What is the best neoadjuvant regimen prior to oesophagectomy: Chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy?

Progress in Multimodal Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Results of Multi-Institutional Trials Conducted in Japan

In Japan, the therapeutic strategies adopted for esophageal carcinoma are based on the results of multi-institutional trials conducted by the Japan Esophageal Oncology Group (JEOG), a subgroup of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG). Owing to the differences in the proportion of patients with squamous cell carcinoma among all patients with esophageal carcinoma, chemotherapeutic drugs available, and surgical procedures employed, the therapeutic strategies adopted in Asian countries, especially Japan, are often different from those in Western countries. The emphasis in respect of postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) shifted from postoperative radiotherapy in the 1980s to postoperative chemotherapy in the 1990s. In the 2000s, the optimal timing of administration of perioperative adjuvant chemotherapy returned from the postoperative adjuvant setting to the preoperative neoadjuvant setting. Recently, the JEOG commenced a three-arm randomized controlled trial of neoadjuvant therapies (cisplatin + 5-fluorouracil (CF) vs. CF + docetaxel (DCF) vs. CF + radiation therapy (41.4 Gy) (CRT)) for localized advanced ESCC, and patient recruitment has been completed. Salvage and conversion surgeries for ESCC have been developed in Japan, and the JEOG has conducted phase I/II trials to confirm the feasibility and safety of such aggressive surgeries. At present, the JEOG is conducting several trials for patients with resectable and unresectable ESCC, according to the tumor stage. Herein, we present a review of the JEOG trials conducted for advanced ESCC.

Long-term results of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy using cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil followed by esophagectomy for resectable, locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

This study retrospectively evaluated the long-term results of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) followed by esophagectomy for the patients with resectable, locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Altogether, 49 patients treated from 2008 to 2012 were analyzed. Chemotherapy consisted of 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. Radiotherapy was performed with a total dose of 40 Gy in 20 fractions for primary tumor, metastatic lymph nodes, and elective nodal area. Subsequently, transthoracic esophagectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy was performed. The median follow-up time for the survivors was 86 (range, 55-111) months. Pathological complete response from NCRT was observed in 17 (35%) patients. The 5-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates were 56% [95% confidence interval (CI): 43-71%] and 55% (95% CI: 41-69%), respectively. The 5-year locoregional control rate was 84% (95% CI: 74-95%). Multivariate analyses revealed body mass index, N-factor, and %ΔSUVmax as significant factors for overall survival. Recurrences and within-irradiation field failure were observed in 16 (31%) and 4 (8%) patients, respectively. Toxicities of NCRT were generally mild. Postoperative Grade IIIb or worse complications were seen in 14% of patients, including one Grade V case (2%). The 5-year incidence rate of late complications of Grade 3 or worse was 22% (95% CI: 7-36%). The cumulative 5-year incidence rate of metachronous malignancies was 13% (95% CI: 1-26%). NCRT followed by esophagectomy for patients with resectable, locally advanced ESCC showed favorable locoregional control and overall survival, with acceptable postoperative complications. Long-term careful follow-up for late complications and metachronous malignancies is needed.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) remains undetermined. This study compared outcomes in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for EAC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent nCT or nCRT followed by surgery for EAC were identified from a prospective database (2000-2017) and included. After propensity score matching, the impact of the treatments on postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, pathological outcomes, and survival rates were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 396 eligible patients, 262 patients were analysed following matching with 131 patients in both groups. There were no significant differences between the nCT and nCRT groups for overall complications (59% vs 57%, P = 0.802) or in-hospital mortality (2% vs 0%, P = 0.156). Patients who had nCRT had more R0 resections (93% vs 83%, P = 0.013), and higher pathological complete response rates (15% vs 5%, P < 0.001). No differences in 5-year overall survival rates (nCT vs nCRT; 44% vs 33%, P = 0.645) were found.

CONCLUSION

In this study no differences between nCT and nCRT were seen in postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality in patients treated for EAC. Inspite of improved complete resection and pathological response there was no difference in the overall survival between the treatment modalities.

Perioperative chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis comparing toxicity, pathologic outcome, and survival

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate toxicity, pathologic outcome, and survival after perioperative chemotherapy (pCT) compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery for patients with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with resectable esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma who underwent pCT (epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine) or nCRT (paclitaxel, carboplatin, and 41.4 Gy) followed by surgery in a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands were compared. Propensity score matching was applied to create comparable groups.

RESULTS

Of 193 eligible patients, 21 were discarded after propensity score matching; 86 and 86 patients who underwent pCT and nCRT, respectively, remained. Grade ≥3 thromboembolic events occurred only in the pCT group (19% vs. 0%, P < 0.001), whereas grade ≥3 leukopenia occurred more frequently in the nCRT group (14% vs. 4%, P = 0.015). No significant differences regarding postoperative morbidity and mortality were found. Pathologic complete response was more frequently observed with nCRT (18% vs. 11%, P < 0.001), without significantly improving radicality rates (95% vs. 89%, P = 0.149). Both strategies resulted in comparable 3-year progression-free survival (pCT vs. nCRT: 46% vs. 55%, P = 0.344) and overall survival rates (49% vs. 50%, P = 0.934). At 3-year follow-up, fewer locoregional disease progression occurred in the nCRT group (19% vs. 37%, P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to perioperative chemotherapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy achieves higher pathologic response rates and a lower risk of locoregional disease progression, without improving survival.

Survival After Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatments Compared to Surgery Alone for Resectable Esophageal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This network meta-analysis compared overall survival after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), or combinations of both (chemoradiotherapy, CRT) or surgery alone to identify the most effective approach.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The optimal treatment for resectable esophageal cancer is unknown.

METHODS

A search for randomized controlled trials reporting on neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies was conducted. Using a network meta-analysis, treatments were ranked based on their effectiveness for improving survival.

RESULTS

In 33 eligible randomized controlled trials, 6072 patients were randomized to receive either surgery alone (N = 2459) or neoadjuvant CT (N = 1332), RT (N = 58), and CRT (N = 1196) followed by surgery or surgery followed by adjuvant CT (N = 542), RT (N = 383), and CRT (N = 102). Twenty-one comparisons were generated. Neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery compared with surgery alone was the only treatment to significantly improve survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.87]. When trials were grouped considering neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies and surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapies combined with surgery compared with surgery alone showed a survival advantage (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90), whereas surgery along with adjuvant therapies showed no significant survival advantage (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.67-1.14). A subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant therapies showed a superior effectiveness of neoadjuvant CRT and surgery compared with surgery alone (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis showed neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery to be the most effective strategy in improving survival of resectable esophageal cancer. Resources should be focused on developing the most effective neoadjuvant CRT regimens for both adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus.

Current treatment options for esophageal diseases

Exciting new developments-pharmacologic, endoscopic, and surgical-have arisen for the treatment of many esophageal diseases. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease presents a therapeutic challenge, and several new options have been proposed to overcome an insufficient effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors. In patients with distal esophageal spasm, drugs and endoscopic treatments are the current mainstays of the therapeutic approach. Treatment with proton pump inhibitors (or antireflux surgery) should be considered in patients with Barrett's esophagus, since a recent meta-analysis demonstrated a 71% reduction in risk of neoplastic progression. Endoscopic resection combined with radiofrequency ablation is the standard of care in patients with early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Mucosal squamous cancer may also be treated endoscopically, preferably with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Patients with upper esophageal cancer often refrain from surgery. Robot-assisted, thoracolaparoscopic, minimally invasive esophagectomy may be an appropriate option for these patients, as the robot facilitates a good overview of the upper mediastinum. Induction chemoradiotherapy is currently considered as standard treatment for patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma, while the role of neoadjuvant therapy for adenocarcinoma remains controversial. A system for defining and recording perioperative complications associated with esophagectomy has been recently developed and may help to find predictors of mortality and morbidity.

Management of Locally Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction: Finally a Consensus

Opinion statement: Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is increasing in incidence in Western nations leading to increased interest in and opportunity to study optimal management. Randomized trials have now robustly demonstrated the preoperative therapy with chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy alone improves survival outcome for the bulk of curable patients, those with locally advanced T1N1M0 and T2-3 N0-1 M0 disease. Evidence suggests but does not confirm that radiation-containing regimens are more beneficial. Clinical staging is designed to exclude patients with T1N0M0 disease who may be treated with surgery alone and those with metastatic disease who may not benefit from intensive local therapy. The approach to clinical staging includes endoscopy with ultrasound and fine needle aspirate to assess local and regional disease, supplemented by CT and PET scanning primarily to exclude metastatic disease. Minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy may be used with the goal of reducing complications, but there is no evidence that mortality or ultimate outcome is improved.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of surgery alone for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) is still unsatisfactory. Presently, induction therapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment. Preoperative chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiation (CRT) are proven effective induction therapies; however, few sample studies have addressed these treatments, thus, their superiority remains uncertain. We performed a systemic review and meta analysis to test the hypothesis that induction CRT prior to surgery could improve survival compared with induction CT alone.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed and the Ovid database for relevant studies comparing EC patients undergoing resection after treatment with induction CT alone or induction CRT was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were extracted from these studies to provide pooled estimates of the effect of induction therapy on overall survival.

RESULTS

Five studies met the criteria for analysis. Statistical analysis demonstrated a survival benefit of induction CRT compared with induction CT alone (HR0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = 0.002). Further analysis showed that induction CRT perioperative mortality and complication rates were higher than for induction CT alone (HR 2.96, 95% CI 1.38-6.37; HR1.6, 95% CI 1.30-1.98; P = 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Published evidence comparing the different efficacies of induction CT and induction CRT is sparse, with few samples of adenocarcinoma. This analysis supports the view that, compared with induction CT, induction CRT could achieve a long-term survival benefit in EC patients.

An audit of best evidence topic reviews in the International Journal of Surgery

INTRODUCTION

IJS launched best evidence topic reviews (BETs) in 2011, when the guidelines for conducting and reporting these reviews were published in the journal.

AIMS

(1) Audit the adherence of all published BETs in IJS to these guidelines. (2) Assess the reach and impact of BETs published in IJS.

METHODS

BETs published between 2011 and February 2014 were identified from http://www.journal-surgery.net/. Standards audited included: completeness of description of study attrition, and independent verification of searches. Other extracted data included: relevant subspecialty, duration between searches and publication, and between acceptance and publication. Each BET's number of citations (http://scholar.google.co.uk/), number of tweets (http://www.altmetric.com/) and number of Researchgate views (https://www.researchgate.net/) were recorded.

RESULTS

Thirty-four BETs were identified: the majority, 19 (56%), relating to upper gastrointestinal surgery and none to cardiothoracic, orthopaedic or paediatric surgery. Twenty-nine BETs (82%) fully described study attrition. Twenty-one (62%) had independently verified search results. The mean times from literature searching to publication and acceptance to publication were 38.5 weeks and 13 days respectively. There were a mean 40 (range 0-89) Researchgate views/article, mean 2 (range 0-7) citations/article and mean 0.36 (range 0-2) tweets/article.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to BET guidelines has been variable. Authors are encouraged to adhere to journal guidelines and reviewers and editors to enforce them. BETs have received similar citation levels to other IJS articles. Means of increasing the visibility of published BETs such as social media sharing, conference presentation and deposition of abstracts in public repositories should be explored. More work is required to encourage more submissions from other surgical subspecialties other than gastrointestinal specialties.