Does paclitaxel improve the chemoradiotherapy of locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer? A nonrandomized comparison with fluorouracil-based therapy

Surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy for esophageal carcinoma

Over the last year, several interesting studies have been published on the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. Surprisingly, none of them was a randomized phase III trial. The debate on the necessary extent of a potentially curative surgical resection is ongoing. After initially disappointing results, the innovative technique of minimally invasive surgery draws new attention, but clear advantages for the endoscopic approach are yet to emerge. An updated meta-analysis on the value of preoperative radiotherapy showed negative results. There is a clear tendency toward combined-modality treatment, especially in patients with more advanced disease. Some new chemotherapeutic agents showed promising preliminary results (especially paclitaxel), whereas others were clearly disappointing (eg, gemcitabine, topotecan). Concurrent chemoradiation as primary treatment for proximal (cervical) tumors was remarkably effective.

N1 esophageal carcinoma: the importance of staging and downstaging

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of clinical staging and downstaging by induction chemoradiation therapy in patients with N1 esophageal carcinoma.

METHODS

Sixty-nine consecutive patients with regional lymph node metastases (cN1) according to clinical staging received induction therapy before surgery. These were compared to 75 patients both clinically and pathologically N1 (cN1/pN1) who underwent surgery without induction therapy and 79 patients clinically and pathologically not N1 (cN0/pN0) who underwent surgery without induction therapy. Analyses focused on survival and the cost and benefit of therapy.

RESULTS

For comparison, the extremes of 5-year survival were 69% for cN0/pN0 patients who underwent surgery alone and 12% for cN1/pN1 patients who underwent surgery alone. Of 69 patients who received induction therapy, 37 were pN0 at resection (downstaged); they had an intermediate survival of 37% at 5 years. Those patients not downstaged with induction therapy had a 12% 5-year survival, similar to patients with cN1/pN1 who underwent surgery alone. After adjusting for the strongest predictors of poor outcome, pN1, and increasing N1 burden, a modest increased risk of death after induction therapy was identified. However, this cost of induction therapy was more than counterbalanced by the benefit of improved survival of downstaging to pN0.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) pN1 is the strongest determinant of poor outcome. (2) cN1 patients who are downstaged by induction chemoradiation therapy to pN0 have an intermediate outcome. (3) cN1 patients who are not downstaged by induction therapy have a poor outcome.