Randomized controlled study on preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell cancer in a single institution

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.

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.

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

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

Updates of perioperative multidisciplinary treatment for surgically resectable esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer has one of the poorest prognoses among all cancer types, due to the propensity for an early spread through the lymphatics and the difficulty to perform surgical treatment. To improve the prognosis, the management of esophageal cancer has been developed through the conduct of several clinical trials worldwide. In western societies, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been established as the standard treatment approach, as indicated by the results of the CROSS trial. Recently, the Japanese JCOG1109 trial demonstrated the significant improvement of survival by neoadjuvant triplet chemotherapy. As an adjuvant treatment, an immune checkpoint inhibitor has shown promising results in the CheckMate-577 trial. Including adjuvant S-1 mono therapy as another option, a randomised control phase III study will determine the ideal treatment for surgically resectable esophageal cancer. Furthermore, the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant cisplatin +5-fluorouracil or DCF plus nivolumab are examined in the JCOG1804E (FRONTiER) study. In addition to definitive chemoradiation therapy, the SANO trial is examining the safety and efficacy of active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, which might give us the choice to adopt organ preservation approach. The development of treatment has progressed dramatically with the advent of immunotherapy. Considering the biomarkers to predict the treatment response and prognosis, individualised multidisciplinary treatment strategies should be established for esophageal cancer patients.

Current neoadjuvant therapy for operable locally advanced esophageal cancer

Locally advanced esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis, while an increasing number of patients are diagnosed with that. Neoadjuvant therapy has become a hot topic in treating locally advanced esophageal cancer to improve its survival benefit. The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery has been confirmed by many studies, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are included in the guidelines. In recent years, targeted therapy and immunotherapy have emerged, and more studies are evaluating the efficacy of combining them with neoadjuvant therapy for operable esophageal cancer patients. Even though the preliminary data is disappointing, many trials are still under investigation without improving survival benefits. New indexes used as surrogate endpoints (e.g., major pathologic response and pathological complete response) are emerging to accelerate the development and approval of neoadjuvant drugs. This review summarized the research progress in neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer and discussed which primary endpoint should be used in neoadjuvant therapy trials.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy do not significantly increase the incidence of anastomotic leakage after esophageal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

This study investigated whether neoadjuvant therapies, such as neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT), would affect the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophageal cancer surgery. Published randomized controlled trials were reviewed, and the incidence of AL after esophageal cancer was statistically analyzed in each study. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman and Stata software. A total of 17 randomized controlled trials with 2874 patients were reviewed showing that, in general, preoperative neoadjuvant therapies were not significant risk factors for AL after esophageal cancer surgery (relative risk [RR] = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.64-1.04). NCRT and NRT did not significantly increase the risk of postoperative AL in patients with esophageal cancer (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.63-1.05; RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.14-2.97, respectively). Moreover, NCT has no significant correlation with the occurrence of AL (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.57-1.80). NCRT, NCT, and NRT do not significantly increase the incidence of gastroesophageal AL after esophageal cancer surgery.

Comparison of outcomes between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) followed by surgery are two standard strategies in treating locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC). We aim to compare NCRT and NCT in the management of locally advanced EC patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and conferences were systematically searched for clinical trials published up to September 2021. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) by reporting the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020170619).

FINDINGS

25 trials with 4563 EC patients met inclusion criteria. NCRT improved OS (HR: 0·72, 95%CrI: 0·63-0·82) and DFS (HR: 0·72, 95%CrI: 0·63-0·81) compared to surgery alone. NCRT improved OS (HR: 0·83, 95%CrI: 0·69-0·99) and DFS (HR: 0·83, 95%CI: 0·69-0·99) compared to NCT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that both NCRT (HR: 0·77, 95%CrI: 0·65-0·90) and NCT (HR: 0·81, 95%CrI: 0·67-0·99) improved OS than surgery in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. No significant differences were observed between NCRT and NCT regarding OS (HR: 0·95, 95%CrI: 0·75-1·19) and DFS (HR: 0·90, 95%CrI: 0·50-1·62) in ESCC. The short-term outcomes were similar between NCRT and NCT. The three treatment strategies were comparable in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) subpopulations.

INTERPRETATION

The study corroborated current guidelines in addressing the importance of analysing EC according to histopathological types. The analysis suggested that in locally advanced ESCC patients, both NCRT and NCT improved OS as compared to surgery alone, whereas no clear evidence supported the optimal strategies between NCRT and NCT. More RCTs comparing different therapeutic strategies in EAC patients are warranted.

FUNDING

Köln Fortune Program, University of Cologne.

(Neo)adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy is Beneficial to the Long-term Survival of Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the most effective and safest treatment mode for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through a network meta-analysis.

METHOD

A Bayesian model was used for a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Thirty clinical studies, including thirty-one articles, 4866 patients, were analyzed. Overall survival rate: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were significantly advantageous over surgery alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.93; HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.65-0.86]. There was no statistically significant difference between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.75-1.28]. Disease-free survival rate: Compared with surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had significant benefits [HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.78]; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had similar, but not significant benefits [HR 0.7, 0.95%CI 0.45-1.06]. The difference between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was also not statistically significant [HR 0.94, 0.95%CI 0.61-1.43]. Surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: The R0 resection rate was significantly improved [relative risk (RR) 0.25, 95%CI 0.07-0.86], but the overall postoperative morbidity rate and 30-day postoperative mortality rate tended to increase [RR 1.27, 95%CI 0.8-2.01; RR 1.59, 95%CI 0.7-3.22]. Neither neoadjuvant chemotherapy nor neoadjuvant radiotherapy significantly altered the surgical safety or R0 resection rate.

CONCLUSION

Both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy appear to be the best supplements to surgery for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Management of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Esophageal cancer is diagnosed usually at a locally advanced stage. Surgery alone has less optimal results and a multimodality approach has been established as the standard of care for cII-III stages of esophageal cancer. This review focuses on the recent evidences of management of esophageal cancer with various variations in approaches in Eastern and Western countries. The major difference is the selection of induction treatment. Till the results of some ongoing trials become available, most of the evidences support neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery for squamous cell carcinoma and perioperative chemotherapy and surgery for adenocarcinoma.

The Impact of Radiotherapy Dose in Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy

Objective: For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by planned esophagectomy is used as a curative treatment modality. However, the impact of radiotherapy dose remains undefined. Method: A total of 141 patients with stage III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC; as defined by the 7th American Joint Committee on Cancer), receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 2000 and 2015 at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, were retrospectively reviewed. The radiotherapy dose of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (36 Gy before 2009 and 50–50.4 Gy after 2009) and other clinicopathological parameters were collected and correlated with the response to chemoradiotherapy and treatment outcome. Result: Of these 141 patients, the radiotherapy dose was 36 Gy in 59 (42%) patients and 50 Gy in 82 (58%) patients. A complete pathological response was noted in 12 (20%) of 59 patients receiving 36 Gy radiotherapy, and 37 (45%) of 82 patients receiving 50 Gy radiotherapy (p = 0.002). The three-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 31% and 25% in patients receiving 36 Gy radiotherapy, and 54% and 46% in patients receiving 50–50.4 Gy radiotherapy, respectively (p = 0.023 for overall survival; p = 0.047 for disease-free survival). Multivariate analysis showed that a higher radiotherapy dose was associated with increased pathological complete response (p = 0.003, hazard ratio: 3.215), better overall survival (p = 0.024, hazard ratio: 1.585), and superior disease-free survival (p = 0.049, hazard ratio: 1.493). However, higher radiotherapy doses revealed more surgical complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (p = 0.048) and anastomosis leaks (p = 0.004). Conclusion: For patients with locally advanced ESCC, preoperative chemoradiotherapy with higher radiotherapy doses led to increased pathologic complete response rates and improved survival.

A network meta-analysis for neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments for resectable squamous cell carcinoma of esophagus

The optimal treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is still a debatable point; however, randomized trials for strategies including neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) are not always available. This network meta-analysis aimed to identify an effective approach through indirect comparisons. An extensive literature search comparing multimodality treatment and surgery was performed, and a network meta-analysis was conducted with the frequentist method. Twenty-three trials including a total of 3636 ESCC patients were included. Neoadjuvant CRT and neoadjuvant CT, which were recommended by most guidelines for esophageal cancer, were associated with an overall survival advantage compared with surgery alone (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.26-0.73; HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.32-1.59). A statistically significant survival benefit from neoadjuvant CRT compared with neoadjuvant CT could not be demonstrated in our study (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.32-1.17, P = 0.08). Our network meta-analysis showed that both neoadjuvant CRT and neoadjuvant CT were effective in improving the survival of patients with ESCC. Individual clinical decisions need further study in the future.

Comparison of greater curvature and lesser curvature circular-stapled esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Using a circular stapler to create an anastomosis for esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy is well accepted; however, it remains uncertain if the greater curvature (GC) or lesser curvature (LC) of the gastric conduit is better for the anastomosis. We conducted this prospective study to compare the integrity of esophagogastrostomy between the esophagus and the GC or LC side of the gastric conduit.

METHODS

The subjects of this study were 70 patients who underwent esophagectomy and were randomized to a "GC" group and an "LC" group (n = 35 each). The primary and secondary end points were anastomotic leakage (AL) and anastomotic stricture (AS), respectively.

RESULTS

The overall AL rate was 22.1%, without a significant difference between the groups. Stump leakage developed in eight of nine patients in the GC group, whereas leakage developed at the esophagogastric anastomosis in five of six patients in the LC group. The rate of stump leakage was significantly higher than that of esophagogastric AL in the GC group. The overall AS rate was 4.4%, with a significant difference between the groups (0% in the GC group vs. 9.1% in the LC group).

CONCLUSIONS

AL rates were comparable in the two groups, but the sites of leakage were significantly different.

Long-term outcomes and safety of radical transmediastinal esophagectomy with preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil combination chemotherapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus

Background

It is unknown whether transmediastinal esophagectomy (TME) is an acceptable surgical procedure for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Therefore, we investigated the feasibility of long-term survival after TME with neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil combination chemotherapy (DCF therapy).

Methods

This retrospective, observational study included locally advanced resectable ESCC. All patients received two cycles of preoperative DCF therapy (60 mg/m² of docetaxel and cisplatin on day 1 and 700 mg/m²/day of 5-FU on days 1–5 in each cycle) followed by radical TME. The main outcomes were survival and the rate of adverse events of chemotherapy and surgery.

Results

Sixteen patients were included in this study. All patients received two cycles of DCF therapy, followed by surgery. The median follow-up duration of the 16 patients was 35.4 months. The 2-year overall survival (OS) was 93.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.3–99.0), and the 3-year OS was 78.8% (95% CI, 47.3–92.7). The 2-year and 3-year relapse-free survivals were both 73.3% (95% CI, 43.6–89.1). Leukopenia and neutropenia occurred in most patients; however, they were controllable. Fifteen patients completed TME, and one was converted to open transthoracic esophagectomy because of tracheal injury. Three-field dissection was performed for 12 of 16 patients (75%), and R0 resection was achieved in 15 of 16 patients (93.8%). Three cases of grade IIIb chylothorax were observed. There was no mortality in this study.

Conclusion

Combined neoadjuvant DCF and TME for locally advanced ESCC was safe and less invasive than traditional therapies and had a satisfactory long-term prognosis.

The Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Inconclusive results are available as to whether chemo/radiotherapy should be administered to resectable esophageal cancer patients before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) or after surgery (adjuvant therapy). The paper, via a meta-analysis of effects of treatment modalities when administering chemo/radiotherapy, aims to systematically evaluate the effect of timing of chemo/radiotherapy and surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for clinical trials of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal cancer. Using meta-analysis, we conducted direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of overall survival, complete resection rate (R0 resection), perioperative mortality, leakage rate and local recurrence in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies involving 7985 patients with esophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Twenty-five randomized controlled studies indirectly compared neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy with surgery alone, while five non-randomized controlled studies and two randomized controlled studies directly compared neoadjuvant with adjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, compared with surgery along with adjuvant therapy, showed a significant overall survival advantage in our pooled analysis (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Directly compared with adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy demonstrated a lower local recurrence rate (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.43-0.74) with low heterogeneity (I² = 1%). Neoadjuvant therapy, comparing to surgery with or without adjuvant therapy, showed a significantly higher R0 resection rate (OR 2.86; 95% CI 2.02-4.04) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 38%) and no significant differences in postoperative anastomotic leakage (P = 0.50). However, neoadjuvant therapy, compared with surgery adjuvant therapy, significantly increased perioperative mortality in both direct and indirect comparisons (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher overall survival and R0 resection rate without increasing postoperative anastomotic leakage for patients with resectable esophageal cancer, whereas neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher perioperative mortality after esophagectomy.

Clinical evidence for association of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy with efficacy and safety in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma (NewEC study)

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment over surgery alone and that of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) over neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in resectable esophageal carcinoma remains inconclusive. This study (NewEC) used global data to comprehensively evaluate these comparisons and to provide a preferable strategy for patient subsets.

METHODS

This study included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from inception to May 2019 from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and congresses and a registry-based cohort study with patients from Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts, USA) and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangzhou, China) recruited from November 2000 and June 2017, to cross-validate the comparisons among NCRT versus NCT versus surgery. The GRADE approach was used to assessed quality of evidence in meta-analysis. Neural network machine learning propensity score-matched analysis was used to account for confounding by patient-level characteristics in the cohort study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The study was registered with PROSPERO CRD42017072242 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04027543.

FINDINGS

Of 22,070 studies assessed, there were 38 (n = 6,993 patients) eligible RCTs. Additionally, 423 out of 467 screened patients were included in the cohort study. The results from trials showed that NCT had a better OS than surgery alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·79-0·98; high quality) and was only favorable for adenocarcinoma (HR 0·83, 95% CI 0·72-0·96; moderate quality). High-quality evidence showed a significantly better OS for NCRT than surgery alone (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·66-0·82) for both adenocarcinoma (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·62-0·86) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·65-0·83). The OS benefit of NCRT over NCT was seen in the pairwise (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·62-0·99; high quality) and network (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·72-0·93; high quality) meta-analyses, with similar results before (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·40-0·91) and after (HR 0·44, 95% CI 0·25-0·77) matching in the cohort study, leading to a significantly increased 5-year OS rate in both adenocarcinoma and SCC before and after matching. The increased benefits from NCT or NCRT were not associated with the risk of 30-day or in-hospital mortality.

INTERPRETATION

NewEC Study provided high-quality evidence supporting the survival benefits of NCRT or NCT over surgery alone, with NCRT presenting the greatest benefit for resectable esophageal carcinoma.

FUNDING

National Science and Technology Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Guangzhou Science and Technology Major Program, the Medical artificial intelligence project of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, the Guangdong Science and Technology Department, the Guangdong Province Medical Scientific Research Foundation, and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital Intermural Program.

Treatment-related complications in patients with esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to compare the available treatments of esophageal cancer, in terms of pulmonary, cardiovascular complications, anastomotic leakage, and esophagitis after treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched. The randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had compared the treatment -related complications of treatments for esophageal SCC were included. We included 39 randomized control trials in a network meta-analysis. The Chi2-test was used to assess of heterogeneity. The loop-specific and design-by-treatment interaction methods were used for assessment of consistency assumption. The risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to report the effect-sizes in the network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The pulmonary complication, cardiac complication, anastomotic leakage, and esophagitis were reported in 31, 11, 17, and 15 RCTs respectively. Video-assisted thoracoscopy + laparoscopy (VATS) was rank as the first and second treatment in terms of lower risk for pulmonary complication and anastomotic leakage. There was no statistically significant difference between treatments in terms of lower risk of cardiovascular complications. However, Surgery + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil (SCF) was ranked as better treatment. 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy + Docetaxel + Cisplatin (3DCRTDC) was the best treatment in terms of lower risk for esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of this study, it seems the risk of pulmonary, cardiovascular, anastomotic leakage and esophagitis complications for VATS, SCF, surgery + radiotherapy (SRT), and 3DCRTDC was lower than other treatments respectively in the networks.

Neoadjuvant strategies in resectable carcinoma esophagus: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The survival benefit of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable carcinoma esophagus has been elucidated. We performed a meta-analysis in light of new studies and long-term results of past trials. The search strategy was refined to include only "neoadjuvant" so that any bias by adjuvant treatment is eliminated.

METHODS

A detailed search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was done. Only published randomized English language trials were included. Data were categorized as neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (NACRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NART), and neoadjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT). Meta-analysis was done using odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI using fixed/random effects model. Heterogeneity was tested by chi-square and I2 test. Z probability calculated significant difference across subgroups. Outcomes assessed were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years, respectively, mortality (30/90 day) and failures (local/systemic).

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized trials involving 5272 patients were included for quantitative analysis. NACRT was evaluated in 12 studies (2676 patients). Superior 3-year OS (OR = 0.68 CI 0.52-0.90, p = 0.007), 3-year DFS (OR = 0.55 CI 0.45-0.68, p = 0.00001), and 5-year DFS (OR = 0.59 CI 0.47-0.74, p = 0.00001), with lower failures (OR = 0.52 CI 0.37-0.73, p = 0.0001), were seen in favor of NACRT at the cost of increased perioperative mortality (OR = 1.79 CI 1.15-2.80, p = .01). However, 5-year OS (OR = 0.78 CI 0.60-0.1.01, p = 0.06) was not found to be significantly superior. NACT, NART, and SCRT were not found to have any benefit over surgery alone.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis presents strong evidence favoring NACRT over upfront surgery. It also shows no survival advantage of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Elective nodal irradiation versus involved-field irradiation in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a network meta-analysis

Background

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and involved-field irradiation (IFI) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (nCRTS).

Material and methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and major meetings were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two of the following treatment regimens: nCRTS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (nCTS), and surgery (S) alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcomes of interest, reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare all regimens simultaneously.

Results

Twenty-nine RCTs with a total of 5212 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both nCRTS adopting ENI (nCRTS-ENI) (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48–0.83) and nCRTS adopting IFI (nCRTS-IFI) (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66–0.86) significantly improved OS compared to S alone. No significant differences in OS, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, R0 resection and postoperative mortality were observed between nCRTS-ENI and nCRTS-IFI. In subgroup analyses, nCRTS-IFI showed a significant OS advantage over nCTS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63–0.96) and S alone (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38–0.68) for esophagus squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but nCRTS-ENI did not; nCRTS-ENI using three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-RT) resulted in an improved OS compared to that with 2D-RT (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34–0.99). Based on treatment ranking in term of OS, nCRTS-IFI (0.90) and nCRTS-ENI (0.96) was ranked the most effective treatment for ESCC and esophagus adenocarcinoma (EAC), respectively.

Conclusion

Either adopting ENI or IFI, nCRTS is likely to be the optimal treatment for resectable EC, and nCRTS-IFI and nCRTS-ENI seem to be more effective for patients with ESCC and EAC, respectively. Future head to head comparison trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Optimal radiation dosing in concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiation for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is the first meta-analysis to study optimal radiation dose in the setting of concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (cnCRT) for esophageal cancer (EC). We sought to compare outcomes between high dose radiotherapy (HDRT) [>48.85 Gy biologically effective dose (BED)] group and low dose radiotherapy (LDRT) (≤48.85 Gy BED) for patients with EC receiving cnCRT.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched independently by two members of our team on August 07, 2017. Articles were screened using Covidence. Study quality was assessed via CONSORT. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing cnCRT vs. surgery alone in full-text English. Those with induction or sequential chemoradiotherapy were excluded. We captured data points including radiation dose, hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), and treatment-related mortality (TRM). We analyzed HRs for OS and risk ratio (RR) for TRM and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) as the summary statistic. We used both fixed- and random-effects models in the presence of heterogeneity. The primary outcome was OS; secondary endpoint was treatment related mortality (TRM). We compared outcomes by HDRT vs. LDRT. To minimize chemotherapy heterogeneity, we performed a pre-planned analysis excluding the CROSS trial.

RESULTS

The eleven included studies contained a total of 1,697 patients. Eight hundred forty-eight were randomized into the cnCRT. Of these 848 patients, 287 received HDRT and 561 received LDRT. HR for OS was not statistically different between LDRT (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.8) and HDRT (HR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91). Excluding the CROSS trial, there was still no difference in outcomes between LDRT and HDRT. TRM was similar between LDRT and HDRT.

CONCLUSIONS

With no difference in OS or TRM between LDRT and HDRT, 48.85 Gy BED cnCRT may be a sufficient radiation dose for cnCRT for patients with EC fit for surgery.

Combined Modality Therapy for Management of Esophageal Cancer: Current Approach Based on Experiences from East and West

Human evolutionary genetic divergence and distinctive environmental exposures have contributed to the development of clinicopathologic variations of esophageal cancer in Eastern and Western countries. Different treatment strategies have derived from the disparate regional experiences. Treatment strategy is more standardized in the West. Trimodality treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery is widely accepted as the standard treatment of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Trimodality treatment has not been adopted in many Eastern countries, and standard treatment is neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Several randomized trials are ongoing that may alter the standard management of esophageal cancer worldwide.

How does presurgical chemotherapy influence the efficiency of treatment for esophageal cancer recurrence after curative esophagectomy?

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of treatments for recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), particularly chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy (CRT), remains unclear in patients who have previously been administered the same drugs during neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 117 patients with recurrent thoracic ESCCs who had undergone curative resection were included. Patients were divided into two groups based on presurgical treatment: no presurgical treatment (n = 74), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 43). Prognosis after recurrence was analyzed differently in the group of patients who received CRT and chemotherapy for a recurrent site because of differences in recurrence patterns.

RESULTS

There were no differences in patterns and times to recurrence between the patients who underwent each presurgical treatment. For treatment of recurrence, CRT was administered to 66 patients, chemotherapy to 32, surgical resection to 5, and best supportive care to 14. In patients who underwent CRT for local recurrence, the survival rates of those administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy were similar to those who did not receive any presurgical treatment (P = 0.706). In patients who underwent chemotherapy for distant metastasis, the survival rates of those administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy were worse than in those who did not receive any presurgical treatment (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of CRT for recurrent cancers are not influenced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy, even when using the same anticancer agent. Chemotherapy is an acceptable treatment for patients who do not receive presurgical treatment.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Treatment for Resectable Esophago-Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) remains controversial in the treatment of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) carcinomas.

Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of Neoadjuvant CRT plus surgery comparing with neoadjuvant CT plus surgery or surgery alone. Feasible studies were searched from electronic databases. The outcomes of survival, R0 resection rate and adverse effects were analyzed. The outcomes were measured with relative risk (RR) and odds ratio(OR).

Results: Seventeen records including 4095 patients were included. Neoadjuvant CRT improved 1-,2-,3-and 5-year survival. The relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI),P value] was respectively 1.08(1.03-1.14,0.002), 1.21(1.12-1.32,<0.00001),1.31(1.09-1.58,0.004),1.38(1.17-1.62, <0.001).In subgroup analysis, patients with squamous cell carcinoma benefited more survival advantage from neoadjuvant CRT than those with adenocarcinoma[1.23(1.15-1.33)vs1.11 (1.03-1.19)]. A significant advantage was observed in analysis of neoadjuvant CRT for PFS [1.32 (1.22-1.44),<0.00001]. Tests for DFS between neoadjuvant CRT and neoadjuvant CT or surgery alone were not statistically significant[1.06 (0.97-1.17,0.19)]. Neoadjuvant CRT was associated with higher R0 resection [2.58(1.75-3.82),<0.00001] and pCR rate [4.37(2.68-7.13),<0.00001]. Neoadjuvant CRT lowered the local recurrence rate [0.52(0.39-0.69),<0.00001] and didn't control distant metastasis rate[0.85(0.67-1.08),0.19].There was no evidence that neoadjuvant CRT increased the treatment-related mortality[1.27(0.95-1.71),0.11]. Neoadjuvant CRT plus surgery did not increase the risk of adverse events morbidity[1.14(0.99-1.32),0.08].

Conclusion: Patients with oesophagus or GOJ carcinomas can obtain a survival advantage from neoadjuvant CRT. The addition of radiation was efficacy and safe in range. However, these results need further high-quality prospective RCTs confirmation.

Chemotherapy and novel targeted therapies for operable esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional cancer

During the past decades, several treatment strategies such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy have been shown to improve the prognosis of resectable esophageal cancer. Patients with squamous cell tumors respond better to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to adenocarcinoma. Therefore, in squamous tumors neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is the preferred strategy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy are both effective in patients with adenocarcinoma. Chemoradiotherapy trials have shown higher rates of pCR, pN0 and R0 resection rates compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials. Nonetheless, it is still unclear whether one strategy should be preferred over the other in terms of overall survival for adenocarcinoma. Based on the currently available evidence, the addition of targeted agents, such as VEGF and EGFR inhibitors, to the aforementioned strategies does not lead to survival benefit. Novel targeted treatment strategies that are currently being investigated include inhibition of HER2, PD-1 or the PD-1 ligand. Molecular subgroup analysis can contribute to better understanding of disease pathogenesis and prediction of response to treatment.

A rationale multidisciplinary approach for treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: Accurate review of management and perspectives

Cancer of the esophagus and of gastroesophageal junction can be cured, even if with lacking cure rate. Different approaches have been developed, mostly when carcinoma has loco-regional pattern. Multimodality therapy showed a survival rate superior than 10% if compared to a single approach. This is a systematic review, carried to assess the following matters: Which therapeutic opportunities are available? Who could benefit of them? Which adverse reactions could possibly verify? How can physicians definitely choose the proper strategy? Which is the role of surgery? We mean to give either General Practitioner or specialists clear and efficient updates about current treatment of this tumour, starting from physical examination. Four eminent guidelines were consulted for our study: Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care, NCCN, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre and Esmo.

Three-Dimensional Organoids Reveal Therapy Resistance of Esophageal and Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Oropharyngeal and esophageal squamous cell carcinomas, especially the latter, are a lethal disease, featuring intratumoral cancer cell heterogeneity and therapy resistance. To facilitate cancer therapy in personalized medicine, three-dimensional (3D) organoids may be useful for functional characterization of cancer cells ex vivo. We investigated the feasibility and the utility of patient-derived 3D organoids of esophageal and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas.

METHODS

We generated 3D organoids from paired biopsies representing tumors and adjacent normal mucosa from therapy-naïve patients and cell lines. We evaluated growth and structures of 3D organoids treated with 5-fluorouracil ex vivo.

RESULTS

Tumor-derived 3D organoids were grown successfully from 15 out of 21 patients (71.4%) and passaged with recapitulation of the histopathology of the original tumors. Successful formation of tumor-derived 3D organoids was associated significantly with poor response to presurgical neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation therapy in informative patients (P = 0.0357, progressive and stable diseases, n = 10 vs. partial response, n = 6). The 3D organoid formation capability and 5-fluorouracil resistance were accounted for by cancer cells with high CD44 expression and autophagy, respectively. Such cancer cells were found to be enriched in patient-derived 3D organoids surviving 5-fluorouracil treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The single cell-based 3D organoid system may serve as a highly efficient platform to explore cancer therapeutics and therapy resistance mechanisms in conjunction with morphological and functional assays with implications for translation in personalized medicine.

Prognosis of surgery combined with different adjuvant therapies in esophageal cancer treatment: a network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether the efficacy of surgery with adjuvant therapies, including radiotherapy (RT+S), chemotherapy (CT+S), and chemoradiotherapy (CRT+S) have better performance in esophageal cancer treatment and management. PubMed and EMBASE were used to search for relevant trials. Both conventional pair-wise and network meta-analyses were carried out. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank interventions based on the efficacy of the treatment method. As for 3-year overall survival (OS), CRT+S showed the highest efficacy (CRT+S vs.

SURGERY

HR=0.81, 95% CrI =0.73-0.90; CRT+S vs. CT+S: HR=0.82, 95% CrI =0.70-0.95; CRT+S vs. RT+S: HR=0.77, 95% CrI =0.62-0.95). For disease-free survival, CRT+S showed efficacy over CT+S ((HR =0.70, 95% CrI =0. 59-0.83). In conclusion, CRT+S showed a better performance for survival outcomes and ranks best among all therapies. The results of our study can provide guidance for medical decisions and treatment options that may help clinical practitioners improve the efficacy of EC treatment.

Neoadjuvant treatments for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer: A network meta-analysis

The relative survival benefits and postoperative mortality among the different types of neoadjuvant treatments (such as chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only or chemoradiotherapy) for esophageal cancer patients are not well established. To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies in resectable esophageal cancer, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications up to May 2016. ASCO and ASTRO annual meeting abstracts were also searched up to the 2015 conferences. Randomized controlled trials that compared at least two of the following treatments for resectable esophageal cancer were included: surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome assessed from the trials was overall survival. Thirty-one randomized controlled trials involving 5496 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival when compared to all other treatments including surgery alone (HR 0.75, 95% CR 0.67-0.85), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.83. 95% CR 0.70-0.96) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.82, 95% CR 0.67-0.99). However, the risk of postoperative mortality increased when comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to either surgery alone (RR 1.46, 95% CR 1.00-2.14) or to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 1.58, 95% CR 1.00-2.49). In conclusion, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival but may also increase the risk of postoperative mortality in patients locally advanced resectable esophageal carcinoma.

Traditional and cumulative meta-analysis: Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma

The role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRTS) compared with surgery alone (SA) for resectable esophageal carcinoma has been established by several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The present study aimed to investigate the difference in survival between the two treatments by a review of meta-analyses. Related research indicators were extracted from RCTs investigating CRTS or SA for resectable esophageal carcinoma by searching electronic databases for eligible articles. Outcomes were synthesized by adopting a fixed- or random-effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 22 RCTs including 3,419 patients were selected. The odds ratio (OR) (95% CI, P-value), expressed as CRTS vs. SA, was 1.06 (0.94-1.19, P=0.348) for 1-year overall survival rate (OSR1y), 1.38 (1.20-1.58, P<0.001) for 3-year overall survival rate (OSR3y), and 1.42 (1.22-1.66, P<0.001) for 5-year overall survival rate (OSR5y). The R0 resection rate increased in patients treated by CRTS (OR=2.76, 95% CI: 2.15-3.53, P<0.001). CRTS lowered the locoregional cancer recurrence (OR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.36-6.65, P<0.001) and distant metastasis rate (OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, P=0.02). However, the incidence of postoperative mortality was similar between the two groups (OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.72-1.32, P=0.87). The subgroup analysis revealed that OSR3y and OSR5y for Asian, European and American populations were significantly higher in the CRTS group compared with those in the SA group (P<0.05). When comparing the OSR1y between the two groups for patients in all three continents, there was no significant difference (P>0.05). Histological subgroup analysis indicated that patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma may benefit from CRTS in terms of OSR1y (OR=1.55, 95% CI: 1.09-2.20, P=0.01), OSR3y (OR=1.77, 95% CI: 1.34-2.36, P<0.0001) and OSR5y (OR=1.92, 95% CI: 1.34-2.75, P=0.0004). The pooled OR of squamous cell carcinoma in terms of OSR3y and OSR5y between the two groups was 1.57 (95% CI: 1.21-2.04, P=0.0006) and 1.69 (95% CI: 1.32-2.16, P<0.0001), respectively, but there was no statistical difference in terms of OSR1y (OR=1.13, 95% CI: 0.88-1.45, P=0.35). Thus, neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery may improve long-term survival and surgical parameters, and reduce locoregional cancer recurrence and distant metastasis.

Adoption of evidence-based novel therapies in the treatment of gastric cancer: A national observational study

BACKGROUND

The adoption of novel and effective gastric cancer therapies into general clinical practice has crucial implications for patient outcomes. The current study explored trends in treatment use and overall survival in patients with gastric cancer in the United States.

METHODS

Patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia and noncardia were identified in the National Cancer Data Base between 2006 and 2014. Tumor stages were divided into early (IA), locally advanced (IB-IIIC), and metastatic (IV) stage. Treatment use was examined according to tumor stage and location. Time trend analyses of treatment use and overall survival were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 89,098 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were identified. In those with early-stage cancer, endoscopic treatment increased over time in patients with cardia and noncardia disease. In patients with locally advanced cardia disease, preoperative therapy use increased over time (2013-2014 [vs 2006-2008]: odds ratio [OR], 3.09; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.80-3.41). In patients with locally advanced noncardia disease, the use of preoperative therapy also increased (2013-2014: OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.88-3.82) as did the use of perioperative therapy (2013-2014: OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 3.52-5.03) in lieu of postoperative treatment (2013-2014: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60-0.71). In patients with metastatic disease, approximately 34% of patients with cardia and 40% of patients with noncardia cancer did not receive treatment. Stage-specific and location-specific overall survival was found to improve over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice patterns for the treatment of gastric cancer in the United States reflect the increased adoption of evidence-based therapies, including endoscopic resection of early-stage cancer and preoperative therapy for patients with locally advanced disease. Treatment for metastatic disease remains markedly underused. Cancer 2018;124:1122-31. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy could improve survival outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis based on random clinical trials

Background

The long-term survival benefit of concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer remains controversial. In the present study, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess these effectiveness.

Methods

We searched for most relevant studies published up to the end of August 2016, using Pubmed and web of knowledge. And additional articles were identified from previous meta-analysis. The hazard ratio (HR, for overall survival and progression free survival) or risk ratio (RR, for R0 resection) with its corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used to assess the pooled effect.

Results

Twelve articles including 1756 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival (HR=0.76 , 95% CI= 0.68-0.86), progression survival (HR =0.69, 95% CI= 0.59-0.81), and R0 resection rate(RR =1.17, 95% CI= 1.03-1.33). Subgroup analysis suggested that concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy could improve overall survival outcome for squamous cell carcinoma (HR=0.73, 95%CI=0.61-0.88) but not those for adenocarcinoma (HR=0.72, 95%CI=0.48-1.04).

Conclusion

Our findings suggested that concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with esophageal cancer.

Current trends in multimodality treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer - Review article

PURPOSE

Multimodality treatment has now been widely introduced in the curatively intended treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. We aim to give an overview of the scientific evidence for the available treatment strategies and to describe which trends that are currently developing.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the scientific evidence for the different curatively intended treatment strategies that are available today. Relevant articles of randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and meta analyses were included.

RESULTS

After a systematic search of relevant papers we have included 64 articles in the review. The results show that adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction are two separate entities and should be analysed and studied as two different diseases. Neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgical resection is the gold standard of the curatively intended treatment today. There is no scientific evidence to support the use of chemoradiotherapy over chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting for esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. There is reasonable evidence to support definitive chemoradiotherapy as a treatment option for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for curatively intended treatments of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer is not very strong. Several on-going trials have the potential to change the gold standard treatments of today.

Survival After Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatments Compared to Surgery Alone for Resectable Esophageal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This network meta-analysis compared overall survival after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), or combinations of both (chemoradiotherapy, CRT) or surgery alone to identify the most effective approach.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The optimal treatment for resectable esophageal cancer is unknown.

METHODS

A search for randomized controlled trials reporting on neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies was conducted. Using a network meta-analysis, treatments were ranked based on their effectiveness for improving survival.

RESULTS

In 33 eligible randomized controlled trials, 6072 patients were randomized to receive either surgery alone (N = 2459) or neoadjuvant CT (N = 1332), RT (N = 58), and CRT (N = 1196) followed by surgery or surgery followed by adjuvant CT (N = 542), RT (N = 383), and CRT (N = 102). Twenty-one comparisons were generated. Neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery compared with surgery alone was the only treatment to significantly improve survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.87]. When trials were grouped considering neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies and surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapies combined with surgery compared with surgery alone showed a survival advantage (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90), whereas surgery along with adjuvant therapies showed no significant survival advantage (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.67-1.14). A subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant therapies showed a superior effectiveness of neoadjuvant CRT and surgery compared with surgery alone (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis showed neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery to be the most effective strategy in improving survival of resectable esophageal cancer. Resources should be focused on developing the most effective neoadjuvant CRT regimens for both adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus.

Multimodality treatment of locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus: A comprehensive review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (OSCC) but with poor results. Attempts to improve patient outcome have been made by introducing chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), or both (CRT). However, randomized comparisons for all these strategies are not always available.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted an extensive literature search for studies comparing surgery with multimodality treatment (i.e. [neo-]adjuvant CT or RT or CRT or definitive CRT). Network meta-analysis was performed in a Bayesian framewor and node-split models were built to assess inconsistency.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials including a total of 3866 OSCC patients were included. Neoadjuvant CRT was associated with the most robust survival advantage across different multimodality treatment options (HR 0.73; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.63-0.86). Definitive CRT was also significantly more effective than surgery but with greater uncertainties (HR 0.62; 95%CrI 0.41-0.96). Neoadjuvant CT (HR 0.90; 95%CrI 0.76-1.07) and adjuvant CRT (HR 1.00; 95%CrI 0.70-1.40) are associated with a non-significant benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, neoadjuvant CRT seems to represent the best approach to maximize the benefit of a multimodality approach.

Combined fibrinogen and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic marker of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is received chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy for clinical management. However, it is difficult to predict tumor response and prognosis using blood markers before starting treatments. The purpose of this study was to investigate the pre‐treatment plasma fibrinogen and neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in patients with advanced ESCC treated with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy, and to assess the clinical utility of a combined score using these blood markers, named as the F‐NLR (fibrinogen and NLR) score, as a predictor of tumor response and prognosis. A total of 98 advanced ESCC patients, treated with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy, were classified into three groups: F‐NLR score of 2, having both hyperfibrinogenemia (>400 mg/dL) and high NLR (>3.0), score of 1, one of these hematological abnormalities, and score of 0, having neither hyperfibrinogenemia nor high NLR. Fibrinogen and NLR were significantly higher in the progressive disease (PD) group than the non‐PD group (P = 0.0419, and P = 0.0001, respectively). A significantly higher F‐NLR score was found in the PD group than the non‐PD group (P = 0.0140). Overall survival was significantly lower in patients with an F‐NLR score of 2 than in those with an F‐NLR score of 0 or 1 (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that the F‐NLR score was one of the independent prognostic factors (P = 0.0081). Our study demonstrates that the F‐NLR score is promising as a predictive marker for therapeutic effects and prognosis in patients with advanced ESCC.

Oesophageal cancer: Which treatment is the easiest to swallow? A review of combined modality treatments for resectable carcinomas

Oesophageal cancer is a relatively uncommon malignancy, but with poor prognosis. Despite several treatment options that are available, the 5-year survival rates rarely exceed 40%. This review discusses the main challenges of oesophageal cancer, the available treatment options, and the most effective treatment in terms of overall survival. The outcomes of clinical trials show that neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy using cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil followed by oesophagectomy results in the greatest survival. However, the optimal chemotherapy and radiotherapy schedule remains unclear. There is no satisfactory treatment to date, particularly for patients with co-morbidities or advanced tumours.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery for patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The role of neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery for treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains controversial. We performed a network meta-analysis to synthesize direct and indirect evidence to identify the optimal therapeutic method for ESCC.

METHODS

We identified 15 randomized controlled trials that compared any of the following 4 therapeutic measures: surgery alone (S), preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery (CTS), preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery (RTS), and preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRTS). The main outcomes were 5-year survival, rate of radical resection, operative mortality and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Network meta-analysis showed that CRTS was associated with improved survival as compared with S (OR = 1.50 [95% CI 1.21 to 1.97]) and decreased occurrence of complications as compared with RTS (OR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.22 to 0.99]). Direct evidence revealed CRTS associated with improved survival (OR = 1.61 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.57]) and radical resection (OR = 4.01 [95% CI 1.66 to 9.69]) as compared with S. In terms of radical resection, CTS was more effective than S (OR = 1.73 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.76]). Findings for CTS and RTS did not differ for 5-year survival, operative mortality and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, CRTS might be the best choice for resectable ESCC because it could increase the radical resection rate and lower the occurrence of complications, thereby prolonging survival time.

Meta-Analysis for the Therapeutic Effect of Neoadjuvant Therapy in Resectable Esophageal Cancer

We aimed to review the therapeutic effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), chemotherapy (NCT), and radiotherapy (NRT) on patients with resectable Esophageal cancer (EsC) by comparison with surgery alone (SA). PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched for eligible studies published up to March 2015. Cochrane reviews were used for quality assessment. Eight primary outcomes were analyzed. Risk ratios (RRs)/ hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using the random- or fixed- effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi-square-based Q statistic and the I ² test. Publication bias was examined by the Begg's funnel plot. Totally 24 articles including 4718 EsC cases were eligible for this meta-analysis. The quality of the literatures was relatively high. Significant difference was found in five-year survival rate (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.17-1.79, P < 0.01) between patients treated with NCT and SA, while the eight enrolled primary outcomes were all statistically different between NCRT and SA, and significant difference was identified in three-year survival between NCRT and NCT (RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.14-1.60, P < 0.01). No obvious publication bias was observed. NCRT and NCT provide an obvious benefit for EsC treatment over SA, and NCRT possesses a clear advantage compared with NCT.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Improving Survival Outcomes for Esophageal Carcinoma: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) treatment for patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of NCRT followed by surgery (NCRTS) with surgery alone (SA) for EC.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched up to August 2015 for all the published studies that investigated EC patients receiving either NCRTS or SA, and the reference lists were also manually examined for the eligible studies. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI s) as effective size was determined to assess the 1-, 3-, 5-year survival rates (SRs), postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality. Heterogeneity was determined using the Q-test. The Begg's test and Egger's test were used for assessing any potential publication bias.

RESULTS

Of 1120 identified studies, 16 eligible studies were included in this analysis (involving 2549 patients). Overall, the pooled results suggested that NCRTS was associated with significantly improved 1-year (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13), 3-year (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.14-1.39), and 5-year (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.18-1.56) SRs. However, the results also indicated that NCRTS had no or little effect on postoperative morbidity (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.82-1.05) and postoperative mortality (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.56-2.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with SA, NCRTS can increase 1-, 3-, and 5-year SRs in patients with EC.

Clinical features and treatment of patients with esophageal cancer and a history of gastrectomy: a multicenter, questionnaire survey in Kyushu, Japan

It is still controversial whether patients with a history of gastrectomy have high risk of esophageal carcinogenesis. On the other hand, the treatment strategy for esophageal cancer patients after gastrectomy is complicated. The association between histories of gastrectomy and esophageal carcinogenesis was retrospectively analyzed, and the treatment of esophageal cancer patients after gastrectomy was evaluated based on questionnaire data collected from multiple centers in Kyushu, Japan. The initial subject population comprised 205 esophageal cancer patients after gastrectomy. Among them, 108 patients underwent curative surgical treatment, and 70 patients underwent chemoradiation therapy (CRT). The time between gastrectomy and esophageal cancer development was longer in peptic ulcer patients (28.3 years) than in gastric cancer patients (9.6 years). There were no differences in the location of esophageal cancer according to the gastrectomy reconstruction method. There were no significant differences in the clinical background characteristics between patients with and without a history of gastrectomy. Among the 108 patients in the surgery group, the 5-year overall survival rates for stages I (n = 30), II (n = 18), and III (n = 60) were 68.2%, 62.9%, and 32.1%, respectively. In the CRT group, the 5-year overall survival rate of stage I (n = 29) was 82.6%, but there were no 5-year survivors in other stages. The 5-year overall survival rate of patients with CR (n = 33) or salvage surgery (n = 10) was 61.2% or 36%, respectively. For the treatment of gastrectomized esophageal cancer patients, surgery or CRT is recommended for stage I, and surgery with or without adjuvant therapy is the main central treatment in advanced stages, with surgery for stage II, neoadjuvant therapy + surgery for stage III, and CRT + salvage surgery for any stage, if the patient's condition permits.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the significance of salvage esophagectomy for persistent or recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after definitive chemoradiotherapy

The therapeutic strategy to be recommended in case of recurrent or persistent squamous cell esophageal cancer after completed definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) has to be documented. Salvage esophagectomy has traditionally been recognized as a viable option, but many clinicians oppose the use of surgery due to the associated excessive morbidity and mortality. 'Second-line' chemoradiotherapy (CRT) without surgery may offer a treatment alternative in these difficult and demanding clinical situations. Until now, no comprehensive attempt has been carried out to compare the respective therapeutic options. A systematic literature search was performed focusing on studies comparing survival and treatment-related mortality in patients submitted to salvage esophagectomy or second-line CRT for recurrent or persistent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after dCRT. Hazard ratios and risk ratios were calculated to compare the effect of these therapeutic strategies on overall survival and treatment-related mortality, respectively. Four studies containing 219 patients, with persistent or recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after dCRT, were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis revealed an overall survival benefit following salvage esophagectomy with a pooled hazard ratio for death of 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.21-0.86, P = 0.017) compared with second-line CRT. A treatment-related mortality of 10.3% was recorded in the 36 patients who were submitted to salvage esophagectomy, while it was impossible to perform a meta-analysis comparing treatment-related mortality between the groups. Salvage esophagectomy offers significant gain in long-term survival compared with second-line CRT, although the surgery is potentially at a price of a high treatment-related mortality.

Does neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy increase survival in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer?

A best evidence topic in cardiothoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether trimodal therapy [neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in addition to surgery] improves survival in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. Altogether 565 studies were identified using the below-mentioned search. Eleven represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The author, journal, date and country of publication, patient group, relevant outcomes and weaknesses are tabulated. All 11 studies were randomized controlled trials comparing surgery with trimodal therapy, 5 of which showed a survival advantage with combined treatment. The remaining six randomized controlled trials showed no difference between trimodal therapy and surgery alone. The 3-year survival for trimodal treatment varied between 19.3 and 58% compared with that for surgery alone which varied between 7 and 53%. Five of these studies compared trimodal therapy with surgery in terms of resection margins, three of which showed that trimodal therapy led to increased R0 resection rate. One study focused on the differences between adenocarcinoma and squamous cell tumours, and described equivalent effects of trimodal therapy in terms of survival. One randomized controlled trial showed improved survival in patients with complete regression of their tumour following induction treatment. Two studies suggested that induction treatment may lead to a higher operative mortality; however, an increase in disease-free survival was noted in one of the two studies. We conclude that trimodal therapy for resectable oesophageal cancer offers similar or even improved results compared with surgery alone in terms of survival. Furthermore, it is likely that there is an advantage for those patients who have a complete pathological response following induction treatment.

Current Advancement in Multidisciplinary Treatment for Resectable cStage II/III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Japan

Multidisciplinary treatment comprising surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is widely used with improved prognosis. Transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) with extended lymph node (LN) dissection, known as three field LN dissection, has been recommended for ESCC using open thoracotomy or the thoracoscopic approach. The Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) trial (JCOG1409) is investigating the patients' long term survival using the thoracoscopic approach that has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative respiratory complication. For perioperative treatment, neoadjuvant chemotherapy using cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), has been accepted as the standard of care in Japan based on the JCOG9907 trial. In Western countries, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was shown to prolong overall survival for esophageal cancer, including ESCC. Although surgery has been recognized as an initial curative treatment for esophageal cancer, definitive chemoradiotherapy is an alternative treatment for patients who are unable to undergo thoracotomy or who decline to undergo surgery. This article reviews multidisciplinary treatment advances for ESCC. However, current standard treatments are country dependent and the ongoing trial may help standardize ESCC treatment across various societies.

Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation on Short-Term Outcomes for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) has emerged as a component of the standard treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The primary benefit of NCRT is an improvement in long-term survival; however, the impact of NCRT on short-term outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed via the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases through November 2015 for the inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated short-term outcomes of patients administered NCRT followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for resectable esophageal SCC. The main outcome measures were postoperative mortality and morbidity. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included, for a total of 1058 patients. Meta-analysis of the overall postoperative mortality and cardiopulmonary complication rates showed that there was a significant increase for patients administered NCRT followed by surgery compared with surgery alone (OR 1.87, 95 % CI 1.07-3.28, p = 0.03, number of patients needed to harm = 33.3; and OR 2.12, 95 % CI 1.03-4.35, p = 0.04, respectively). Dropout before surgery was higher for patients in the NCRT followed by surgery group compared with patients in the surgery-alone group. NCRT has no statistically impact on anastomosis and other complications compared with surgery alone.

CONCLUSIONS

NCRT for esophageal SCC significantly increases postoperative mortality and cardiopulmonary complications.

Factors Predicting Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

The aim of the study was to elucidate pretreatment factors that can predict the outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy (NAC(R)T) and help us choose treatment strategies appropriate for individual patients. Few studies have investigated whether clinical data obtainable before the treatment can predict the efficacy of NAC(R)T. Of 1540 patients treated for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) at our department between January 2000 and June 2014, those who underwent surgical resection of cStage II or more advanced ESCC after NAC(R)T (113 NACRT and 146 NACT patients) were enrolled in this study. Information all available before the treatment was analyzed to extract factors that can predict the effectiveness of NAC(R)T. NAC(R)T was considered effective when Grade 2 or greater treatment efficacy was achieved based on the histological grading system. NACRT was effective in 51 (45%) of 113 patients. The analysis of 35 pretreatment factors showed that female sex (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.650; 1.181-11.236), absence of dyslipidemia (HR = 3.284; 1.341-8.041), and histologically poorly differentiated tumor (HR = 2.431; 1.052-5.619) were factors predicting NACRT effectiveness. On the other hand, NACT was effective in 21 (14%) of 146 patients. The analysis of pretreatment factors showed that absence of dyslipidemia (HR = 10.204; 1.302-83.33) and therapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (HR = 2.097; 1.027-4.280) were factors predicting NACT effectiveness. The findings of this study investigating factors that could predict the outcome of NAC(R)T suggest that the prevalence of dyslipidemia influences the outcome of NAC(R)T for ESCC.

Impact of Treatment Modalities on Survival of Patients With Locoregional Esophageal Squamous-Cell Carcinoma in Taiwan

The optimal treatment modality for locoregional esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) is still undetermined. This study investigated the treatment modalities affecting survival of patients with ESCC in Taiwan.Data on 6202 patients who underwent treatment for locoregional esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma during 2008 to 2012 in Taiwan were collected from the Taiwan Cancer Registry. Patients were stratified by clinical stage. The major treatment approaches included definitive chemoradiotherapy, preoperative chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy, esophagectomy followed by adjuvant therapy, and esophagectomy alone. The impact of different treatment modalities on overall survival was analyzed.The majority of patients had stage III disease (n = 4091; 65.96%), followed by stage II (n = 1582, 25.51%) and stage I cancer (n = 529, 8.53%). The 3-year overall survival rates were 60.65% for patients with stage I disease, 36.21% for those with stage II cancer, and 21.39% for patients with stage III carcinoma. Surgery alone was associated with significantly better overall survival than the other treatment modalities for patients with stage I disease (P = 0.029) and was associated with significantly worse overall survival for patients with stage III cancer (P < 0.001). There was no survival risk difference among the different treatment methods for patients with clinical stage II disease.Multimodality treatment is recommended for patients with stage II-III esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. Patients with clinical stage I disease can be treated with esophagectomy without preoperative therapy.

Correlation of Aurora-A expression with the effect of chemoradiation therapy on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is one of the most useful treatments for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, because some patients respond well to CRT and others do not, it is important to be able to predict response to CRT before beginning treatment by using markers. Aurora-A encodes a cell cycle regulated serine/threonine kinase that has essential functions in centrosome maturation and chromosome segregation. In this study, we investigated the relationship between the expression of Aurora-A and the response to CRT in patients with ESCC.

METHODS

We immunohistochemically investigated the expression of Aurora-A in biopsy specimens of untreated primary tumors of 78 patients with ESCC and determined the relationship between Aurora-A levels and patient responses to CRT, which consisted of 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin and 40 Gy of radiation.

RESULTS

Tumors were judged as Aurora-A positive when more than 10% of the cancer cells displayed a distinct positive nuclear anti-Aurora-A immunoreaction by immunohistochemical evaluation. The tumors of 46 of 78 patients (58.9%) displayed positive expression of Aurora-A. In terms of clinical response the percentage of patients showing complete response (CR), incomplete response/stable disease of primary lesion (IR/SD), and progressive disease (PD) was 19.2, 69.2, and 11.5%, respectively. In terms of histological response the tumor grade of the 41 patients who underwent surgery was as follows: grade 1, 48.8%; grade 2, 29.2%; grade 3, 22.0%. CRT was effective for patients who had Aurora-A (+) tumors (clinically: P = 0.0003, histologically: P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that Aurora-A expression in biopsy specimens of primary tumors is associated with CRT efficacy in patients with ESCC. Assessment of Aurora-A expression in biopsy specimens maybe useful for regarding the potential utility of CRT therapy for patients with ESCC before treatment.