The comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cancer

Does neoadjuvant therapy contribute to increased risk in anastomotic leakage of esophageal cancer? A network meta-analysis

AIM

Conflicting results have been reported about the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy. We aimed to unravel the potential effect of neoadjuvant therapy on AL after esophagectomy through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed by retrieving relevant literature from PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies (RS) comparing the following treatment modalities were included: neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nR), neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT), and surgery alone (SA). Subgroup analyses by radiation dose, examined lymph nodes (ELN), route of reconstruction, site of anastomosis, and surgical approach were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies with 12,746 patients were included for the present study, among which 17 were RCTs. There were no significantly statistical differences observed among the five treatment modalities in AL for both RCTs (nCRT-nICT: risk ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 0.52-4.4; nCT-nICT: 1.71, 0.56-5.08; nICT-nR: 0.79, 0.12-8.02; nICT-SA: 0.59, 0.2-1.84) and RS (nCRT-nICT: odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.84; nCT-nICT: 1.56, 0.87-2.88; nICT-SA: 0.6, 0.31-1.12; nICT-nR: 1.08, 0.09-36.02). Subgroup analysis revealed that no significant difference in AL was observed among the five treatment modalities except for the impact of nCRT versus nCT (0.21, 0.05-0.73) on AL with a radiation dose ≥41.4 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant therapy do not significantly increase the incidence of AL after esophagectomy. Administration of irradiation with a moderate dose is not associated with elevated risk in AL. Clinicians can be less apprehensive about prescribing nCRT.

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy was associated with better short-term survival of patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The chemotherapy and immunotherapy combination is currently the primary strategy to treat metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (NCIT) is being intensively investigated for treating locally advanced ESCC.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy and safety of NCIT and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) to treat locally advanced ESCC.

METHODS

We included 214 locally advanced ESCC patients who were administered neoadjuvant therapy from May 2014 to April 2022. The patients were grouped according to two neoadjuvant protocols (NCIT and NCRT) routinely used at our institution. Perioperative findings, pathological results, and survival data were compared between the two groups by conducting unmatched and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analyses.

RESULTS

Following 1:1 PSM analysis of the confounders, 66 patients were allocated to each of the two groups. Time span between neoadjuvant therapy completion and esophagectomy was significantly longer after NCRT than that after NCIT (47.1 ± 13.2 days vs. 34.7 ± 8.8 days; p < 0.001). The NCIT group exhibited significantly greater number of harvested lymph nodes than the NCRT group (33.6 ± 12.7 vs. 21.7 ± 10.2; p < 0.001). The pathological complete response and major pathological response rates were similar between the two groups [NCIT group: 25.8% (17/66) and 62.1% (41/66), respectively; NCRT group: 27.3% (18/66) and 56.1% (37/66), respectively (p > 0.05)]. The overall incidence of pneumonia, anastomotic leakage, or postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups. The 2-year cumulative overall survival rates and the 2-year disease-free survival rates of the NCIT and NCRT groups were 80.2% and 62.2%, respectively (p = 0.029) and 70.0% and 50.8%, respectively (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

In locally advanced ESCC patients, short-term survival after NCIT is superior to that after NCRT, with similar perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Perioperative outcomes and survival after neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the difference in perioperative outcomes and prognosis between neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS

The patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma receiving neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were identified from a prospectively maintained database at Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University between January 2018 and March 2022. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patient pairs were enrolled in the final analysis. The complete pathological response rate (20.2% vs 29.0%, P = .140) was similar in the 2 groups, whereas the lower major pathological response rate (44.4% vs 61.3%, P = .011) was observed in the neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group. Neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy was associated with a lower rate of adverse events (42.7% vs 55.6%, P = .047) without additional postoperative complications (38.7% vs 35.5%, P = .693). The neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group had lower distant metastasis (6.5% vs 16.1%, P = .027) and overall recurrence (11.3% vs 23.4%, P = .019) in the postoperative 1 year. Also, neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy was associated with better progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.77; P = .002). Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (univariable: hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.82; P = .003; multivariable: hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29-0.65; P < .001) was one of the independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. The 2 groups had similar overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.36-1.09; P = .094) at the latest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study showed that neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy was safe and effective for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Further verification is needed in randomized controlled trials.

Confounding adjustment in observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions: a systematic review of methodological practice

OBJECTIVES

It is unknown which confounding adjustment methods are currently used in the field of cardiothoracic surgery and whether these are appropriately applied. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of conduct and reporting of confounding adjustment methods in observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed, which included all observational studies that compared different interventions and were published between 1 January and 1 July 2022, in 3 European and American cardiothoracic surgery journals. Detailed information on confounding adjustment methods was extracted and subsequently described.

RESULTS

Ninety-two articles were included in the analysis. Outcome regression (n = 49, 53%) and propensity score (PS) matching (n = 44, 48%) were most popular (sometimes used in combination), whereas 11 (12%) studies applied no method at all. The way of selecting confounders was not reported in 42 (46%) of the studies, solely based on previous literature or clinical knowledge in 14 (16%), and (partly) data-driven in 25 (27%). For the studies that applied PS matching, the matched cohorts comprised on average 46% of the entire study population (range 9-82%).

CONCLUSIONS

Current reporting of confounding adjustment methods is insufficient in a large part of observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions, which makes quality judgement difficult. Appropriate application of confounding adjustment methods is crucial for causal inference on optimal treatment strategies for clinical practice. Reporting on these methods is an important aspect of this, which can be improved.

Combine radiotherapy and immunotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Immune checkpoint inhibitors(ICIs) have improved the survival of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. Radiotherapy is one of the common therapies to treat esophageal cancer. However, whether combination radiation therapy can increase the efficacy of immunotherapy is still up for debate. Radiotherapy combined with immunotherapy has proven to be a reliable and effective treatment for tumors, and it can work in combination with immunotherapy to achieve better anti-tumor effects. This review aims to discuss the efficacy and safety of combining radiotherapy and immunotherapy to treat ESCC by stages as well as the optimum radiotherapy dose and target volume, with a summary of clinical trials in ESCC.

Radiotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in locally advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: clinical trials, efficacy and future directions

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a common malignancy worldwide and often diagnosed at advanced stages with poor prognosis. Combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy seems to be a promising approach for treating ESCC. This comprehensive review article summarizes the current state of combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy in locally advanced/metastatic ESCC, delineates the clinical trials that merit attention, and outlines unresolved issues and future research directions in this field. The clinical trial findings suggest that radio-immunotherapy combination may improve tumor response and overall survival with manageable side effects, highlighting the importance of patient selection and the necessity for further research to optimize treatment strategies. Issues such as irradiation dosage, fractionation regimen, irradiation site and technique of radiotherapy, as well as the timing, sequence and duration of combination therapy will all affect treatment outcomes, justifying further in-depth investigation.

Evaluation of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and traditional neoadjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and single-arm and network meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy with or without radiotherapy [NIC(R)T] compared to traditional neoadjuvant therapies, without immunotherapy [NC(R)T].

Summary background data

NCRT followed by surgical resection is recommended for patients with early-stage esophageal cancer. However, it is uncertain whether adding immunotherapy to preoperative neoadjuvant therapy would improve patient outcomes when radical surgery is performed following neoadjuvant therapy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases, as well as international conference abstracts. Outcomes included R0, pathological complete response (pCR), major pathological response (mPR), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates.

Results

We included data from 5,034 patients from 86 studies published between 2019 and 2022. We found no significant differences between NICRT and NCRT in pCR or mPR rates. Both were better than NICT, with NCT showing the lowest response rate. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has a significant advantage over traditional neoadjuvant therapy in terms of 1-year OS and DFS, with NICT having better outcomes than any of the other three treatments. There were no significant differences among the four neoadjuvant treatments in terms of R0 rates.

Conclusions

Among the four neoadjuvant treatment modalities, NICRT and NCRT had the highest pCR and mPR rates. There were no significant differences in the R0 rates among the four treatments. Adding immunotherapy to neoadjuvant therapy improved 1-year OS and DFS, with NICT having the highest rates compared to the other three modalities.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-12-0060/, identifier INPLASY2022120060.

Perioperative outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus camrelizumab compared with chemotherapy alone and chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer

Purpose

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (nCIT) is becoming a new therapeutic frontier for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC); however, crucial details and technical know-how regarding surgical techniques and the perioperative challenges following nCIT remain poorly understood. The study investigated and compared the advantages and disadvantages of esophagectomy following nCIT with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data of patients initially diagnosed with resectable ESCC at clinical stage T2-4N+ and received neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy at the Hunan Cancer Hospital between October 2014 and February 2021. Patients were divided into three groups according to neoadjuvant treatment: (i) nCIT; (ii) nCT; and (iii) nCRT.

Results

There were 34 patients in the nCIT group, 97 in the nCT group, and 31 in the nCRT group. Compared with nCT, nCIT followed by esophagectomy achieved higher pathological complete response (pCR; 29.0% versus 4.1%, p<0.001) and major pathological response (MPR; 52.9% versus 16.5%, p<0.001) rates, more resected lymph nodes during surgery (25.06 ± 7.62 versus 20.64 ± 9.68, p=0.009), less intraoperative blood loss (200.00 ± 73.86 versus 266.49 ± 176.29 mL, p=0.035), and comparable results in other perioperative parameters. Compared with nCRT, nCIT achieved similar pCR (29.0% versus 25.8%) and MPR (52.9% versus 51.6%, p=0.862) rates, with significantly more lymph nodes resected during surgery (25.06 ± 7.62 versus 16.94 ± 7.24, p<0.001), shorter operation time (267.79 ± 50.67 versus 306.32 ± 79.92 min, p=0.022), less intraoperative blood loss (200.00 ± 73.86 versus 264.53 ± 139.76 mL, p=0.022), and fewer ICU admissions after surgery (29.4% versus 80.6%, p<0.001). Regarding perioperative adverse events and complications, no significant statistical differences were detected between the nCIT and the nCT or nCRT groups. The 3-year overall survival rate after nCIT was 73.3%, slightly higher than 46.1% after nCT and 39.7% after nCRT, with no statistically significant differences (p=0.883).

Conclusions

This clinical analysis showed that nCIT is safe and feasible, with satisfactory pCR and MPR rates. Esophagectomy following nCIT has several perioperative advantages over nCT and nCRT, with comparable perioperative morbidity and mortality. The long-term survival benefits after nCIT still requires further investigation.