Management of Clinical T1N0M0 Esophageal Cancer

Management of early oesophageal cancer: An overview

The incidence of esophageal cancer, namely the adenocarcinoma subtype, continues to increase exponentially on an annual basis. The indolent nature of the disease renders a significant proportion inoperable at first presentation, however, with the increased utilisation of endoscopy, many early lesions are now being identified which are suitable for endotherapeutic approaches. This article details the options available for dealing with early esophageal cancer by endoscopic mean obviating the need for surgery thereby avoiding the potential morbidity and mortality of such intervention.

Endoscopic therapy versus esophagectomy for T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer: A population-based study using propensity score matching

Background

Endoscopic therapy is an optional strategy for the treatment of esophageal cancer (EC) under an early stage, especially stage T1a. However, its efficacy in the treatment of T1b EC has not been thoroughly assessed. We investigated the efficacy of esophagectomy, endoscopic therapy, as well as chemoradiotherapy in patients with T1bN0M0 EC.

Methods

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER) was employed to identify patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC. Patient demographics were compared among the endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, and chemoradiotherapy groups. Our study employed Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression model to evaluate patient outcomes and long-term survival rates. The overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates were compared among patients with EC who underwent endoscopic therapy or esophagectomy, employing propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

A total of 820 patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC were identified. The number of patients who received endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, and chemoradiotherapy was 173, 556, and 91, respectively. Patients subjected to endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy had greatly longer OS and CSS than those who underwent chemoradiotherapy. Patients treated with esophagectomy had longer OS than endoscopic therapy patients, but there were no differences in CSS between the two groups. PSM generated 153 patient pairs among T1bN0M0 patients, demonstrating that both the esophagectomy and endoscopic therapy groups exhibited comparable OS and CSS rates.

Conclusion

Endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy were associated with a significant survival advantage compared with chemoradiotherapy in patients with T1bN0M0 EC. In contrast, after PSM, among the EC patients with stage T1bN0M0, OS and CSS did not differ after endoscopic therapy or esophagectomy. These results indicate that endoscopic therapy could be a viable alternative to esophagectomy in patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC.

Long-term survival in esophagectomy for early-stage esophageal cancer versus endoscopic resection plus additional chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Esophagectomy is still advised as an additional treatment for patients with superficial esophageal cancer (EC, T1a-T1b) after endoscopic resection (ER). However, esophagectomy often deteriorates the general condition of EC patients. In recent years, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been recognized as a reliable, non-surgical treatment that can improve the prognosis. How to combine ER with adjuvant therapy to bring maximal benefits to patients has become a hot clinical research hot topic. However, the current studies have mostly been conducted retrospectively, in single centers, and with small clinical samples; there have been few prospective and large sample size randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of adjuvant CRT versus esophagectomy in the treatment of early EC, and to provide a reference for clinical research and practice.

Methods

A comprehensive and extensive literature search was performed via the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science online and all randomized cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies were collected. The quality of research was evaluated according to Cochrane's quality standards, and statistical analysis was conducted with Stata 13.0 and RevMan 5.3 software and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Results

A total of 9 cohort studies, including 790 patients, were included for meta-analysis. The long term effects of the esophagectomy group were better than those of the CRT after ER group [odds ratio (OR) =6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96 to 18.84, P=0.002] in disease-free survival (DFS) [hazard ratio (HR) =0.24, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.85, P=0.03] and overall survival (OS) (HR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.82, P=0.94). Other survival indicators showed no significant difference (P>0.05).

Conclusions

The 2 groups showed no significant results in OS. Although we found that CRT may be suitable for patients with high-risk of relapse or unable to tolerate surgery, it cannot totally replace surgical treatment; further randomized trials are required to verify this view.

Comparison of LNM and survival in T1 stage esophageal cancer patients based on histological classification: A large population-based study

Limited evidence and contradictory results have been reported regarding the impact of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC) classification on lymph node metastasis (LNM) and prognosis in esophageal cancer (EC). We aimed to compare 2 histology types in terms of LNM and prognosis using a comprehensive statistical analysis of a large population. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to extract patient information. Univariate and multivariate logistic or Cox regression, a multivariate competing risk model and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to explore the association between LNM or survival and the 2 histology types. Information for 4764 patients, including 1712 SCC and 3052 AC patients, was extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed a correlation between LNM and histology (odds ratio [OR] = 0.654, P = .037). We found that patients with AC had a better prognosis than SCC patients through both the multivariate Cox regression (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.866) and the multivariate competing risk model (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] = 0.704). However, no positive relation was found between LNM and histology type (P = .844) based on propensity score matching (PSM), and the prognosis remained poorer for the patients with SCC (P < .001). T1-stage EC with a histology of SCC may have a comparable risk of LNM as the AC type, while SCC has a poorer prognosis than the AC type.

Comparison of Long-Term Survival Between cT1N0 Stage Esophageal Cancer Patients Receiving Endoscopic Dissection and Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Endoscopic dissection (ED) shows relatively high clinical value in early esophageal cancer (cT1N0) such as lower incidence of postoperative complications and hospitalization costs and enhanced recovery. However, whether ED still has certain advantages over esophagectomy in terms of long-term survival remains unclear.

Purpose

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term outcomes of ED and surgery in the treatment of cT1N0 esophageal cancer.

Methods

Several electronic databases including the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 7, 2022 for studies which compared the overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) of cT1N0 esophageal cancer patients receiving the ED or esophagectomy. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined and all statistical analysis was conducted through STATA 15.0 software.

Results

A total of 12 studies involving 3,732 patients were enrolled. No significant difference in the OS between ED and surgery groups was observed (HR = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.59–1.04, p = 0.089). However, the DSS of the ED group was significantly longer than that of the surgery group (HR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.39–0.82, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

In overall, the current evidence manifested that the long-term survival of cT1N0 esophageal cancer patients undergoing ED was not worse than that of patients undergoing esophagectomy. ED may be considered as the primary treatment for cT1N0 esophageal carcinoma patients.

Esophagectomy versus definitive chemoradiotherapy as initial treatment for clinical stage I esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy and definitive chemoradiotherapy are commonly used in the treatment of stage I esophageal cancer (EC). The present study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of esophagectomy and definitive chemoradiotherapy as the initial treatment for clinical stage I EC.

METHODS

This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020197203). Relevant studies were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from database inception to June 30, 2020. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was employed to compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was employed to compare treatment-related death, complications, and tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 13 non-randomized controlled studies involving 3,346 patients were included. Compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy, esophagectomy showed an improved OS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.86; P < 0.001), PFS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.67; P < 0.001), and a lower risk of tumor recurrence (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30-0.61; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75-1.65; P = 0.60) and treatment-related death (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.31-4.30; P = 0.84) between the two treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence shows esophagectomy has superior survival benefits as the initial treatment for clinical stage I EC. It is still the preferred choice for patients with clinical stage I EC. However, future high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this conclusion.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The paradigm of the treatment of esophageal cancer has been changing with the increasing use of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in detriment of open esophagectomy (OE). We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare these two techniques in terms of mortality and associated complications. The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and U.S. National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, considering eligible articles since 2015 to 2020. Clinical trials and observational studies were included. We presented results as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and calculation of heterogeneity associated to the included studies. Thirty-one articles were included with a total of 34,465 participants diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma. MIE had tendency towards a decrease in 30- and 90- day mortality after surgery, but no statistically significative results were found. Major cardiovascular and respiratory complications were less frequent in the MIE group, despite high heterogeneity. Also, MIE might contribute to a decrease of minor post-operative complications, to an increase need of a second surgical intervention, to a greater risk for vocal cord lesions; but these results were not statistically significant. Additionally, no differences were found concerning risk of wound infection and for local and systemic recurrence. MIE may be more beneficial than OE, but these findings should be considered carefully.

Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in T1 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lymph node metastasis (LNM) affects the application and outcomes of endoscopic resection in T1 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, reports of the risk factors for LNM have been controversial.

AIM

To evaluate risk factors for LNM in T1 ESCC.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library to select studies related to LNM in patients with T1 ESCC. Included studies were divided into LNM and non-LNM groups. We performed a meta-analysis to examine the relationship between LNM and clinicopathologic features. Odds ratio (OR), mean differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were assessed using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies involving a total of 3775 patients with T1 ESCC met the inclusion criteria. After excluding studies with heterogeneity based on influence analysis, tumor size (OR = 1.93, 95%CI = 1.49-2.50, P < 0.001), tumor location (OR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.17-1.82, P < 0.001), macroscopic type (OR = 3.17, 95%CI = 2.33-4.31, P < 0.001), T1 substage (OR = 6.28, 95%CI = 4.93-8.00, P < 0.001), differentiation (OR = 2.11, 95%CI = 1.64-2.72, P < 0.001) and lymphovascular invasion (OR = 5.86, 95%CI = 4.60-7.48, P < 0.001) were found to be significantly associated with LNM. Conversely, sex, age and infiltrative growth pattern were not identified as risk factors for LNM.

CONCLUSION

A tumor size > 2 cm, lower location, nonflat macroscopic type, T1b stage, poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion were associated with LNM in patients with T1 ESCC.