Induction versus no induction chemotherapy before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicentre randomised phase II trial (NCCTG N0849 [Alliance])

Neoadjuvant Immunochemoradiation Therapy Versus Chemoradiation Therapy in Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Individual Patient Data

Neoadjuvant immunochemoradiation therapy (nICRT) is emerging as a promising treatment for resectable esophageal cancer, but comprehensive analyses comparing it with standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) are limited. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and survival outcomes of nICRT versus nCRT. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and major conference proceedings up to October 30, 2024, identified studies involving resectable esophageal cancer treated with nICRT or nCRT. Data on pathologic complete response, major pathologic response, treatment-related adverse events, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival were extracted. A one-stage meta-analysis using reconstructed individual patient data was performed, calculating hazard ratios with 95% CIs. Thirty-seven studies were included, comprising 811 patients treated with nICRT and 1796 with nCRT. nICRT demonstrated significantly longer OS than nCRT (hazard ratio, 0.714; 95% CI, 0.550-0.926; P = .011). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 89.9%, 76.0% and 66.4%, respectively, for nICRT, compared with 85.0%, 66.5%, and 57.3% for nCRT. The pathologic complete response rate was significantly higher in nICRT (50% vs 38%; P = .040) for squamous cell carcinoma. Safety profiles were comparable, with no significant differences in grades 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events or postoperative complications between the groups. nICRT showed potential for superior survival compared with standard nCRT in resectable esophageal cancer and showed enhanced pathologic response in squamous cell carcinoma, with a possibly acceptable safety profile. These findings support future trials integrating immunotherapy into neoadjuvant treatment regimens for esophageal cancer.

Prognostic Impact of Inflammation-Based Factors in Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Achieving Pathological Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients achieving pathological complete response (pCR) post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and surgery for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) have a favorable prognosis. However, recurrence occurs in approximately 20-30% of all patients, with few studies evaluating their prognostic factors. We identified these prognostic factors, including inflammation-based markers, in patients with ESCC showing pCR after nCRT and surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with ESCC undergoing esophagectomy post-nCRT (January 2007-August 2017) were studied. Survival analysis evaluated 5-year overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Risk factors, including inflammation factors, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), were analyzed using Cox-proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Overall, 123patients participated herein. After a median follow-up duration of 67 months (44-86 months), 17 patients (12.3%) had recurrent disease. The 5-year OS and RFS rates were 71.6% and 68.0%, respectively. In the multivariable analysis, older age ( ≥ 60 years) [hazard ratio (HR) 3.228, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.478-7.048, p = 0.003], higher pretreatment T stage (≥ T3; HR 2.563, 95% CI 1.335-4.922, p = 0.005), nonapplication of induction chemotherapy (HR 2.389, 95% CI 1.184-4.824, p = 0.015), and higher post-nCRT PLR (≥ 184.2; HR 2.896, 95% CI 1.547-5.420, p = 0.001) were poor independent prognostic factors for 5-year RFS. The patient group with three to four identified factors with poor outcomes exhibited a 5-year RFS rate of 46.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant prognostic factors include higher post-nCRT PLR, older age, higher clinical T stage, and nonapplication of induction chemotherapy. Identifying higher recurrence risk patients is crucial for tailored follow-up and treatment.

Validity of Using Pathological Response as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Neoadjuvant Studies for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathological response is a critical factor in predicting long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer after preoperative therapy. However, the validity of using pathological response as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for esophageal cancer has not yet been established. In this study, a literature-based meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate pathological response as a proxy endpoint for survival in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Three databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies investigating neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. The correlation between pathological complete response (pCR) and OS were assessed using a weighted multiple regression analysis at the trial level, and the coefficient of determination (R2) was calculated. The research design and histological subtypes were considered in the performance of subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 40 trials, comprising 43 comparisons and 55,344 patients were qualified. The surrogacy between pCR and OS was moderate (R2 = 0.238 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.500 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.541 in log settings). pCR could not serve as an ideal surrogate endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (R2 = 0.511 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.460 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.523 in log settings). A strong correlation was observed in studies comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (R2 = 0.595 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.840 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.800 in log settings).

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of surrogacy of pathological response for long-term survival at trial level is established in this study. Hence, caution should be exercised when using pCR as the primary endpoint in neoadjuvant studies for esophageal cancer.

Induction immunochemotherapy followed by radiotherapy for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to investigate the efficacy of induction immunochemotherapy before radiotherapy (RT) for patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer who received induction immunochemotherapy followed by RT (ICIs + RT group) and RT alone (RT group) were retrospectively identified in two cancer centers, respectively. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the potential confounders between the two groups. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and recurrence patterns were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 467 patients were reviewed, and 66 were matched in each group. After PSM, the 1- and 2-year OS rates were 84.6% and 57.9% in ICIs + RT group, and 71.1% and 43.0% in RT group (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-1.00, p = 0.050). The absolute increase of restricted mean survival time (RMST) for OS in ICIs + RT group compared with RT group were 0.89 years (p = 0.023) at one year and 2.59 years at two years (p = 0.030). The median PFS time, 1- and 2-year PFS rates were 20.3 months, 69.3%, and 45.7% in ICIs + RT group, and 12.2 months, 51.4%, and 35.8% in RT group (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-0.99, p = 0.045). The cumulative locoregional recurrence (LRR) rate was significantly lower in ICIs + RT group (1-year rate, 17.4% vs. 38.8%, p = 0.011), and distant metastasis (DM) rates were comparable (p = 0.755). Consolidation ICIs was associated with a trend of improved 1-year OS and PFS.

CONCLUSION

Induction immunochemotherapy followed by RT might improve locoregional control and survival outcomes for patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer.

Therapeutic strategy aiming at R0 resection for borderline-resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil

OBJECTIVE

Treatment for borderline resectable (cT3br) esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is currently undefined. This study aimed to analyze the outcome of treatment strategies including induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) against T3br esophageal SCC.

METHODS

A total of 32 patients with cT3br esophageal SCC enrolled in this study were treated with two cycles of DCF induction therapy.

RESULTS

The overall response rate to DCF induction therapy was 62.5%, while the disease control rate was 93.8% (complete response (CR), three; partial response (PR), 17; stable disease (SD), 10; progressive disease (PD), 2). After DCF induction chemotherapy, 27 patients underwent conversion surgery (CS) and five patients underwent definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Out of 27 patients who underwent CS, 17 underwent transthoracic esophagectomy and 10 underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Anastomotic leakage occurred in five patients (18.5%) and pneumonia in four (14.8%). Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis and arrhythmia were observed in two patients (7.4%). The R0 resection rate was 81.5%. Among the five patients who underwent definitive CRT, only one patient (20.0%) achieved CR. Two patients (40.0%) had PR and two (40.0%) had PD. Salvage esophagectomy was performed in one patient after definitive CRT. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 75.0, 50.6, and 46.4%, respectively, whereas the 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 54.9, 38.8, and 38.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

DCF induction therapy and subsequent CS or definitive CRT are promising treatment strategies for cT3br esophageal SCC.

The Evolution of Neo-Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Oesophageal and Gastro-Oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinomas

Historically, oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas were associated with a poor prognosis. The advent of neoadjuvant therapy has transformed the management of oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas further and offers the possibility to reverse disease progression, eliminate micrometastasis, and offer potentially better outcomes for these patients. This review provides an overview of landmark clinical trials in this area, with different treatment regimens considered over the years as well as potential therapeutic agents on the horizon that may transform the management of oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas further.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches in gastroesophageal cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite advances in the perioperative treatment of locally advanced (T2-4 and/or N+) gastroesophageal cancer with evolving chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy regimens, prognosis remains poor. Biomarker-based approaches with targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibition present a new opportunity to improve response rate and overall survival. This review aims to shed light on the current treatment strategies and therapy options that are under investigation for the curatively intended perioperative treatment of gastroesophageal cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

A major step for patients with advanced esophageal cancer and insufficient response to chemoradiotherapy was the implementation of immune checkpoint inhibition in the adjuvant treatment with positive effects on survival duration and quality of life (CheckMate577). Various studies that seek to further integrate immunotherapy or targeted therapy into (neo-) adjuvant treatment are on their way and show promising results.

SUMMARY

Ongoing clinical research tries to increase the effectivity of standard of care approaches for the perioperative treatment of gastroesophageal cancer. Biomarker based immunotherapy and targeted therapy bear the opportunity to further improve the outcome.

Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy with or without induction chemotherapy for operable locally-advanced esophageal cancer

Background

For patients with operable locally advanced esophageal carcinoma (LA-EC), we hypothesized that pre-operative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy (IC-CRT) would improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when compared to chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

Methods

This was a single institution retrospective cohort study including patients with LA-EC who received preoperative-intent IC-CRT vs. CRT between 2013-2019. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess for variables associated with survival. The impact of treatment group on pathologic response was assessed by chi-square.

Results

Ninty-five patients were included for analysis (IC-CRT n=59; CRT n=36) and the median follow-up was 37.7 months (IQR: 16.8-56.1). There was no difference in median PFS or OS for IC-CRT or CRT, 22 months (95% CI: 12-59) vs. 32 months (95% CI: 10-57) (P=0.64) and 39 months (95% CI: 23-not reached) vs. 56.5 months (95% CI: 38-not reached) (P=0.36), respectively. Amongst the subset of patients with adenocarcinoma histology, there was no difference in median PFS or OS, nor was there when analyses were further restricted to those who received ≥3 cycles of induction 5-fluorouracil and platinum, or for those who underwent esophagectomy. Pathologic complete response occurred in 45% vs. 29% (P=0.24) and N-stage regression occurred in 72% vs. 58% (P=0.28) of patients in the IC-CRT and CRT cohorts, respectively. Distant metastasis occurred in 44% of patients in each treatment cohort.

Conclusions

For patients with LA-EC, preoperative-intent IC-CRT was not associated with improved PFS or OS when compared with CRT.

Induction chemotherapy increases efficacy and survival rate of patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective

The efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after induction chemotherapy (IC) in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy of IC in patients with ESCC.

Methods

124 patients with ESCC receiving CRT were included. Patients were divided into IC+CRT group and CRT group. Short-term and long-term efficacy as well as survival time of the two groups were compared, influencing factors of IC efficacy were investigated, and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups were compared in different subgroups.

Results

There was no significant difference in the objective response rate (ORR) between the two groups. After IC, the ORR was higher in patients with single-drug concurrent chemotherapy weekly and patients with effective IC. In the long-term efficacy, advanced clinical stage patients had a shorter PFS compared to early-stage patients, and chemoradiotherapy mode ameliorates patients' PFS. OS and PFS of IC+CRT group were longer than that of CRT group in both tumor diameter <5cm and single-drug chemotherapy weekly subgroups. In addition, OS of IC+CRT group was longer than that of CRT group in pathological grade G1-2 subgroup.

Conclusions

IC improve the efficacy and survival rate of patients with locally advanced ESCC, and the benefits are more advantageous in subgroups of effective IC, pathological grade G1-2, tumor diameter < 5cm, single-drug concurrent chemotherapy weekly.

Consolidation Chemotherapy Rather than Induction Chemotherapy Can Prolong the Survival Rate of Inoperable Esophageal Cancer Patients Who Received Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is regarded as the standard treatment for inoperable esophageal cancers (EC). It is still controversial whether consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) or induction chemotherapy (IC) is beneficial for the patients who received CRT. Therefore, we carried out a retrospective analysis at our institution. A total of 186 inoperable EC patients from 20 October 2017 to 7 June 2021 who have previously received CRT were included in our study. The patients were divided into IC + CRT (n = 52), CCRT (n = 64), and CRT + CCT (n = 70) groups according to whether they received induction chemotherapy, consolidation chemotherapy, or not. We used Kaplan−Meier statistics to analyze their 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS. The median follow-up time for the whole group was 14.15 months. The 1-, 2-, 3- year overall survival (OS) for the CCRT group were 72.2%, 52.5%, and 29.5%, and 50.9%, 37.5%, and 25% for the IC + CRT group (p > 0.05). For the CRT + CCT group,1-, 2-, and 3-year OS were 89.8%, 59.0%, and 42.5% (p < 0.05). Adverse reactions in the three groups were mainly graded 0−3. The difference between the three groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). For non-surgical EC patients who received CRT, CCT after CRT but not IC before CRT can improve 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS with a low incidence of associated severe adverse effects. As a result, the addition of consolidation chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy has significant prognostic advantages for inoperable EC patients.

Pembrolizumab in Combination with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with Resectable Adenocarcinoma of the Gastroesophageal Junction

PURPOSE

This phase Ib/2 trial investigated pembrolizumab-containing trimodality therapy in patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with GEJ adenocarcinoma (cT1-3NanyM0) received neoadjuvant pembrolizumab-containing chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by surgical resection and adjuvant pembrolizumab. The primary endpoints were tolerability in the first 16 patients and pathologic complete response [pCR (ypT0N0)]. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An independent propensity-score-matched cohort (treated with CROSS without immunotherapy) was used for comparison. Exploratory analyses included immune biomarkers in the tumor microenvironment (TME) and plasma.

RESULTS

We enrolled 31 eligible patients, of whom 29 received all expected doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab and 28 underwent R0 resection. Safety endpoints were met. The primary efficacy endpoint was not met [7/31 (22.6%) achieved pCR]. Patients with high [i.e., combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10] baseline expression of programmed death (PD)-L1 in the TME had a significantly higher pCR rate than those with low expression [50.0% (4/8) vs. 13.6% (3/22); P = 0.046]. Patients with high PD-L1 expression also experienced longer PFS and OS than propensity-score-matched patients. Among trial patients with PD-L1 CPS < 10, unprespecified analysis explored whether extracellular vesicles (EV) could identify further responders: an elevated plasma level of PD-L1-expressing EVs was significantly associated with higher pCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding pembrolizumab to trimodality therapy showed acceptable tolerability but did not meet the pre-specified pCR endpoint. Exploratory analyses suggested that high PD-L1 expression in the TME and/or on EVs may identify patients most likely to achieve tumor response.

Preoperative Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer: Phase II Randomized Study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) in a single-center randomized phase II trial.

METHODS

Patients with LAGC were enrolled and received either NACT or NACRT, followed by gastrectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was an R0 resection rate.

RESULTS

We enrolled 75 patients: 75.7% (NACT, 28/37 patients) and 76.3% (NACRT, 29/38 patients) underwent surgery; R0 resection rates were 73.0% (27/37) and 73.7% (28/38), respectively. The NACRT group had significantly better major pathological response than the NACT group (37.9% vs 17.9%, p = 0.019). Between-group postoperative complications were not significantly different. The median follow-up was 59.6 months; 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 50.1% (NACT) and 61.9% (NACRT); neither group reached the median OS; median progression-free survival was 37.3 and 63.4 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

S-1-based NACRT did not improve the R0 resection rate, although it presented better tumor regression with similar safety to NACT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT02301481.

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.

Addition of Induction or Consolidation Chemotherapy in Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Alone for Patients With Unresectable Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has become the standard of care in esophageal carcinoma patients who are not surgical candidates. The efficacy of induction chemotherapy (IC) or consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) for unresectable esophageal cancer (EC) treated with CCRT is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published papers to evaluate the potential benefit of IC or CCT for patients with EC.

Methods

Eligible studies of IC followed by CCRT (IC-CCRT) vs. CCRT alone or CCRT followed by CCT (CCRT-CCT) vs. CCRT alone were retrieved through extensive searches of the PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment of the database to July 31, 2021. Data such as 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS), local recurrence rate (LRR), and distant metastasis rate (DMR) were collected for meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of IC/CCT.

Results

Four studies of IC-CCRT vs. CCRT including 836 EC patients and six studies of CCRT-CCT vs. CCRT including 1,339 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were finally identified in our analysis. Both IC-CCRT group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.446, 95% CI 0.286-0.693; p < 0.001] and CCRT-CCT group (HR 0.542, 95% CI 0.410-0.716; p < 0.001) exhibited statistically significant improvement in 1-year OS rate compared to that of CCRT, while the 2-year OS rate of IC-CCRT (HR 0.803, 95% CI 0.589-1.095; p = 0.166) or CCRT-CCT (HR 0.783, 95% CI 0.600-1.022; p = 0.072) was similar with that of CCRT. And the 3-year OS rate between IC-CCRT and CCRT was similar (HR 1.065, 95% CI 0.789-1.439; p = 0.680). However, comparing with CCRT alone, the CCRT-CCT group had lower DMR [odds ratio (OR) 1.562, 95% CI 1.090-2.240; p = 0.015] and higher 3-year OS rate (HR 0.786, 95% CI 0.625-0.987; p = 0.039). Besides, no differences were observed between the CCRT-CCT and CCRT groups in 5-year OS rate (HR 0.923, 95% CI 0.706-1.205; p = 0.555) and LRR (OR 0.899, 95% CI 0.686-1.179; p = 0.441).

Conclusion

The study revealed the short-time survival benefit of additional IC or CCT compared to CCRT alone for patients with unresectable EC, and CCRT followed by CCT could significantly reduce the risk of distant metastases.