Disparities in survival after trimodality therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma

Role of Adjuvant Therapy in Esophageal Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Therapy and Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze esophageal cancer patients who previously underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by a curative resection to determine whether additional adjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer, whereas adjuvant therapy is typically employed for patients with residual disease. However, the role of adjuvant therapy after a curative resection is still uncertain.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies comparing patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and curative resection with and without adjuvant therapy. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and random effects meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation was used to assess the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 6462 patients were included. When compared to patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and esophagectomy alone, adjuvant therapy groups experienced a significant decrease in mortality by 48% at 1 year (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.65, P < 0.001, moderate certainty). This reduction in mortality was carried through to 5-year follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.96, P < 0.001, moderate certainty). The difference between the adjuvant therapy and the control group was uncertain regarding the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant treatment and esophagectomy with negative resection margins provide an improved OS at 1 and 5 years with moderate to high certainty of evidence, but the benefit for disease-free survival and locoregional/distal recurrence remain uncertain due to limited reporting of these outcomes.

A narrative review of socioeconomic disparities in the treatment of esophageal cancer

The persistent challenges of disparities in healthcare have led to significantly distinct outcomes among patients from different racial, ethnic, and underserved populations. Esophageal Cancer, not unlike other surgical diseases, has seen significant disparities in care. Esophageal cancer is currently the 6th leading cause of death from cancer and the 8th most common cancer in the world. Surgical disparities in the care of patients with Esophageal Cancer have been described in the literature, with a prevailing theme associating minority status with worse outcomes. The goal of this review is to provide an updated account of the literature on disparities in Esophageal Cancer presentation and treatment. We will approach this task through a conceptual framework that highlights the five main themes of surgical disparities: patient-level factors, provider-level factors, system and access issues, clinical care and quality, and postoperative outcomes, care and rehabilitation. All five categories play a complex role in the delivery of high-quality, equitable care for patients with Esophageal Cancer. While describing disparities in care is the first step to correcting them, moving forward, we should focus on developing effective interventions to mitigate disparities, policies linking disparities to quality-of-care metrics, and delivery system change to enable minority patients to more easily access high volume centers.

Prognostic Factors for Recurrence in Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy and Surgery: A Single-institution Analysis

Background The purpose of this study is to analyze potential predisposing factors for a higher risk of recurrence in our esophageal cancer patients managed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery, and to determine their impact on disease-free survival (DFS) and time to recurrence. Methods A total of 154 of 232 patients staged T1b to T4a managed electively at our institute from July 2005 through July 2015 with a tri-modality approach were retrospectively evaluated. Basic demographic, clinical, radiological, operative, and pathological disease-related parameters, along with waiting time for surgery and type of neoadjuvant modality used, were assessed as potential risk factors. The primary endpoint was the impact of these on the risk of recurrence. The secondary endpoint was to study their relation on DFS and time to recurrence. Results The recurrence rate in this particular study was 33.1% over a median follow-up of 35 months (interquartile range = 19-50.3). The median time to recurrence was 12 months, and 94% of recurrences occurred within two years. The median DFS was 33 months, and the one- and three-year DFS was 90% and 72%, respectively. On univariate and multivariate analysis, a complete pathological response (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-10.11), negative resection margins (HR: 5.9, 95% CI: 1.69-20.45), and a low nodal index (HR: 6.3, 95% CI: 1.37-28.67 for an index of 0.1-0.2; and HR: 15.2, 95% CI: 0.96-241.73 for an index of >0.2) were found as statistically significant (P = < 0.05) for risk to recurrence. In addition to these three, a low comorbidity index (P = 0.03; HR: 3.5; 95% CI: 1.16-10.52) was an individual positive predictor of DFS. Conclusions A complete pathological response, low nodal index, and margin-negative resection were the identified predictors of freedom from recurrence, with a better DFS and a low comorbidity index as additional indicators of prolonged DFS.

Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes of Vulnerable Populations With Esophageal Cancer Treated at a Safety-Net Hospital

Social determinants of health have been associated with poor outcomes in esophageal cancer. Primary language and immigration status have not been examined in relation to esophageal cancer outcomes. This study aims to investigate the impact of these variables on stage of presentation, treatment, and outcomes of esophageal cancer patients at an urban safety-net hospital. Clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer at our institution between 2003 and 2018 were reviewed. Demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics were obtained. Outcomes included median overall survival, stage-specific survival, and utilization of surgical and perioperative therapy. Statistical analysis was conducted using Chi-square test, Fisher's exact tests, Kaplan-Meier method, and logistic regression. There were 266 patients; 77% were male. Mean age was 63.9 years, 23.7% were immigrants, 33.5% were uninsured/Medicaid, and 16.2% were non-English speaking. Adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 55.3% and squamous cell in 41.0%. More patients of non-Hispanic received esophagectomies when compared to those of Hispanic origin (64% vs 25%, P = 0.012). Immigrants were less likely to undergo esophagectomy compared to US-born patients (42% vs 76%, P = 0.001). Patients with adenocarcinoma were more likely than squamous cell carcinoma patients to undergo esophagectomy (odds ratio = 4.40, 95% confidence interval 1.61-12.01, P = 0.004). More commercially/privately insured patients (75%) received perioperative therapy compared to Medicaid/uninsured (54%) and Medicare (49%) patients (P = 0.030). There was no association between demographic factors and the utilization of perioperative chemoradiation for patients with operable disease. Approximately 23% of patients with operable disease were too frail or declined to undergo surgical intervention. In this small single-center study, race and primary language were not associated with median survival for patients treated for esophageal cancer. US-born patients experienced higher surgical utilization and privately insured patients were more likely to receive perioperative therapy. Many patients with operable cancer were too frail to undergo a curative surgery. Studies should expand on the relationships between social determinants of health and nonclinical services on delivery of care and survival of vulnerable populations with esophageal cancer.

Precision Surgical Therapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction

INTRODUCTION

To facilitate the initial clinical decision regarding whether to use esophagectomy alone or neoadjuvant therapy in surgical care for individual patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction-information not available from randomized trials-a machine-learning analysis was performed using worldwide real-world data on patients undergoing different therapies for this rare adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Using random forest technology in a sequential analysis, we (1) identified eligibility for each of four therapies among 13,365 patients: esophagectomy alone (n = 6649), neoadjuvant therapy (n = 4706), esophagectomy and adjuvant therapy (n = 998), and neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy (n = 1022); (2) performed survival analyses incorporating interactions of patient and cancer characteristics with therapy; (3) determined optimal therapy as that predicted to maximize lifetime within 10 years (restricted mean survival time; RMST) for each patient; and (4) compared lifetime gained from optimal versus actual therapies.

RESULTS

Actual therapy was optimal in 61% of those receiving esophagectomy alone; neoadjuvant therapy was optimal for 36% receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Many patients were predicted to benefit from postoperative adjuvant therapy. Total RMST for actual therapy received was 58,825 years. Had patients received optimal therapy, total RMST was predicted to be 62,982 years, a 7% gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Average treatment effect for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus yields only crude evidence-based therapy guidelines. However, patient response to therapy is widely variable, and survival after data-driven predicted optimal therapy often differs from actual therapy received. Therapy must address an individual patient's cancer and clinical characteristics to provide precision surgical therapy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction.

Nomogram predicting cancer-specific mortality in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma: a competing risk analysis

Background

Many factors are reported to be related to the prognosis of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but few reliable and straightforward tools for clinicians to estimate individual mortalities have been developed. This study aimed to evaluate the probability of cancer-specific death for patients with EAC and to build nomograms for predicting long-term cancer-specific mortality and overall mortality for EAC patients.

Methods

Between 2004 and 2013, a total of 20,623 patients were identified from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database and randomly divided into training (N=14,436) and validation (N=6,187) cohorts. The cumulative incidence functions (CIFs) of EAC-specific death and other causes were evaluated at the 1st, 3rd, and 5th year after diagnosis. We integrated the significant prognostic factors to construct nomograms and subjected them to internal and external validation.

Results

The CIFs of EAC-specific survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis were 60.9%, 37.1%, and 31.3%, respectively. Predictors for cancer-specific mortality for EAC comprised tumor grade, tumor extension, the involvement of lymph nodes, distant metastasis, surgery of primary site, insurance recode, and marital status. For overall mortality, it also included the predictor of age at diagnosis. The nomograms were well-calibrated and had good discriminative ability with concordance indexes (c-indexes) of 0.733, 0.728, and 0.728 for 1-, 3- and 5-year prognosis prediction of EAC-specific mortality respectively, and 0.726, 0.720, 0.719 for 1-, 3-, and 5-year prognosis prediction of overall mortality respectively.

Conclusions

We proposed and validated the effective and convenient nomograms to predict cancer-specific mortality and the overall mortality for patients with EAC, which only require the basic information available in clinical practice.