Long-Term Outcome After Histopathological Complete Response with and Without Nodal Metastases Following Multimodal Treatment of Esophageal Cancer

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy is an essential modality for reducing the clinical stage of esophageal cancer; however, the superiority of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is unclear. Therefore, a discussion of these two modalities is necessary.

AIM

To investigate the benefits and complications of neoadjuvant modalities.

METHODS

To address this concern, predefined criteria were established using the PICO protocol. Two independent authors performed comprehensive searches using predetermined keywords. Statistical analyses were performed to identify significant differences between groups. Potential publication bias was visualized using funnel plots. The quality of the data was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool 2 (RoB2) and the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Ten articles, including 1928 patients, were included for the analysis. Significant difference was detected in pathological complete response (pCR) [P < 0.001; odds ratio (OR): 0.27; 95%CI: 0.16-0.46], 30-d mortality (P = 0.015; OR: 0.4; 95%CI: 0.22-0.71) favoring the nCRT, and renal failure (P = 0.039; OR: 1.04; 95%CI: 0.66-1.64) favoring the nCT. No significant differences were observed in terms of survival, local or distal recurrence, or other clinical or surgical complications. The result of RoB2 was moderate, and that of the GRADE approach was low or very low in almost all cases.

CONCLUSION

Although nCRT may have a higher pCR rate, it does not translate to greater long-term survival. Moreover, nCRT is associated with higher 30-d mortality, although the specific cause for postoperative complications could not be identified. In the case of nCT, toxic side effects are suspected, which can reduce the quality of life. Given the quality of available studies, further randomized trials are required.

A Comparison of Clinicopathologic Outcomes and Patterns of Lymphatic Spread Across Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy, and Neoadjuvant Immunochemotherapy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) is recommended as the treatment standard for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). The use of immunotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting has gained attention. Multiple, clinical trials have explored the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NICT). We evaluated the differences in clinicopathologic outcomes and the patterns of lymphatic spread among patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), NCRT, and NICT before esophagectomy for locally advanced ESCC.

METHODS

A total of 702 patients with ESCC who completed transthoracic esophagectomy followed neoadjuvant therapy were included. Pathological characteristics, including pathologic complete response (pCR), tumor regression grade (TRG) score and patterns of lymphatic spread, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Compared with the NCT group, the NCRT group and NICT group had an advantage in pathological response (P < 0.05). The pCR rate was 8.1% in the NCT group, 29.9% in the NCRT group, and 23.6% in the NICT group. The TRG score (P < 0.05) and pathologic T stage (P < 0.05) in the NCT group were significantly higher. Compared with NICT, NCRT can significantly reduce the rate of lymph node metastasis rate in station 1R (0 vs. 3.4%, P < 0.05) and 2R (1.1% vs. 6.8%, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis according to the tumor location distribution showed that NICT group had higher lymph node metastasis rate in station 2R (9.1%) in middle thoracic cases (P < 0.05) and in station 18 (7.5%) (P < 0.05) in lower thoracic cases.

CONCLUSIONS

NCRT or NICT followed by surgery may result in a promising pCR rate and show a better performance in therapeutic response of primary lesion. For patients with lymph node metastasis in station 1R and 2R, NCRT should be the optimal preoperative treatment strategy.

Pretreatment Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value (PIV) in Predicting Therapeutic Response and Clinical Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Immunochemotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE

The pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV), which reflects the balance between the host immune and inflammatory status, is a readily available index for evaluating cancer outcomes. Until now, however, no study has demonstrated the clinical response of PIV to neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NICT) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 218 patients with ESCC who underwent NICT. The relationship between PIV and therapeutic response (pathological complete response [PCR]) and clinical outcomes (overall survival [OS] and disease-free survival [DFS]) was examined. Cox proportional, hazard-regression analyses and the Kaplan-Meier method were used for survival analyses. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to establish a novel risk stratification model.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (30.3%) achieved PCR after NICT. Using PCR as the endpoint of interest, patients were compared in groups based on the optimal threshold. PIV was closely related to PCR (odds ratio [OR] 0.311, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.140-0.690, P = 0.004). Compared with patients in the low PIV cohort, patients with high PIV had worse 3-year OS (58.7% vs. 83.6%, P < 0.001) and DFS (51.9% vs. 79.1%, P < 0.001). PIV was an independent predictor of OS (hazard ratio [HR] 2.364, 95% CI 1.183-4.724, P = 0.015) and DFS (HR 1.729, 95% CI 1.026-2.913, P = 0.040). Three risk groups with varied DFS and OS were staged by using an RPA method, and the prognostication accuracy was considerably improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment PIV can predict the therapeutic efficacy of NICT for ESCC. Because of better prognostic stratification, pretreatment PIV is a novel, sensitive, and effective indicator in ESCC receiving NICT. The prognostic results of PIV need to be verified in additional prospective studies.

Age-dependent benefit of neoadjuvant treatment in adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: a multicenter retrospective observational study of young versus old patients

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to provide evidence for age-dependent use of neoadjuvant treatment by clinical comparisons of young (lower quartile, <56.6 years) versus old (upper quartile, >71.3 years) patients with esophageal and esophagogastric-junction adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant treatment is the standard of care for locally advanced and node-positive EAC. However, the effect of age on oncological outcomes is disputable as they are underrepresented in treatment defining randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Patients with EAC undergoing esophagectomy between 2001 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed from three centers. Patients having distant metastases or clinical UICC-stage I were excluded. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify the variables associated with survival benefit.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant treatment was administered to 185/248 (74.2%) young and 151 out of 248 (60.9%) elderly patients ( P =0.001). Young age was associated with a significant overall survival (OS) benefit (median OS: 85.6 vs. 29.9 months, hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.92) after neoadjuvant treatment versus surgery alone. In contrast, elderly patients did only experience a survival benefit equaling the length of neoadjuvant treatment itself (median OS: neoadjuvant 32.8 vs. surgery alone 29.3 months, hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI: 0.63-1.27). Despite the clear difference in median OS benefit, histopathological regression was similar ((Mandard-TRG-1/2: young 30.7 vs. old 36.4%, P= 0.286). More elderly patients had a dose reduction or termination of neoadjuvant treatment (12.4 vs. 40.4%, P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

Old patients benefit less from neoadjuvant treatment compared to younger patients in terms of gain in OS. Since they also experience more side effects requiring dose reduction, upfront surgery should be considered as the primary treatment option in elderly patients.

A novel immune-nutritional score predicts response to neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

The role of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NICT) has gradually attracted attention in recent years. To date, sensitive and reliable blood indicators to forecast the therapeutic response are still lacking. This study aimed to conduct a novel predictive score based on a variety of peripheral hematological immune-nutritional indicators to predict the therapeutic response in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) receiving NICT.

Methods

There were 206 ESCC patients receiving NICT retrospectively recruited. With pathological complete response (pCR) as the dependent variable, independent risk variables of various peripheral blood immune-nutritional indexes were screened by logistic regression analyses to establish an integrative score.

Results

By logical regression analyses, lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) and body mass index (BMI) were independent risk factors among all immune-nutritional indices. Then, an integrative score named BMI-LMR score (BLS) was established. Compared with BMI or LMR, BLS was related to complications, especially for respiratory complication (P=0.012) and vocal cord paralysis (P=0.021). Among all patients, 61 patients (29.6%) achieved pCR after NICT. BLS was significantly related to pCR [odds ratio (OR)=0.269, P<0.001)]. Patients in high BLS cohort demonstrated higher 3-year overall survival (OS) (89.9% vs. 67.9%, P=0.001) and disease-free survival (DFS) (81.2% vs. 62.1%, P=0.001). BLS served as an independent factor of DFS [hazard ratio (HR) =2.044, P =0.020) and OS (HR =2.960, P =0.019).

Conclusion

The BLS, based on immune-nutritional indicators of BMI and LMR, employed as a straightforward, accurate, and useful indicator of pCR and prognostic prediction in ESCC patients undergoing NICT.

Oncological recurrence following pathological complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in patients with esophageal cancer - a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate recurrence in patients with post-neoadjuvant pathological complete response (pCR) and in patients with complete response of primary tumor but persisting lymphatic spread of disease (non-pCR, ypT0ypN +) of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients (63 pCR, 12 non-pCR) were analyzed retrospectively. Pattern and incidence of local and distant recurrence as well as the impact on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated. The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to FLOT protocol was compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation according to CROSS protocol.

RESULTS

In the pCR group, isolated local recurrence was diagnosed in 3%, while no isolated local recurrence was observed in the non-pCR group due to the high incidence of distant recurrence. Distant recurrence was most common in both cohorts (isolated distant recurrence: pCR group 10% to non-pCR group 55%; simultaneous distant and local recurrence: pCR group 3% to non-pCR group 18%). Median time to distant recurrence was 5.5 months, and median time to local recurrence was 8.0 months. Cumulative incidence of distant recurrence (with and without simultaneous local recurrence) was 16% (± 6%) in pCR patients and 79% (± 13%) in non-pCR patients (hazard ratio (HR) 0.123) estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. OS (HR 0.231) and DFS (HR 0.226) were significantly improved in patients with pCR compared to patients with non-pCR. Advantages for FLOT protocol compared to CROSS protocol, especially with regard to distant control of disease (HR 0.278), were observed (OS (HR 0.361), DFS (HR 0.226)).

CONCLUSION

Distant recurrence is the predominant site of treatment failure in patients with pCR and non-pCR grade 1a regression, whereby recurrence rates are much higher in patients with non-pCR.

Combined regression score predicts outcome after neoadjuvant treatment of oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Histopathologic regression following neoadjuvant treatment (NT) of oesophageal cancer is a prognostic factor of survival, but the nodal status is not considered. Here, a score combining both to improve prediction of survival after neoadjuvant therapy is developed.

METHODS

Seven hundred and fifteen patients with oesophageal squamous cell (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (AC) undergoing NT and esophagectomy were analysed. Histopathologic response was classified according to percentage of vital residual tumour cells (VRTC): complete response (CR) without VRTC, major response with <10% VRTC, minor response with >10% VRTC. Nodal stage was classified as ypN0 and ypN+. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression were used for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Survival analysis identified three groups with significantly different mortality risks: (1) low-risk group for CR (ypT0N0) with 72% 5-year overall survival (5y-OS), (2) intermediate-risk group for minor/major responders and ypN0 with 59% 5y-OS, and (3) high-risk group for minor/major responders and ypN+ with 20% 5y-OS (p < 0.001). Median survival in AC and SCC cohorts were comparable (3.8 (CI 95%: 3.1, 5.3) vs. 4.6 years (CI 95%: 3.3, not reached), p = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Histopathologic regression and nodal status should be combined for estimating AC and SCC prognosis. Poor survival in the high-risk group highlights need for adjuvant therapy.