Consolidation chemotherapy after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter non-inferiority phase III randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCCRT) is the gold standard for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the potential benefits of consolidation chemotherapy after dCCRT in patients with esophageal cancer remain debatable. Prospective randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of dCCRT with or without consolidation chemotherapy in patients with ESCC are lacking. In this study, we aim to generate evidence regarding consolidation chemotherapy efficacy in patients with locally advanced, inoperable ESCC.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, prospective, open-label, phase-III randomized controlled trial comparing non-inferiority of dCCRT alone to consolidation chemotherapy following dCCRT. In total, 600 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either consolidation chemotherapy after dCCRT (Arm A) or dCCRT alone (Arm B). Overall survival will be the primary endpoint, whereas progression-free survival, locoregional progression-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and treatment-related toxicity will be the secondary endpoints.

DISCUSSION

This study aid in further understanding the effects of consolidation chemotherapy after dCCRT in patients with locally advanced, inoperable ESCC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1800017646.

Consolidative chemotherapy after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a population based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The role of consolidative chemotherapy (CCT) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (LA-ESCC) patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCCRT) is unclear. We aimed to compare the overall survival (OS) of those treated with vs without CCT via a population based approach.

METHODS

Eligible LA-ESCC patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 were identified via the Taiwan Cancer Registry. We used propensity score (PS) weighting to balance observable potential confounders between groups. The hazard ratio (HR) of death and incidence of esophageal cancer mortality (IECM) were compared between those with vs without CCT. We also evaluated the OS in supplementary analyses via alternative approaches.

RESULTS

Our primary analysis consisted of 368 patients in whom covariates were well balanced after PS weighting. The HR of death when CCT was compared to without was 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.52-0.86, P = 0.002). The HR of IECM was 0.66 (P = 0.04). The HR of OS remained similarly in favor of CCT in supplementary analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that CCT was associated with significantly improved OS for LA-ESCC patients treated with dCCRT. Randomized controlled trials were needed to confirm this finding.

Chemotherapy alone versus definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy for cT4b esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a population-based study

Background

The role of radiotherapy for cT4bNanyM0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESqCC) is relatively unclear, with both chemotherapy (C/T) alone and definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCCRT) being treatment options in the current guidelines. We aimed to compare the survival of dCCRT versus C/T for these patients via a population-based approach.

Methods

Eligible cT4b ESqCC patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 were identified via the Taiwan Cancer Registry. We used propensity score (PS) weighting to balance the observable potential confounders between groups. The hazard ratio (HR) of death and incidence of esophageal cancer mortality (IECM) were compared between dCCRT and C/T. We also evaluated OS in subgroups of either low or standard radiotherapy doses.

Results

Our primary analysis consisted of 247 patients in whom covariates were well balanced after PS weighing. The HR for death when dCCRT was compared with C/T was 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.24–0.53, P < 0.001). Similar results were found for IECM. Statistical significance was only observed in the standard RT dose but not in the low dose in subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

In this population-based nonrandomized study of cT4bNanyM0 ESqCC patients from Asia (Taiwan), we found that the use of radiotherapy with chemotherapy was associated with better overall survival than chemotherapy alone. Further studies (especially RCTs) are needed to confirm our findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-021-01742-4.

Different prognosis of patients with esophageal carcinoma with M1a and regional node involvement

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Based on the 6th edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), M1a node involvement was classified as regional node involvement in the revised 7th/8th edition. However, the clinical significance of M1a node involvement is unclear. Thus, we analyzed the prognostic value of M1a node involvement in patients with ESCC after definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 188 patients with ESCC had M0 disease according to the 7th/8th edition AJCC. We reclassified 31 (16.5%) of these patients as having M1a disease according to the 6th edition. After definitive CCRT, we compared baseline characteristics between the two groups and analyzed the rates of responders and recurrence. Finally, we compared prognoses according to overall survival (OS), disease-specific OS, and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Among 31 patients reclassified to have M1a disease, 21 (67.7%) had supraclavicular lymph node metastasis and 10 (32.3%) had celiac lymph node metastasis. The number of responders was significantly lower for M1a disease based on univariate (p = 0.004) and multivariate (p = 0.011) analyses. Significantly lower survival rates were observed in individuals with M1a disease (median OS, 16.4 vs. 42.7 months; 5-year OS, 10.8% vs. 41.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

M1a node involvement should be differentiated from regional node involvement.