC. After a median follow-up of 32.0 months, 50 (44.6%) patients had distant failure and 84 (75.0%) patients died. Patients with high SUV_LN / SUV_Tumor (≥ 0.39) experienced worse outcomes than low SUV_LN / SUV_Tumor (< 0.39) (two-year DMFS: 26% vs. 70%, p < 0.001; two-year OS: 21% vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that SUV_LN / SUV_Tumor was an independent prognostic factor for both DMFS (adjusted HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.34-3.75, p = 0.002) and OS (adjusted HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.03-2.53, p = 0.037). Pretreatment of SUV_LN / SUV_Tumor is a simple and useful marker for prognosticating DMFS and OS in cN+ ESCC patients treated with dCRT, which may help in tailoring treatment and designing future clinical trials.

Taxane-based or platinum-based combination chemotherapy given concurrently with radiation followed by surgery resulting in high cure rates in esophageal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is one standard option for localized esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer patients but an optimal concurrent chemotherapy combination is not established.

METHODS

412 patients with resectable (cT1N1M0 or cT2-4N0-3M0) esophageal or GEJ cancer treated at the MDACC between October 2002 and June 2016 were analyzed. Exposures: CRT with DF or FOX followed by surgery (trimodality; TMT). Main outcomes and measures: Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Univariate and multivariate Cox analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 412 patients analyzed, 264 (64%) received DF and 148 (36%) FOX. The median age was 60 years, and 95% had adenocarcinoma. The clinical complete response, positron-emission tomography response, and pathologic complete response rates were 73%, 73%, and 30%, respectively. Median follow-up was 60.4 months. Median OS for the entire cohort was 81.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 56.3-122.0); 81.6 months (95% CI, 55.9-not estimable) for the DF group and 67.7 months (95% CI, 41.6-not estimable) for the FOX group (P = .24). The median DFS was 45.6 months (95% CI, 33.1-61.7) for the entire cohort; 49.5 months (95% CI, 38.6-70.3) for DF and 33.0 months (95% CI, 18.1-70.4; P = .38) for FOX. Higher tumor location (unfavorable) and clinical complete response (favorable) were prognostic for both OS and DFS in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

At our high-volume center, the outcome of 412 TMT esophageal cancer patients was excellent. Taxane-based chemotherapy produces nonsignificant favorable trend.

Recurrence Risk Stratification After Preoperative Chemoradiation of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To discern recurrence risk stratification and investigate its influence on postoperative surveillance in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

BACKGROUND

Reports documenting recurrence risk stratification in EAC after neoadjuvant CRT are scarce.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2014, 601 patients with EAC who underwent neoadjuvant CRT followed by esophagectomy were included for analysis. The pattern, site, timing, and frequency of the first recurrence and potential prognostic factors for developing recurrences were analyzed. This cohort was used as the training set to propose a recurrence risk stratification system, and the stratification was further validated in another cohort of 172 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients (25.0%) achieved pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant CRT and the rest were defined as the non-pCR group (n = 451) in the training cohort. After a median follow-up of 63.6 months, the pCR group demonstrated a significantly lower locoregional (4.7% vs 19.1%) and distant recurrence rate (22.0% vs.44.6%) than the non-pCR group (P < 0.001). Based on independent prognostic factors, patients were stratified into 4 recurrence risk categories: pCR with clinical stage I/II, pCR with clinical stage III, non-pCR with pN0, and non-pCR with pN+, with corresponding 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of 88.7%, 65.8%, 55.3%, and 33.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). The risk stratification was reproducible in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

We proposed a recurrence risk stratification system for EAC patients based on pathologic response and pretreatment clinical stage. Risk-based postoperative surveillance strategies could be developed for different risk categories.

The optimal neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer

Esophagectomy is the cornerstone of intentionally curative treatment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Neoadjuvant treatments have been introduced to minimize the risk of development of locoregional- and/or distant recurrences. Chemotherapy is used based on the results of the MAGIC- and the OEO2-trials and chemoradiotherapy became part of standard treatment after the publication of the CROSS-trial. Although several studies have compared the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, no robust evidence on the optimal neoadjuvant treatment has been obtained as yet. Several studies indirectly comparing both modalities suggest a benefit for chemoradiotherapy in the number of pathologically complete responders, radical resection rate and possibly even in overall survival. Large randomized controlled trials like the Neo-AEGIS-, ESOPEC- and NeXT-trials are currently addressing this topic. A relatively new aspect of esophageal cancer treatment is the administration of monoclonal antibodies. Several monoclonal antibodies have been tested in, mostly, advanced esophageal cancer treatment. Cetuximab has also been tested as addition to neoadjuvant- and definitive treatment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, showing mixed results. This review aims at providing an overview of the currently available neoadjuvant treatments in esophageal cancer.

Improved prognosis with induction chemotherapy in pathological complete responders after trimodality treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Hypothesis generating for adjuvant treatment

PURPOSE

To compare the locations of recurrences and survival outcomes in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients with pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with or without preceding induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by esophagectomy.

METHODS

Among 276 patients with locally advanced ESCC undergoing trimodality treatment during 2004-2014, 94 (34.1%) with pCR were eligible. The cohort included 26 patients undergoing IC before CCRT (IC group), and 68 patients who did not receive IC (non-IC group).

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 51.4 months (95% confidence interval; 42.9-62.1), 19 patients experienced recurrences. There was a trend toward fewer distant failures in the IC group (0% vs.14.7%, p = 0.057), while locoregional recurrence was similar (7.7% vs. 7.4%). IC was associated with significantly improved survivals with the 5-year RFS and OS rates for the IC group of 85.1% and 90.5%, respectively, compared to of 46.2% and 48.1% for the non-IC group (p = 0.008 for RFS, and p = 0.015 for OS). By multivariable analyses, IC remained the only significant factor associated with survivals (HR:0.18 for RFS, p = 0.020 and HR:0.18 for OS, p = 0.025). The effect of IC in the whole cohort, irrespective of pathological response, was also assessed. Patients with non-pCR in the IC group had a trend toward worse survivals compared to the non-IC group CONCLUSIONS: In ESCC patients with pCR after trimodality treatment, IC was associated with favorable survivals. The benefits of IC might be a hypothesis generation for adjuvant treatment for patients with pCR.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for locally advanced resectable carcinoma of the esophagus: A single-center experience from India with a brief review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The management of locally advanced carcinomas of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction has undergone a major evolution over the past two decades with the widespread use of combined modality therapy. Although many Indian centers practice the combined modality therapy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), published data are sparse.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to study the safety and efficacy of nCRT in patients with locally advanced resectable carcinoma of the esophagus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective single-arm study of the first fifty patients enrolled over 3 years (2014-2016).

RESULTS

The median age was 51 years (M:F = 3:2), 90% of the patients had squamous cell carcinomas, and 69% had lower-third lesions. All accrued patients completed the intended dose of radiation; however, approximately 20% had a treatment delay, which was duly gap corrected. Importantly, there were no treatment-related toxic deaths. Eleven patients could not undergo surgery following nCRT (two patients defaulted, two were deemed medically unfit, and seven (14%) patients had disease progression on imaging). Thirty-nine (78%) patients were planned for definitive surgery; however, a further 7 (14%) were found to be inoperable intraoperatively. Thirty-two patients successfully completed their definitive surgical procedures with R0 resections, of which 19 patients (38%) had a pathological complete response (pCR). There was no postoperative 90-day mortality in our study cohort. Analysis of prognostic factors that predicted a response showed that patients who had adenocarcinoma and with circumferential lesions responded poorly.

CONCLUSION

nCRT appears to be a safe and a reasonably well-tolerated option in carefully selected patients with resectable locally advanced esophageal cancers. Although our data are not mature to analyze the survival outcomes with a pCR rate of 38%, it suggests nCRT to be a promising option in the management of locally advanced resectable esophageal cancers.

[Surgery after upfront radiochemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer: To do or not to do?]

The treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer is still evolving. Surgery was considered as the backbone of the therapeutic management for a long time. Nowadays, chemoradiation has taken a major place in the neoadjuvant setting or as an exclusive treatment. Although some patients benefit from esophagectomy after chemoradiotherapy, a large subset of patients has no benefit and morbi-mortality rates are increased with a trimodality strategy. Patients who will have a local failure are at high risk of distant metastases in the follow-up. A third group of patients will have persistent locoregional disease after chemoradiotherapy and may benefit from surgery, but only a minority of patients with locally advanced disease are eligible. The impact of surgery after upfront chemoradiotherapy on survival and the quality of life of patients with locally advanced squamous cell esophageal cancer remain uncertain. An active surveillance strategy after chemoradiation or salvage esophagectomy for a locally residual disease might improve the prognosis of these patients. An optimized bimodality such as chemoradiotherapy delivering at least 50Gy is still standard and salvage surgery for local persistent disease or a local failure must be discussed in the framework of a multidisciplinary group for selected patients only.

Multimodal treatment in locally advanced gastric cancer

According to the data of the GLOBOCAN-network of the World Health Organization, there were 952,000 (6.8% of the total) new cases of gastric cancer in 2012, making it the fifth most common malignancy in the world. It represents a substantive change since the very first estimates in 1975 when stomach cancer was the most common neoplasm. More than 70% of cases (677,000 cases) occur in developing countries, and half the world total occurs in Eastern Asia, mainly in China. Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in both sexes worldwide (Globocan, Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012, http://globocan.iarc.fr , 2012). Annually, worldwide 723,000 patients die of this tumor entity. Interestingly, a strong change in incidence rates in relation to the anatomical-topographic localization of the primary tumors in the stomach and esophagus has been experienced. While the frequency of proximal gastric carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the cardiac and subcardiac region in Europe and North America has been constantly rising, distal gastric carcinomas have become less common (Torre et al. in JAMA 65:87-108, 2015). Furthermore, the relative incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (mostly localized in the distal esophagus) has strongly increased (Jemal et al. in JAMA 58:71-96, 2008; Crew and Neugut 31:450-464, 2004; Pohl and Welch 97:142-146, 2005).

Early results of a randomized two-by-two factorial phase II trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with two and four courses of cisplatin/S-1 and docetaxel/cisplatin/S-1 as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer

Background

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a promising method of improving the survival of resectable gastric cancer. Cisplatin/S-1 (CS) and docetaxel/cisplatin/S-1 (DCS) are both effective against metastatic gastric cancer. This report clarified the impact of these regimens on early endpoints, including the pathological responses, chemotherapy-related toxicities, and surgical results.

Methods

Patients with M0 and either T4 or T3 in case of junctional cancer or scirrhous type received two or four courses of cisplatin (60 mg/m2 at day 8)/S-1 (80 mg/m2 for 21 days with 1 week rest) or docetaxel (40 mg/m2 at day 1)/cisplatin (60 mg/m2 at day 1)/S-1 (80 mg/m2 for 14 days with 2 weeks rest) as NAC. Patients then underwent D2 gastrectomy and adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy for 1 year. The primary endpoint was the 3-year overall survival.

Results

Between October 2011 and September 2014, 132 patients were assigned to receive CS (n = 66; 33 in 2 courses and 33 in 4 courses) or DCS (n = 66; 33 in 2 courses and 33 in 4 courses). The respective major grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicities (CS/DCS) were leukocytopenia (14.1%/26.2%), neutropenia (29.7%/47.7%), anemia (14.1%/12.3%), and platelet reduction (3.1%/1.5%). The rate of pathological response, defined as a complete response or < 10% residual cancer remaining, was 19.4% in the CS group and 15.4% in the DCS group, and 15.6% in the two-course group and 19.0% in the 4-course group. The R0 resection rate was 72.7% in the CS group and 81.8% in the DCS group and 80.3% in the two-course group and the 74.2% in the four-course group. No treatment-related deaths were observed.

Conclusions

Our results do not support three-drug therapy with a taxane over two-drug therapy, or any further treatment beyond two cycles as an attractive candidate for the test arm of NAC.