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

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The comparison of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains inconclusive, and the optimal regimen is still under investigation.

METHODS

Prospective randomized clinical trials were systematically searched in electronic databases from inception to Oct 2023. A graphical reconstructive algorithm was employed to extract time-to-event outcomes from Kaplan-Meier curves presented in the original studies. Using reconstructed individual patient data, summary overall survival (OS) and disease progression-free survival (DFS) for nCRT versus nCT, primarily doublet chemotherapy were recalculated. Hazard Ratios (HRs) of OS and DFS reported were also pooled by the fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 6 randomized clinical trials comprising 1162 patients were included in our analysis. In the individual patient data (IPD) pooled analysis, a significant OS benefit was found for nCRT in ESCC (HR=0.81, 95 %CI:0.67-0.98, p=0.029), compared with the treatment of nCT. The median overall survival time were 53 months (95 %CI:41.9-67.7 m) and 66 months(95 %CI:57.2-NA) respectively in the nCT and nCRT groups. Additionally, a significant improvement in PFS for nCRT compared to nCT in the IPD pooled analysis (HR=0.79,95 %CI:0.64-0.98; p=0.027). Consistent with above results, the pooled HRs of OS and DFS for nCRT versus nCT were 0.78 (95 % CI 0.65-0.92, p=0.004) and 0.79 (95 % CI: 0.65-0.97, p=0.02), respectively. Notably, no substantial heterogeneity across studies was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that nCRT offers better survival outcomes for ESCC, at least when compared to neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy.This evidence continues to support the clinical practice of employing nCRT in locally advanced resectable ESCC.

Circumferential resection margin rates in esophageal cancer resection: oncological equivalency and comparable clinical outcomes between open versus minimally invasive techniques - a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Radical surgery for esophageal cancer requires macroscopic and microscopic clearance of all malignant tissue. A critical element of the procedure is achieving a negative circumferential margin (CRM) to minimize local recurrence. The utility of minimally invasive surgery poses challenges in replicating techniques developed in open surgery, particularly for hiatal dissection in esophago-gastrectomy. In this study, the technical approach and clinical and oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy are described with particular reference to CRM involvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort study included all patients undergoing either open or laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy between January 2004 and June 2022 in a single tertiary center. A standard surgical technique for hiatal dissection of the esophago-gastric junction developed in open surgery was adapted for a laparoscopic approach. Clinical parameters, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality data were collected and analyzed by a Mann-Whitney U or Fisher's exact method.

RESULTS

Overall 447 patients underwent an esophago-gastrectomy in the study with 219 open and 228 laparoscopic procedures. The CRM involvement was 18.8% in open surgery and 13.6% in laparoscopic surgery. The 90-day-mortality for open surgery was 4.1 compared with 2.2% for laparoscopic procedures. Median Intensive care unit (ITU), inpatient LOS and 30-day readmission rates were shorter for laparoscopic compared with open esophago-gastrectomy (ITU: 5 versus 8 days, P= 0.0004; LOS: 14 versus 20 days, P= 0.022; 30-day re-admission 7.46 versus 10.50%). Postoperative complication rates were comparable across both cohorts. The rates of starting adjuvant chemotherapy were 51.8 after open and 74.4% in laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

This study presents a standardized surgical approach to hiatal dissection for esophageal cancer. The authors present equivalence between open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy in clinical, oncological, and survival outcomes with similar rates of CRM involvement. The authors also observe a significantly shorter hospital length of stay with the minimally invasive approach.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To date, few studies have compared effectiveness and survival rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy (NACI) and conventional neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). The present study was conducted to compare therapeutic response and survival between NACI and NCRT.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised patients with locally advanced ESCC treated with either NACI or NCRT followed by surgery between June 2018 and March 2021. The 2 groups were compared for treatment response, 3-year overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Survival curves were created using the Kaplan-Meier method, differences were compared using the log-rank test, and potential imbalances were corrected for using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method.

RESULTS

Among 202 patients with locally advanced ESCC, 81 received NACI and 121 received conventional NCRT. After IPTW adjustment, the R0 resection rate (85.2% vs 92.3%; P = .227) and the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate (27.5% vs 36.4%; P = .239) were comparable between the 2 groups. Nevertheless, patients who received NACI exhibited both a better 3-year OS rate (91.7% vs 79.8%; P = .032) and a better 3-year DFS rate (87.4% vs 72.8%; P = .039) compared with NCRT recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

NACI has R0 resection and pCR rates comparable to those of NCRT and seems to be correlated with better prognosis than NCRT. NACI followed by surgery may be an effective treatment strategy for locally advanced ESCC.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy With or Without Radiotherapy for Resected Pancreatic Cancer After Multiagent Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapy is associated with improved pancreatic cancer survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. However, whether adjuvant treatment should include radiotherapy is unclear in this setting.

METHODS

This study queried the National Cancer Database for pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients who underwent curative resection after multiagent neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 2010 and 2019 and received adjuvant treatment. Adjuvant chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (external beam, 45-50.4 gray) was compared with adjuvant chemotherapy alone. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression was used to assess survival associations. Analyses were repeated in a propensity score-matched subgroup.

RESULTS

Of 1983 patients who received adjuvant treatment after multiagent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection, 1502 (75.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy alone and 481 (24.3%) received concomitant adjuvant radiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy). The patients treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy were younger, were treated at non-academic facilities more often, and had higher rates of lymph node metastasis (ypN1-2), positive resection margins (R1), and lymphovascular invasion (LVI+). The median survival was shorter for the chemoradiotherapy-treated patients according to the unadjusted analysis (26.8 vs 33.2 months; p = 0.0017). After adjustment for confounders, chemoradiotherapy was associated with better outcomes in the multivariable model (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.93; p = 0.008). The association between chemoradiotherapy and improved outcomes was stronger for the patients with grade III tumors (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74) or LVI+ tumors (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75). In a subgroup of 396 propensity-matched patients, chemoradiotherapy was associated with a survival benefit only for the patients with LVI+ or grade III tumors.

CONCLUSION

After multiagent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection for pancreatic cancer, additional adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus adjuvant chemotherapy alone is associated with improved survival for patients with LVI+ or grade III tumors.

Application of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in curative surgery for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer (EC) treatment is still a subject of debate.

AIM

To compare the clinical efficacy and toxic side effects between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for locally advanced EC (LAEC).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted using multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database Article. Studies up to December 2022 comparing nCRT and nCT in patients with EC were selected.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed significant differences between nCRT and nCT in terms of disease-free survival. The results indicated that nCRT provided better outcomes in terms of the 3-year overall survival rate (OSR) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.95], complete response rate (OR = 3.15), and R0 clearance rate (CR) (OR = 2.25). However, nCT demonstrated a better 5-year OSR (OR = 1.02) than nCRT. Moreover, when compared to nCRT, nCT showed reduced risks of cardiac complications (OR = 1.15) and pulmonary complications (OR = 1.30).

CONCLUSION

Overall, both nCRT and nCT were effective in terms of survival outcomes for LAEC. However, nCT exhibited better performance in terms of postoperative complications.

Perioperative immunotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Now and future

Esophageal cancer (EC) ranks among the most prevalent malignant tumors affecting the digestive tract. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) stands as the prevailing pathological subtype, encompassing approximately 90% of all EC patients. In clinical stage II-IVA locally advanced ESCC cases, the primary approach to treatment involves a combination of neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection. Despite concerted efforts, the long-term outcomes for ESCC patients remain unsatisfactory, with dismal prognoses. However, recent years have witnessed remarkable strides in immunotherapy, particularly in the second- and first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC, with the development of monoclonal antibodies that inhibit programmed death 1 or programmed death ligand 1 demonstrating encouraging responses and perioperative clinical benefits for various malignancies, including ESCC. This comprehensive review aims to present the current landscape of perioperative immunotherapy for resectable ESCC, focusing specifically on the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors during the perioperative period. Additionally, the review will explore promising biomarkers and offer insights into future prospects.

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.

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Neoadjuvant therapy and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) are widely used in the comprehensive treatment of esophageal cancer. This study aimed to investigate the advantages of MIE for esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy.

METHODS

Published clinical studies were reviewed and survival data and safety data were extracted. We compared the long-term survival and safety of MIE versus open esophagectomy after neoadjuvant surgery in a series of meta-analyses.

RESULTS

6 retrospective studies were included. Overall, MIE could significantly improve the overall survival of patients with esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant therapy compared with open esophagectomy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.75, 0.98)]. Compared with open esophagectomy, MIE could significantly reduce intraoperative blood loss and operative time [mean difference (MD) = -40.28.78, 95% CI (- 62.98, - 17.58); MD = -28.78, 95% CI (- 42.48, - 15.07), respectively]. There was no significant difference in 30-day and 90-day mortality between MIE and open esophagectomy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, 95% CI (0.09, 2.01); OR 0.80, 95% CI (0.25, 2.60), respectively]. MIE could not significantly reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy and chylothorax [OR 0.70, 95% CI (0.37, 1.32); OR 1.43, 95% CI (0.33, 6.25); HR = 1.79, 95% CI (0.67, 4.75), respectively], but the incidence of pneumonia was significantly reduced [HR = 0.43, 95% CI (0.22, 0.82)]. In addition, the length of hospital stay and the incidence of total complications were significantly reduced after MIE [MD = -2.61, 95% CI (- 3.10, - 2.12); HR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.45, 0.98), respectively].

CONCLUSION

MIE after neoadjuvant therapy is effective and safe. Compared with open esophagectomy, MIE can improve the long-term survival and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications of esophageal cancer patients.

Health Care Resource Utilization for Esophageal Cancer Using Proton versus Photon Radiation Therapy

Purpose

In patients treated with chemoradiation for esophageal cancer (EC), randomized trial data demonstrate that proton beam therapy (PBT) reduces toxicities and postoperative complications (POCs) compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, whether radiation therapy modality affects postoperative health care resource utilization remains unknown.

Materials and Methods

We examined 287 patients with EC who received chemoradiation (prescribed 50.4 Gy/GyE) followed by esophagectomy, including a real-world observational cohort of 237 consecutive patients treated from 2007 to 2013 with PBT (n = 81) versus IMRT (n = 156); and an independent, contemporary comparison cohort of 50 patients from a randomized trial treated from 2012 to 2019 with PBT (n = 21) versus IMRT (n = 29). Postoperative complications were abstracted from medical records. Health care charges were obtained from institutional claims and adjusted for inflation (2021 dollars). Charge differences (Δ = $PBT - $IMRT) were compared by treatment using adjusted generalized linear models with the gamma distribution.

Results

Baseline PBT versus IMRT characteristics were not significantly different. In the observational cohort, during the neoadjuvant chemoradiation phase, health care charges were higher for PBT versus IMRT (Δ = +$71,959; 95% confidence interval [CI], $62,274-$82,138; P < .001). There was no difference in surgical charges (Δ = -$2234; 95% CI, -$6003 to $1695; P = .26). However, during postoperative hospitalization following esophagectomy, health care charges were lower for PBT versus IMRT (Δ = -$25,115; 95% CI, -$37,625 to -$9776; P = .003). In the comparison cohort, findings were analogous: Charges were higher for PBT versus IMRT during chemoradiation (Δ = +$61,818; 95% CI, $49,435-$75,069; P < .001), not different for surgery (Δ = -$4784; 95% CI, -$6439 to $3487; P = .25), and lower for PBT postoperatively (Δ = -$27,048; 95% CI, -$41,974 to -$5300; P = .02). Lower postoperative charges for PBT were especially seen among patients with any POCs in the contemporary comparison (Δ = -$176,448; 95% CI, -$209,782 to -$78,813; P = .02).

Conclusion

Higher up-front chemoradiation resource utilization for PBT in patients with EC was partially offset postoperatively, moderated by reduction in POC risks. Results extend existing clinical evidence of toxicity reduction with PBT.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from the AGITG DOCTOR trial: a randomised phase 2 trial of tailored neoadjuvant therapy for resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

AGITG DOCTOR was a randomised phase 2 trial of pre-operative cisplatin, 5 fluorouracil (CF) followed by docetaxel (D) with or without radiotherapy (RT) based on poor early response to CF, detected via PET, for resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma. This study describes PROs over 2 years.

METHODS

Participants (N = 116) completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and oesophageal module (QLQ-OES18) before chemotherapy (baseline), before surgery, six and 12 weeks post-surgery and three-monthly until 2 years. We plotted PROs over time and calculated the percentage of participants per treatment group whose post-surgery score was within 10 points (threshold for clinically relevant change) of their baseline score, for each PRO scale. We examined the relationship between Grade 3+ adverse events (AEs) and PROs. This analysis included four groups: CF responders, non-responders randomised to DCF, non-responders randomised to DCF + RT, and "others" who were not randomised.

RESULTS

Global QOL was clinically similar between groups from 6 weeks post-surgery. All groups had poorer functional and higher symptom scores during active treatment and shortly after surgery, particularly the DCF and DCF + RT groups. DCF + RT reported a clinically significant difference (-13points) in mean overall health/QOL between baseline and pre-surgery. Similar proportions of patients across groups scored +/- 10 points of baseline scores within 2 years for most PRO domains. Instance of grade 3+ AEs were not related to PROs at baseline or 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

By 2 years, similar proportions of patients scored within 10 points of baseline for most PRO domains, with the exception of pain and insomnia for the DCF + RT group. Non-responders randomised to DCF or DCF + RT experienced additional short-term burden compared to CF responders, reflecting the longer duration of neoadjuvant treatment and additional toxicity. This should be weighed against clinical benefits reported in AGITG DOCTOR. This data will inform communication of the trajectory of treatment options for early CF non-responders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12609000665235 . Registered 31 July 2009.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer: a population-based analysis

AIM

Currently, the optimal treatment strategy for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) remains controversial. We perform the present study to compare the outcomes of LAEC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neo-CT) or chemoradiotherapy (neo-CRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A population cohort with histologically diagnosed of esophageal cancer was identified from SEER database between 2004 and 2015. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox-regression proportional hazards model were used to assess the impact of neoadjuvant treatment regimens on the cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of LAEC. A propensity score model was utilized to balance baseline covariates.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, a total of 1986 LAEC patients were included for analysis, 1,655 patients treated with neo-CRT and 331 with neo-CT, respectively. The survival outcomes of LAEC treated with neo-CRT were comparable to those treated with neo-CT in terms of 5-year OS (39% vs. 36%, p = 0.63) and CSS (51% vs. 51%, p = 0.77). In the multivariate Cox analyses, sex, histological grade, ypT stage, ypN( +), and number of LN examined were independent factors for predicting OS and CSS among LAEC treated with neoadjuvant treatment.

CONCLUSION

The present study based on large cohort demonstrated that no significant survival difference was observed between LAEC patients treated with neo-CRT versus neo-CT. However, the results needed to be confirmed in well-designed prospective trials.

Presentation, Treatment, and Prognosis of Esophageal Carcinoma in a Nationwide Comparison of Sweden and the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

This population-based study aimed to compare presentation, treatment allocation and survival of potentially curable esophageal cancer patients between Sweden and the Netherlands.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Identification of inter-country differences in treatment allocation and survival may be used for targeted esophageal cancer care improvement.

METHODS

Nationwide datasets were acquired from a Swedish cohort study and the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with potentially curable (cT1-T4a/Tx, cN0/+, cM0/x) esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) diagnosed in 2011-2015 were included. Multivariable logistic regression provided odds ratios (OR) for treatment allocation, and multivariable Cox model provided hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival, all with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for age, sex, year, tumor sub-location and stage.

RESULTS

Among 1980 Swedish and 7829 Dutch esophageal cancer patients, Swedish patients were older (71 vs 69 years, P <0.001) and had higher cT-stage (cT3: 49% vs 46%, P <0.001). After adjustment for confounders, Swedish patients were less frequently allocated to curative treatment (adenocarcinoma: OR=0.31, 95%CI 0.26-0.36; SCC: OR=0.28, 95%CI 0.22-0.36). Overall survival was lower in Swedish patients (adenocarcinoma: HR=1.36, 95%CI 1.27-1.46; SCC: HR=1.38, 95%CI 1.24-1.53), also when allocated to curative treatment (adenocarcinoma: HR=1.12, 95%CI 1.01-1.24; SCC: HR=1.34, 95%CI 1.14-1.59).

CONCLUSION

Swedish patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer were less frequently allocated to curative treatment, and showed lower survival compared to Dutch patients. The less pronounced inter-country survival difference after curative treatment suggests that the overall survival difference could at least partly be due to relative undertreatment of Swedish patients. Shared curative treatment thresholds across Europe may help improve survival of esophageal cancer patients.

Recent Progress in the Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Neoadjuvant therapies, primarily chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, are able to improve the overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer (EC) based on the results of several randomized clinical trials. The advantage of neoadjuvant therapy is chiefly attributed to the decreased risk of local-regional recurrence and distant metastasis. Thus, it has been recommended as standard treatment for patients with resectable EC. However, several fundamental problems remain. First, the combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), and surgery for EC patients with different histological types remain controversial. Furthermore, to reduce the toxicity of preoperative chemotherapy and the risk of complications caused by preoperative radiation therapy, the treatment protocols of nCT and nCRT still need to be investigated and optimized by prospective trials. Moreover, for patients with complete clinical response following neoadjuvant therapy, it is worth ascertaining whether a "watch and wait" surveillance plus surgery-as-needed policy is more favorable, as well as, in addition to preoperative chemoradiotherapy, whether immunotherapy, especially when combined with the traditional neoadjuvant therapy regimens, brings new prospects for EC treatment. In this review, we summarize the recent insights into the research progress and existing problems of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced resectable EC.

Risk Prediction Model of 90-Day Mortality After Esophagectomy for Cancer

Importance

Ninety-day mortality rates after esophagectomy are an indicator of the quality of surgical oncologic management. Accurate risk prediction based on large data sets may aid patients and surgeons in making informed decisions.

Objective

To develop and validate a risk prediction model of death within 90 days after esophagectomy for cancer using the International Esodata Study Group (IESG) database, the largest existing prospective, multicenter cohort reporting standardized postoperative outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this diagnostic/prognostic study, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients from 39 institutions in 19 countries between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Patients with esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to development and validation cohorts. A scoring system that predicted death within 90 days based on logistic regression β coefficients was conducted. A final prognostic score was determined and categorized into homogeneous risk groups that predicted death within 90 days. Calibration and discrimination tests were assessed between cohorts.

Exposures

Esophageal resection for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All-cause postoperative 90-day mortality.

Results

A total of 8403 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [9.0] years; 6641 [79.0%] male) were included. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 164), and the 90-day mortality rate was 4.2% (n = 353). Development (n = 4172) and validation (n = 4231) cohorts were randomly assigned. The multiple logistic regression model identified 10 weighted point variables factored into the prognostic score: age, sex, body mass index, performance status, myocardial infarction, connective tissue disease, peripheral vascular disease, liver disease, neoadjuvant treatment, and hospital volume. The prognostic scores were categorized into 5 risk groups: very low risk (score, ≥1; 90-day mortality, 1.8%), low risk (score, 0; 90-day mortality, 3.0%), medium risk (score, -1 to -2; 90-day mortality, 5.8%), high risk (score, -3 to -4: 90-day mortality, 8.9%), and very high risk (score, ≤-5; 90-day mortality, 18.2%). The model was supported by nonsignificance in the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64-0.72) in the development cohort and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.60-0.69) in the validation cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, on the basis of preoperative variables, the IESG risk prediction model allowed stratification of an individual patient's risk of death within 90 days after esophagectomy. These data suggest that this model can help in the decision-making process when esophageal cancer surgery is being considered and in informed consent.

Oestrogen receptors: A potential therapeutic target in oesophageal adenocarcinoma?

Oesophageal cancer is the seventh most common cancer in the world and adenocarcinoma is the dominant subtype in Western industrialised nations. The global 5-year relative survival rate for oesophageal adenocarcinoma is 12%. Chemotherapy is a standard treatment offered to patients with both resectable and unresectable disease. However, there are only a few established chemotherapeutic drug options and progress in this area is limited. Recent efforts have focused on targeted molecular therapies. Epidemiological evidence points towards hormonal influences on disease development, particularly sex hormones. Several research studies have demonstrated oestrogen receptor (ER) expression in oesophageal adenocarcinoma tissue, making them a possible option for targeting with ER modulating agents. ERs are also present in laboratory models of the disease and experiments in ER-positive cell lines suggest that ER modulator therapy may be effective. A deeper understanding of the roles of ERα and ERβ in this disease would be valuable for future translation into clinical practice. In this review, we discuss the association between oestrogens and the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma and the potential to modulate ER signalling networks for therapeutic benefit.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study from the National Cancer Center in China

PURPOSE

The optimal mode of neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has not been well characterized. Our study compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) for patients with ESCC.

METHODS

Data from ESCC patients receiving NCRT or NCT combined with esophagectomy between 2010 and 2018 from the National Cancer Center in China were retrospectively collected. Long-term survival, pathological response, and perioperative mortality and morbidity were compared between the NCRT and NCT groups. A Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to minimize bias due to potential confounding.

RESULTS

Out of 327 eligible patients with ESCC in our study, 90 patients were identified in each group by PSM. The complete pathologic response (pCR) rate in the NCRT group was markedly higher than that in the NCT group (before PSM: 35.1% vs. 6.0%; after PSM: 38.9% vs. 5.6%; both P < 0.001). The rates of 30-day or 90-day mortality were comparable between the two groups, but the NCRT group had a longer postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001 before PSM and P = 0.012 after PSM) and more postoperative complications (P < 0.001 before PSM and P = 0.014 after PSM), especially, anastomotic leaks (P = 0.001 before PSM and P = 0.013 after PSM). No significant differences in 5-year overall survival (OS) (P = 0.439) or 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.611) were noted between unmatched groups, but the trend favored NCRT in the propensity score-matched group (77.3% vs. 61.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-2.87; P = 0.141 for OS, and 77.8% vs. 60.5%; HR 1.72; 95% CI 0.95-3.11; P = 0.073 for RFS). Multivariate analysis showed that only ypT and ypN stages were independent predictors of OS before and after PSM (both P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in survival between the NCT and NCRT groups, although a trend favored NCRT related to the significantly higher pCR rates. Prospective head-to-head clinical trials to compare these two types of neoadjuvant therapies in ESCC are warranted.

Long-Term Outcomes of Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Chemo-Radiotherapy as Intensive Neoadjuvant Protocol in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

Neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) represents a standard approach for both Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) and Adenocarcinoma (ADC) of the esophagus, leading to a 10–15% improvement in survival rate as compared with surgery alone in clinical trials. In this observational study, we report the efficacy and safety of an intensive nCRT protocol in the daily clinical practice, including 122 patients treated with induction chemotherapy, followed by concomitant chemo-radiotherapy, and surgery. Our findings showed good long-term survival and high pathological complete response (pCR) rates, with acceptable side-effects. Notably, the oncological outcome was the same in ADC and SCC responder patients. Although the nCRT protocol here reported represents a distinctive single-center experience, our results contribute to better define the role of an intensive neoadjuvant approach as a reliable therapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer, and enrich the current literature on this challenging context.

Abstract

Background: A phase II intensive neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (nCRT) protocol for esophageal cancer (EC) was previously tested at our Center with promising results. We here present an observational study to evaluate the efficacy of the protocol also in “real life” patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 122 ECs (45.1% squamous cell (SCC) and 54.9% adenocarcinoma (ADC)) treated with induction docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TCF), followed by concomitant TCF and radiotherapy (50–50.4 Gy/25–28 fractions), between 2008 and 2017. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS) and pathological complete response (pCR). Results: With a median follow-up of 62.1 months (95% CI 50–67.6 months), 5-year OS and EFS rates were 54.8% (95% CI 44.7–63.9) and 42.7% (95% CI 33.1–51.9), respectively. A pCR was observed in 71.1% of SCC and 37.1% of ADC patients (p = 0.001). At multivariate analysis, ypN+ was a significant prognostic factor for OS (Hazard Ratios (HR) 4.39 [95% CI 2.36–8.18]; p < 0.0001), while pCR was a strong predictor of EFS (HR 0.38 [95% CI 0.22–0.67]; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The nCRT protocol achieved considerable long-term survival and pCR rates also in “real life” patients. Further research is necessary to evaluate this protocol in a watch-and-wait approach.