Prospective evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy in resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus

Does neoadjuvant therapy contribute to increased risk in anastomotic leakage of esophageal cancer? A network meta-analysis

AIM

Conflicting results have been reported about the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy. We aimed to unravel the potential effect of neoadjuvant therapy on AL after esophagectomy through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed by retrieving relevant literature from PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies (RS) comparing the following treatment modalities were included: neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (nR), neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT), and surgery alone (SA). Subgroup analyses by radiation dose, examined lymph nodes (ELN), route of reconstruction, site of anastomosis, and surgical approach were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies with 12,746 patients were included for the present study, among which 17 were RCTs. There were no significantly statistical differences observed among the five treatment modalities in AL for both RCTs (nCRT-nICT: risk ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 0.52-4.4; nCT-nICT: 1.71, 0.56-5.08; nICT-nR: 0.79, 0.12-8.02; nICT-SA: 0.59, 0.2-1.84) and RS (nCRT-nICT: odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.84; nCT-nICT: 1.56, 0.87-2.88; nICT-SA: 0.6, 0.31-1.12; nICT-nR: 1.08, 0.09-36.02). Subgroup analysis revealed that no significant difference in AL was observed among the five treatment modalities except for the impact of nCRT versus nCT (0.21, 0.05-0.73) on AL with a radiation dose ≥41.4 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant therapy do not significantly increase the incidence of AL after esophagectomy. Administration of irradiation with a moderate dose is not associated with elevated risk in AL. Clinicians can be less apprehensive about prescribing nCRT.

Pathologic complete response in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment is mostly limited to patients who exhibit pathologic complete response (pCR). Existing estimates of pCR rates among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy have not been synthesized and lack precision.

METHODS

We conducted an independently funded systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023397402) of pCR rates among patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radiation). Studies were identified from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database searches. Eligible studies included trials published from 1992 to 2022 that focused on nonmetastatic esophageal cancer, including the gastroesophageal junction. Histology-specific pooled pCR prevalence was determined using the Freeman-Tukey transformation and a random effects model.

RESULTS

After eligibility assessment, 84 studies with 6451 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinomas was 9% (95% CI: 6%-14%), ranging from 0% to 32%. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in squamous cell carcinomas was 32% (95% CI: 26%-39%), ranging from 8% to 66%. For adenocarcinoma, the pooled prevalence of pCR was 6% (95% CI: 1%-12%) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 22% (18%-26%) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Under one-third of patients with esophageal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemo(radiation) experience pCR. Patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas had higher rates of pCR than those with adenocarcinomas. As pCR represents an increasingly utilized endpoint in neoadjuvant trials, these estimates of pooled pCR rates may serve as an important benchmark for future trial design.

An Ailment with Which I Will Contend: A Narrative Review of 5000 Years of Esophagogastric Cancers and Their Treatments, with Special Emphasis on Recent Advances in Immunotherapeutics

Esophagogastric cancers are among the most common and deadly cancers worldwide. This review traces their chronology from 3000 BCE to the present. The first several thousand years were devoted to palliation, before advances in operative technique and technology led to the first curative surgery in 1913. Systemic therapies were introduced in 1910, and radiotherapy shortly thereafter. Operative technique improved massively over the 20th century, with operative mortality rates reducing from over 50% in 1933 to less than 5% by 1981. In addition to important roles in palliation, endoscopy became a key nonsurgical curative option for patients with limited-stage disease by the 1990s. The first nonrandomized studies on combination therapies (chemotherapy ± radiation ± surgery) were reported in the early 1980s, with survival benefit only for subsets of patients. Randomized trials over the next decades had similar overall results, with increasing nuance. Disparate conclusions led to regional variation in global practice. Starting with the first FDA approval in 2017, multiple immunotherapies now encompass more indications and earlier lines of therapy. As standards of care incorporate these effective yet expensive therapies, care must be given to disparities and methods for increasing access.

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma

PURPOSE

The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158).

RESULTS

IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.

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.

Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategies for Resectable Proximal Gastric, Gastroesophageal Junction and Distal Esophageal Cancer

Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for resectable proximal gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and distal esophageal cancer have evolved over several decades. Treatment recommendations differ based on histologic type-squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) versus adenocarcinoma (AC)-as well as the exact location of the tumor. Recent and older clinical trials in this area were critically reviewed. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with concurrent taxane- or fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has an established role for both AC and SCC of the distal esophagus and GEJ. The use of perioperative chemotherapy for gastric AC is based on the FLOT4 and MAGIC trials; however, the utility of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in this setting requires further evaluation. Additional clinical trials evaluating chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and radiation that are currently in process are highlighted, given the need for further disease control.

(Neo)adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy is Beneficial to the Long-term Survival of Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the most effective and safest treatment mode for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through a network meta-analysis.

METHOD

A Bayesian model was used for a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

Thirty clinical studies, including thirty-one articles, 4866 patients, were analyzed. Overall survival rate: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were significantly advantageous over surgery alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.93; HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.65-0.86]. There was no statistically significant difference between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.75-1.28]. Disease-free survival rate: Compared with surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had significant benefits [HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.78]; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had similar, but not significant benefits [HR 0.7, 0.95%CI 0.45-1.06]. The difference between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was also not statistically significant [HR 0.94, 0.95%CI 0.61-1.43]. Surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: The R0 resection rate was significantly improved [relative risk (RR) 0.25, 95%CI 0.07-0.86], but the overall postoperative morbidity rate and 30-day postoperative mortality rate tended to increase [RR 1.27, 95%CI 0.8-2.01; RR 1.59, 95%CI 0.7-3.22]. Neither neoadjuvant chemotherapy nor neoadjuvant radiotherapy significantly altered the surgical safety or R0 resection rate.

CONCLUSION

Both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy appear to be the best supplements to surgery for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Comparison of outcomes between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) followed by surgery are two standard strategies in treating locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC). We aim to compare NCRT and NCT in the management of locally advanced EC patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and conferences were systematically searched for clinical trials published up to September 2021. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) by reporting the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020170619).

FINDINGS

25 trials with 4563 EC patients met inclusion criteria. NCRT improved OS (HR: 0·72, 95%CrI: 0·63-0·82) and DFS (HR: 0·72, 95%CrI: 0·63-0·81) compared to surgery alone. NCRT improved OS (HR: 0·83, 95%CrI: 0·69-0·99) and DFS (HR: 0·83, 95%CI: 0·69-0·99) compared to NCT. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that both NCRT (HR: 0·77, 95%CrI: 0·65-0·90) and NCT (HR: 0·81, 95%CrI: 0·67-0·99) improved OS than surgery in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. No significant differences were observed between NCRT and NCT regarding OS (HR: 0·95, 95%CrI: 0·75-1·19) and DFS (HR: 0·90, 95%CrI: 0·50-1·62) in ESCC. The short-term outcomes were similar between NCRT and NCT. The three treatment strategies were comparable in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) subpopulations.

INTERPRETATION

The study corroborated current guidelines in addressing the importance of analysing EC according to histopathological types. The analysis suggested that in locally advanced ESCC patients, both NCRT and NCT improved OS as compared to surgery alone, whereas no clear evidence supported the optimal strategies between NCRT and NCT. More RCTs comparing different therapeutic strategies in EAC patients are warranted.

FUNDING

Köln Fortune Program, University of Cologne.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus upfront surgery for carcinoma of the oesophagus or the gastro-oesophageal junction

INTRODUCTION

Which neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced thoracic oesophagus (TE) or gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma is best remains an open question. Randomised controlled trials variously accrued patients with adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, making strong conclusions hard to obtain. The primary objective of this individual participant data meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible trials should have closed to accrual before 2016 and compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery (CS) to surgery alone. All relevant published and unpublished trials were identified via searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings and clinical trial registers. The main end-point was OS. Investigators were contacted to obtain the individual patient data, which was recorded, harmonised and checked. A random-effects Cox model, stratified by trial, was used for meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were preplanned.

RESULTS

16 trials were identified as eligible. Individual patient data were obtained from 12 trial and 2478 patients. CS was associated with an improved OS versus surgery, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.83 [0.72-0.96], p < 0.0001, translating to an absolute benefit of 5.7% at 5-years from 16.8% to 22.5%. Treatment effects did not vary substantially between adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.73 [0.62-0.87]) and squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 0.91 [0.76-1.08], interaction p = 0.26). A somewhat more pronounced effect was observed in gastro-oesophageal junction (HR = 0.68 [0.50-0.93]) versus TE (HR = 0.87 [0.75-1.00], interaction p = 0.07). CS was also associated with a greater disease-free survival (HR = 0.74 [0.64-0.85], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy conferred a better OS than surgery alone and should be considered in all anatomical location and histological subtypes.

EphA5 Silencing Increases the Radiosensitivity of ESCC Cells Through ATM-Dependent Pathway

Background

Radiotherapy is one of the most important treatments for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Previously, we found that EphA5 expression was increased in ESCC cells and tumor tissues. Studies from other groups reported that EphA5 is abnormally expressed in numerous malignant tumors and may be involved in the radiosensitivity of lung cancer. However, the role of EphA5 in radiotherapy for ESCC remains unclear.

Methods

The siRNA sequences against human EPHA5 were transfected to the ESCC cells (KYSE150 and KYSE450). After ionizing radiation (IR), cell viability and colony formation assays were used to test the changes of cell proliferation in EphA5-silenced cells. Flow cytometry analysis was performed to investigate the cell apoptosis and cycle in the irradiated cells interfered by siRNA. The key molecules involved in cell cycle checkpoints and DNA damage repair were evaluated by Western blot and immunofluorescence.

Results

CCK8 assay and clonogenic assay showed that the proliferation of EphA5-silenced ESCC cells was inhibited after IR. At 24 h post-IR treatment, we found that the G1/S checkpoint triggered by DNA damage in EphA5-silenced cells was defective. γ-H2AX foci in the irradiated EphA5-silenced cells were impaired at 0.5 h post-IR treatment as well as ATM activation. The defective activation of ATM resulted in a decrease of p-Chk2, p-p53 and p21 expression.

Conclusion

In conclusion, these results indicate that EphA5 silencing increases radiosensitivity in ESCC cells through ATM-dependent pathway, which provides a potential target for the radiotherapy in ESCC.

The Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Inconclusive results are available as to whether chemo/radiotherapy should be administered to resectable esophageal cancer patients before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) or after surgery (adjuvant therapy). The paper, via a meta-analysis of effects of treatment modalities when administering chemo/radiotherapy, aims to systematically evaluate the effect of timing of chemo/radiotherapy and surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for clinical trials of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal cancer. Using meta-analysis, we conducted direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of overall survival, complete resection rate (R0 resection), perioperative mortality, leakage rate and local recurrence in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies involving 7985 patients with esophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Twenty-five randomized controlled studies indirectly compared neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy with surgery alone, while five non-randomized controlled studies and two randomized controlled studies directly compared neoadjuvant with adjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, compared with surgery along with adjuvant therapy, showed a significant overall survival advantage in our pooled analysis (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Directly compared with adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy demonstrated a lower local recurrence rate (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.43-0.74) with low heterogeneity (I² = 1%). Neoadjuvant therapy, comparing to surgery with or without adjuvant therapy, showed a significantly higher R0 resection rate (OR 2.86; 95% CI 2.02-4.04) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 38%) and no significant differences in postoperative anastomotic leakage (P = 0.50). However, neoadjuvant therapy, compared with surgery adjuvant therapy, significantly increased perioperative mortality in both direct and indirect comparisons (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher overall survival and R0 resection rate without increasing postoperative anastomotic leakage for patients with resectable esophageal cancer, whereas neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher perioperative mortality after esophagectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment over surgery alone and that of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) over neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in resectable esophageal carcinoma remains inconclusive. This study (NewEC) used global data to comprehensively evaluate these comparisons and to provide a preferable strategy for patient subsets.

METHODS

This study included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from inception to May 2019 from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and congresses and a registry-based cohort study with patients from Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts, USA) and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangzhou, China) recruited from November 2000 and June 2017, to cross-validate the comparisons among NCRT versus NCT versus surgery. The GRADE approach was used to assessed quality of evidence in meta-analysis. Neural network machine learning propensity score-matched analysis was used to account for confounding by patient-level characteristics in the cohort study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The study was registered with PROSPERO CRD42017072242 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04027543.

FINDINGS

Of 22,070 studies assessed, there were 38 (n = 6,993 patients) eligible RCTs. Additionally, 423 out of 467 screened patients were included in the cohort study. The results from trials showed that NCT had a better OS than surgery alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·79-0·98; high quality) and was only favorable for adenocarcinoma (HR 0·83, 95% CI 0·72-0·96; moderate quality). High-quality evidence showed a significantly better OS for NCRT than surgery alone (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·66-0·82) for both adenocarcinoma (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·62-0·86) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·65-0·83). The OS benefit of NCRT over NCT was seen in the pairwise (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·62-0·99; high quality) and network (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·72-0·93; high quality) meta-analyses, with similar results before (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·40-0·91) and after (HR 0·44, 95% CI 0·25-0·77) matching in the cohort study, leading to a significantly increased 5-year OS rate in both adenocarcinoma and SCC before and after matching. The increased benefits from NCT or NCRT were not associated with the risk of 30-day or in-hospital mortality.

INTERPRETATION

NewEC Study provided high-quality evidence supporting the survival benefits of NCRT or NCT over surgery alone, with NCRT presenting the greatest benefit for resectable esophageal carcinoma.

FUNDING

National Science and Technology Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Guangzhou Science and Technology Major Program, the Medical artificial intelligence project of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, the Guangdong Science and Technology Department, the Guangdong Province Medical Scientific Research Foundation, and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital Intermural Program.

Treatment-related complications in patients with esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to compare the available treatments of esophageal cancer, in terms of pulmonary, cardiovascular complications, anastomotic leakage, and esophagitis after treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched. The randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had compared the treatment -related complications of treatments for esophageal SCC were included. We included 39 randomized control trials in a network meta-analysis. The Chi2-test was used to assess of heterogeneity. The loop-specific and design-by-treatment interaction methods were used for assessment of consistency assumption. The risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to report the effect-sizes in the network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The pulmonary complication, cardiac complication, anastomotic leakage, and esophagitis were reported in 31, 11, 17, and 15 RCTs respectively. Video-assisted thoracoscopy + laparoscopy (VATS) was rank as the first and second treatment in terms of lower risk for pulmonary complication and anastomotic leakage. There was no statistically significant difference between treatments in terms of lower risk of cardiovascular complications. However, Surgery + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil (SCF) was ranked as better treatment. 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy + Docetaxel + Cisplatin (3DCRTDC) was the best treatment in terms of lower risk for esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of this study, it seems the risk of pulmonary, cardiovascular, anastomotic leakage and esophagitis complications for VATS, SCF, surgery + radiotherapy (SRT), and 3DCRTDC was lower than other treatments respectively in the networks.

Neoadjuvant strategies in resectable carcinoma esophagus: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The survival benefit of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable carcinoma esophagus has been elucidated. We performed a meta-analysis in light of new studies and long-term results of past trials. The search strategy was refined to include only "neoadjuvant" so that any bias by adjuvant treatment is eliminated.

METHODS

A detailed search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was done. Only published randomized English language trials were included. Data were categorized as neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (NACRT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NART), and neoadjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT). Meta-analysis was done using odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI using fixed/random effects model. Heterogeneity was tested by chi-square and I2 test. Z probability calculated significant difference across subgroups. Outcomes assessed were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years, respectively, mortality (30/90 day) and failures (local/systemic).

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized trials involving 5272 patients were included for quantitative analysis. NACRT was evaluated in 12 studies (2676 patients). Superior 3-year OS (OR = 0.68 CI 0.52-0.90, p = 0.007), 3-year DFS (OR = 0.55 CI 0.45-0.68, p = 0.00001), and 5-year DFS (OR = 0.59 CI 0.47-0.74, p = 0.00001), with lower failures (OR = 0.52 CI 0.37-0.73, p = 0.0001), were seen in favor of NACRT at the cost of increased perioperative mortality (OR = 1.79 CI 1.15-2.80, p = .01). However, 5-year OS (OR = 0.78 CI 0.60-0.1.01, p = 0.06) was not found to be significantly superior. NACT, NART, and SCRT were not found to have any benefit over surgery alone.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis presents strong evidence favoring NACRT over upfront surgery. It also shows no survival advantage of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Elective nodal irradiation versus involved-field irradiation in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and involved-field irradiation (IFI) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (nCRTS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and major meetings were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two of the following treatment regimens: nCRTS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (nCTS), and surgery (S) alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcomes of interest, reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare all regimens simultaneously.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RCTs with a total of 5212 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both nCRTS adopting ENI (nCRTS-ENI) (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48-0.83) and nCRTS adopting IFI (nCRTS-IFI) (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86) significantly improved OS compared to S alone. No significant differences in OS, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, R0 resection and postoperative mortality were observed between nCRTS-ENI and nCRTS-IFI. In subgroup analyses, nCRTS-IFI showed a significant OS advantage over nCTS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96) and S alone (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68) for esophagus squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but nCRTS-ENI did not; nCRTS-ENI using three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-RT) resulted in an improved OS compared to that with 2D-RT (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34-0.99). Based on treatment ranking in term of OS, nCRTS-IFI (0.90) and nCRTS-ENI (0.96) was ranked the most effective treatment for ESCC and esophagus adenocarcinoma (EAC), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Either adopting ENI or IFI, nCRTS is likely to be the optimal treatment for resectable EC, and nCRTS-IFI and nCRTS-ENI seem to be more effective for patients with ESCC and EAC, respectively. Future head to head comparison trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Prognostic and Predictive Factors for the Curative Treatment of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

An overview of promising prognostic variables and predictive subgroups concerning the curative treatment of esophageal and gastric cancer from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO conferences were searched up to March 2019 for RCTs on the curative treatment of esophageal or gastric cancer with data on prognostic and/or predictive factors for overall survival. Prognostic factors were deemed potentially clinically relevant according to the following criteria; (1) statistically significant (p < 0.05) in a multivariate analysis, (2) reported in at least 250 patients, and (3) p < 0.05, in ≥ 33% of the total number of patients in RCTs reporting this factor. Predictive factors were potentially clinically-relevant if (1) the p-value for interaction between subgroups was <0.20 and (2) the hazard ratio in one of the subgroups was significant (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

For gastric cancer, 39 RCTs were identified (n = 13,530 patients) and, for esophageal cancer, 33 RCTs were identified (n = 8618 patients). In total, we identified 23 potentially clinically relevant prognostic factors for gastric cancer and 16 for esophageal cancer. There were 15 potentially clinically relevant predictive factors for gastric cancer and 10 for esophageal cancer.

CONCLUSION

The identified prognostic and predictive factors can be included and analyzed in future RCTs and be of guidance for nomograms. Further validation should be performed in large patient cohorts.

Combined Modality Therapy for Management of Esophageal Cancer: Current Approach Based on Experiences from East and West

Human evolutionary genetic divergence and distinctive environmental exposures have contributed to the development of clinicopathologic variations of esophageal cancer in Eastern and Western countries. Different treatment strategies have derived from the disparate regional experiences. Treatment strategy is more standardized in the West. Trimodality treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery is widely accepted as the standard treatment of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Trimodality treatment has not been adopted in many Eastern countries, and standard treatment is neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Several randomized trials are ongoing that may alter the standard management of esophageal cancer worldwide.

A rationale multidisciplinary approach for treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: Accurate review of management and perspectives

Cancer of the esophagus and of gastroesophageal junction can be cured, even if with lacking cure rate. Different approaches have been developed, mostly when carcinoma has loco-regional pattern. Multimodality therapy showed a survival rate superior than 10% if compared to a single approach. This is a systematic review, carried to assess the following matters: Which therapeutic opportunities are available? Who could benefit of them? Which adverse reactions could possibly verify? How can physicians definitely choose the proper strategy? Which is the role of surgery? We mean to give either General Practitioner or specialists clear and efficient updates about current treatment of this tumour, starting from physical examination. Four eminent guidelines were consulted for our study: Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care, NCCN, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre and Esmo.

Neoadjuvant treatments for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer: A network meta-analysis

The relative survival benefits and postoperative mortality among the different types of neoadjuvant treatments (such as chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only or chemoradiotherapy) for esophageal cancer patients are not well established. To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies in resectable esophageal cancer, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications up to May 2016. ASCO and ASTRO annual meeting abstracts were also searched up to the 2015 conferences. Randomized controlled trials that compared at least two of the following treatments for resectable esophageal cancer were included: surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome assessed from the trials was overall survival. Thirty-one randomized controlled trials involving 5496 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival when compared to all other treatments including surgery alone (HR 0.75, 95% CR 0.67-0.85), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.83. 95% CR 0.70-0.96) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.82, 95% CR 0.67-0.99). However, the risk of postoperative mortality increased when comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to either surgery alone (RR 1.46, 95% CR 1.00-2.14) or to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 1.58, 95% CR 1.00-2.49). In conclusion, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival but may also increase the risk of postoperative mortality in patients locally advanced resectable esophageal carcinoma.

Prognosis of surgery combined with different adjuvant therapies in esophageal cancer treatment: a network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether the efficacy of surgery with adjuvant therapies, including radiotherapy (RT+S), chemotherapy (CT+S), and chemoradiotherapy (CRT+S) have better performance in esophageal cancer treatment and management. PubMed and EMBASE were used to search for relevant trials. Both conventional pair-wise and network meta-analyses were carried out. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank interventions based on the efficacy of the treatment method. As for 3-year overall survival (OS), CRT+S showed the highest efficacy (CRT+S vs.

SURGERY

HR=0.81, 95% CrI =0.73-0.90; CRT+S vs. CT+S: HR=0.82, 95% CrI =0.70-0.95; CRT+S vs. RT+S: HR=0.77, 95% CrI =0.62-0.95). For disease-free survival, CRT+S showed efficacy over CT+S ((HR =0.70, 95% CrI =0. 59-0.83). In conclusion, CRT+S showed a better performance for survival outcomes and ranks best among all therapies. The results of our study can provide guidance for medical decisions and treatment options that may help clinical practitioners improve the efficacy of EC treatment.

The frontline of esophageal cancer treatment: questions to be asked and answered

Achieving a good treatment for esophageal cancer is a great challenge. For early stage cancer, endoscopic treatment is considered the first line and a possible curative therapy. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery are all used for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer, administered either alone or combined. Some combinations have proven to be feasible, effective, and superior, such as neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) plus surgery in the Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer Followed by Surgery Study (CROSS) trial. However, other strategies such as perioperative chemotherapy or definitive chemoradiation also have demonstrated substantial effectiveness. The current article addresses the following questions: (I) how can a choice between different multi-modality treatments be made; (II) is there enough evidence to compare the merits of the different strategies; and (III) is there any new evidence to improve the current practice. Moreover, in this article, existing evidence for treatment strategies for locally advanced esophageal cancer have been reviewed.

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.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery for patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The role of neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery for treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains controversial. We performed a network meta-analysis to synthesize direct and indirect evidence to identify the optimal therapeutic method for ESCC.

METHODS

We identified 15 randomized controlled trials that compared any of the following 4 therapeutic measures: surgery alone (S), preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery (CTS), preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery (RTS), and preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRTS). The main outcomes were 5-year survival, rate of radical resection, operative mortality and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Network meta-analysis showed that CRTS was associated with improved survival as compared with S (OR = 1.50 [95% CI 1.21 to 1.97]) and decreased occurrence of complications as compared with RTS (OR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.22 to 0.99]). Direct evidence revealed CRTS associated with improved survival (OR = 1.61 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.57]) and radical resection (OR = 4.01 [95% CI 1.66 to 9.69]) as compared with S. In terms of radical resection, CTS was more effective than S (OR = 1.73 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.76]). Findings for CTS and RTS did not differ for 5-year survival, operative mortality and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, CRTS might be the best choice for resectable ESCC because it could increase the radical resection rate and lower the occurrence of complications, thereby prolonging survival time.

Current concepts and future potential in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal cancer

Many trials have evaluated preoperative chemotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC). Most studies were small with conflicting results and no clear evidence of survival advantage. However, two large trials that included squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus produced opposite outcomes with one showing limited benefit and the other showing none. Recent meta-analyses suggest only a modest benefit from induction chemotherapy in the treatment of LAEC. Two factors associated with prolonged survival are: (1) an R0 resection and (2) pathological complete remission. Preoperative chemotherapy is preferred in Europe for adenocarcinomas; however, chemoradiation has been the treatment of choice in the US. The individualization and optimization of therapy for esophageal cancer patients may come from an in-depth understanding of molecular biology and the development of predictive biomarkers. The use of targeted and immunotherapy agents in the preoperative setting are also promising and warrant further evaluation.

Outcome of neoadjuvant therapies for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction based on a national data registry

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials have shown that neoadjuvant treatment improves survival in the curative treatment of oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. Results from population-based observational studies are, however, sparse and ambiguous.

METHODS

This prospective population-based cohort study included all patients who had oesophagectomy for cancer in Sweden, excluding clinical T1 N0, recorded in the National Register for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer, 2006-2014. Patients were stratified into three groups: surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

RESULTS

Neoadjuvant treatment was given to 521 patients (51·1 per cent) and 499 (48·9 per cent) received surgery alone. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy increased the risk of postoperative surgical complications compared with surgery alone (adjusted odds ratio 2·01, 95 per cent c.i. 1·24 to 3·25; P = 0·005). Postoperative mortality was significantly increased after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with surgery alone (odds ratio 2·37, 1·06 to 5·29; P = 0·035). Survival improved in patients with squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, whereas after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy survival was significantly improved only in the subgroup with the highest performance status and without known co-morbidity. In adenocarcinoma there was a trend towards improved overall survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy did not offer a survival benefit. Stratified analysis including only patients with adenocarcinoma in the highest performance category without known co-morbidity showed a strong trend towards improved survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (adjusted hazard ratio 0·47, 0·21 to 1·04; P = 0·061).

CONCLUSION

For patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction, neoadjuvant treatments seemed to increase long-term survival, but also the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality, compared with surgery alone. Neither neoadjuvant treatment option seemed to improve survival significantly among patients with adenocarcinoma, compared with surgery alone.

Multicentre study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage I and II oesophageal cancer

Background

The benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) for early-stage oesophageal cancer is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether NCT improves the outcome of patients with stage I or II disease.

Methods

Data were collected from 30 European centres from 2000 to 2010. Patients who received NCT for stage I or II oesophageal cancer were compared with patients who underwent primary surgery with regard to postoperative morbidity, mortality, and overall and disease-free survival. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics.

Results

Of 1173 patients recruited (181 NCT, 992 primary surgery), 651 (55·5 per cent) had clinical stage I disease and 522 (44·5 per cent) had stage II disease. Comparisons of the NCT and primary surgery groups in the matched population (181 patients in each group) revealed in-hospital mortality rates of 4·4 and 5·5 per cent respectively (P = 0·660), R0 resection rates of 91·7 and 86·7 per cent (P = 0·338), 5-year overall survival rates of 47·7 and 38·6 per cent (hazard ratio (HR) 0·68, 95 per cent c.i. 0·49 to 0·93; P = 0·016), and 5-year disease-free survival rates of 44·9 and 36·1 per cent (HR 0·68, 0·50 to 0·93; P = 0·017).

Conclusion

NCT was associated with better overall and disease-free survival in patients with stage I or II oesophageal cancer, without increasing postoperative morbidity.

Preoperative chemotherapy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been the treatment of choice for patients with localized esophageal cancer. Several studies have investigated whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery leads to improvement in cure rates, but individual reports have provided conflicting results. An explicit systematic update of the role of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer is, therefore, warranted.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to determine the role of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2013), EMBASE (1988 to 2013), and CANCERLIT (1993 to 2013). We did not confine our search to English language publications. We updated searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE in October 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All trials of patients with potentially resectable carcinoma of the esophagus (of any histologic type) who were randomly assigned to chemotherapy or no chemotherapy before surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was survival, which was assessed with the use of hazard ratios. This is an amendment to the original review, which used risk ratios to assess survival at yearly intervals. Hazard ratios (HRs) have now been introduced to summarize the complete survival experience in a single analysis. Risk ratios (RRs) were used to compare rates of resection, tumor recurrences, and treatment morbidity and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 13 randomized trials involving 2362 participants. Ten trials (2122 participants) reported sufficient detail on survival to be included in a meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Preoperative chemotherapy improves overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.96) and is associated with a significantly higher rate of complete (R0) resection (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.19).No evidence suggests that the overall rate of resection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01), tumor recurrence (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22) or nonfatal complications (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06) was different for preoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone. Trials reported risks of toxicity with chemotherapy that ranged from 11% to 90%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In summary, preoperative chemotherapy plus surgery offers a survival advantage compared with surgery alone for patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer, but the evidence is of moderate quality. Some evidence of toxicity and preoperative mortality have been associated with chemotherapy.

Correlation of Aurora-A expression with the effect of chemoradiation therapy on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is one of the most useful treatments for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, because some patients respond well to CRT and others do not, it is important to be able to predict response to CRT before beginning treatment by using markers. Aurora-A encodes a cell cycle regulated serine/threonine kinase that has essential functions in centrosome maturation and chromosome segregation. In this study, we investigated the relationship between the expression of Aurora-A and the response to CRT in patients with ESCC.

METHODS

We immunohistochemically investigated the expression of Aurora-A in biopsy specimens of untreated primary tumors of 78 patients with ESCC and determined the relationship between Aurora-A levels and patient responses to CRT, which consisted of 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin and 40 Gy of radiation.

RESULTS

Tumors were judged as Aurora-A positive when more than 10% of the cancer cells displayed a distinct positive nuclear anti-Aurora-A immunoreaction by immunohistochemical evaluation. The tumors of 46 of 78 patients (58.9%) displayed positive expression of Aurora-A. In terms of clinical response the percentage of patients showing complete response (CR), incomplete response/stable disease of primary lesion (IR/SD), and progressive disease (PD) was 19.2, 69.2, and 11.5%, respectively. In terms of histological response the tumor grade of the 41 patients who underwent surgery was as follows: grade 1, 48.8%; grade 2, 29.2%; grade 3, 22.0%. CRT was effective for patients who had Aurora-A (+) tumors (clinically: P = 0.0003, histologically: P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that Aurora-A expression in biopsy specimens of primary tumors is associated with CRT efficacy in patients with ESCC. Assessment of Aurora-A expression in biopsy specimens maybe useful for regarding the potential utility of CRT therapy for patients with ESCC before treatment.

Undervalued criteria in the evaluation of multimodal trials for upper GI cancers

Global economies and their health systems face a huge challenge from cancer: 1 in 3 women and 1 in 2 men will develop cancer in their lifetime. In the less developed countries, the volume of cancer patients will overwhelm the existing healthcare systems. Even in developed regions, patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer usually present with locally advanced tumors that their prognosis is poor. A detailed knowledge of anatomy, embryology, epidemiology, tumor classifications and tumor growth is key understanding and evaluating the relevant research. We review undervalued criteria necessary to evaluate the response to multimodal therapy for upper GI cancers.

Meta-analysis of postoperative morbidity and perioperative mortality in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancers

BACKGROUND

The long-term survival benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and chemoradiotherapy (NACR) for oesophageal carcinoma are well established. Both are burdened, however, by toxicity that could contribute to perioperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched to capture the incidence of any postoperative complications, cardiac complications, respiratory complications, anastomotic leakage, postoperative 30-day mortality, total postoperative mortality and treatment-related mortality in randomized clinical trials comparing NAC or NACR with surgery alone, or NAC versus NACR. Meta-analyses comparing NAC and NACR were conducted by using adjusted indirect comparison.

RESULTS

Twenty-three relevant studies were identified. Comparing NAC or NACR with surgery alone, there was no increase in morbidity or mortality attributable to neoadjuvant therapy. Subgroup analysis of NACR for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) suggested an increased risk of total postoperative mortality and treatment-related mortality compared with surgery alone: risk ratio 1·95 (95 per cent confidence interval 1·06 to 3·60; P = 0·032) and 1·97 (1·07 to 3·64; P = 0·030) respectively. A combination of direct comparison and adjusted indirect comparison showed no difference between NACR and NAC regarding morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Neither NAC nor NACR for oesophageal carcinoma increases the risk of postoperative morbidity or perioperative mortality compared with surgery alone. There was no clear difference between NAC and NACR. Care should be taken with NACR in oesophageal SCC, where an increased risk of postoperative mortality and treatment-related mortality was apparent.

Correlation between the pretherapeutic neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and the pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

An elevation in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been shown to be associated with a poorer prognosis in patients with various tumors. The aim of this retrospective study was to clarify the correlation of the pretherapeutic NLR with the prognostic value of the pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with advanced esophageal cancer.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of 83 patients undergoing NAC for advanced esophageal cancer following esophagectomy. The NLR was measured before NAC, and the pathologic responses to NAC were evaluated.

RESULTS

A comparison was performed for those whose pathology responded (responders) (G3/G2/G1b) and nonresponders (G1a/G0). In a univariate analysis, the cStage (P = 0.005), cN (P = 0.0001), and NLR (P = 0.005) were statistically significant parameters. A multivariate analysis revealed that the factors independently associated with pathologic responses were the pretreatment NLR (<2.2/≥2.2) (P = 0.043) and lymph nodes metastasis (P = 0.002). The pretreatment NLR (<2.2/≥2.2) was found to be a statistically significant useful predictive marker for a pathologic response (P = 0.001). The pathologic response rates were 56% in the patients with an NLR <2.2 and 21% in patients with an NLR of ≥2.2.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to demonstrate that the pretherapeutic NLR can be used as a predictor for chemosensitivity of thoracic esophageal cancer. Preoperative evaluation based on the clinical N stage and NLR may be easily used in routine clinical practice.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma has been a focus of study, but no agreement has been reached on clinical randomized controlled trials and relevant systematic evaluation. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma. Medline and manual searches was conducted in PubMed, ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) meeting summary, Embase, the Cochrane Library (up to October 2010), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database, Wanfang Database. The selection contents were to identify all published and unpublished RCTs that compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma. Sixteen RCTs which included 2,594 patients were selected. The risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]; P value), expressed as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone (treatment versus control), was 1.02 (0.95, 1.10; P=0.54) for 1-year survival, 1.29 (1.13, 1.47; P=0.0001) for 3-year survival, 1.31 (1.13, 1.51; P=0.0003) for 5-year survival, 1.00 (0.95, 1.04; P= 0.85) for rate of resection and 0.89 (0.64, 1.23; P=0.48) for operative mortality. The results showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma can raise the overall survival rate of patients with esophageal carcinoma, but it does not affect treatment-related mortality.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In a previous meta-analysis, we identified a survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma. We updated this meta-analysis with results from new or updated randomised trials presented in the past 3 years. We also compared the benefits of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

To identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings, we searched Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane clinical trials database) for studies published since January, 2006, and also manually searched for abstracts from major conferences from the same period. Only randomised studies analysed by intention to treat were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data. We also investigated treatment effects by tumour histology and relations between risk (survival after surgery alone) and effect size.

FINDINGS

We included all 17 trials from the previous meta-analysis and seven further studies. 12 were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1854), nine were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1981), and two compared neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=194) in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma; one factorial trial included two comparisons and was included in analyses of both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=78) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=81). The updated analysis contained 4188 patients whereas the previous publication included 2933 patients. This updated meta-analysis contains about 3500 events compared with about 2230 in the previous meta-analysis (estimated 57% increase). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.88; p<0.0001); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.80 (0.68-0.93; p=0.004) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.75 (0.59-0.95; p=0.02). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.87 (0.79-0.96; p=0.005); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.92 (0.81-1.04; p=0.18) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.83 (0.71-0.95; p=0.01). The HR for the overall indirect comparison of all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.88 (0.76-1.01; p=0.07).

INTERPRETATION

This updated meta-analysis provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. A clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. These results should help inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials.

FUNDING

Cancer Australia and the NSW Cancer Institute.

Meta-analysis of neoadjuvant treatment modalities and definitive non-surgical therapy for oesophageal squamous cell cancer

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment for resectable oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is surgical resection with adequate lymphadenectomy. Most Western patients receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In recent years some patients have received CRT alone (definitive CRT, dCRT). This meta-analysis sought to clarify the benefits of neoadjuvant and definitive treatment for OSCC.

METHODS

Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using the Cochrane database, MEDLINE and Embase. Only RCTs with intention-to-treat analysis, and published hazard ratios (HRs) or estimates from survival data, were included.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs involving neoadjuvant CRT versus surgery, eight involving neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery, and three involving neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery or surgery alone versus dCRT were identified. The HR for overall survival was 0·81 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·70 to 0·95; P = 0·008) after neoadjuvant CRT and 0·93 (0·81 to 1·08; P = 0·368) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The likelihood of R0 resection was significantly higher after neoadjuvant treatment (CRT: HR 1·15, P = 0·043; chemotherapy: HR 1·16, P = 0·006). Morbidity rates were not increased after neoadjuvant CRT (HR 0·94, P = 0·363) but 30-day mortality was non-significantly higher with combined treatment. Morbidity (HR 1·03, P = 0·638) and mortality (HR 1·04, P = 0·810) rates after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery did not differ from those after surgery alone. None of the RCTs reporting outcome after dCRT demonstrated a significant survival benefit, but treatment-related mortality rates were lower (HR 7·60, P = 0·007) than with neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery or surgery alone.

CONCLUSION

For patients with resectable OSCC, a significant survival benefit for neoadjuvant CRT was evident, with no increase in morbidity rate. dCRT did not demonstrate any survival benefit over other curative strategies. Copyright © 2011 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer

The management of esophageal cancer has been evolving over the past 30 years. In the United States, multimodality treatment combining chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) prior to surgical resection has come to be accepted by many as the standard of care, although debate about its overall effect on survival still exists, and rightfully so. Despite recent improvements in detection and treatment, the overall survival of patients with esophageal cancer remains lower than most solid tumors, which highlights why further advances are so desperately needed. The aim of this article is to provide a complete review of the history of esophageal cancer treatment with the addition of chemotherapy, RT, and more recently, targeted agents to the surgical management of resectable disease.

Preoperative or postoperative therapy for resectable oesophageal cancer: an updated practice guideline

AIMS

Oesophageal cancer is an aggressive disease and the optimal therapy for patients with resectable tumours remains unclear. A systematic review and companion practice guideline were published in 2004; however, new evidence has become available since the publication of the original report. An update of the literature search and a revision of the recommendations were undertaken to incorporate the new data. The following research question was addressed: should patients with resectable oesophageal cancer receive preoperative or postoperative therapy together with surgery? The outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects and quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The literature search of the original systematic review was updated to April 2007. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for reports of randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing preoperative or postoperative therapy with surgery alone or other preoperative or postoperative therapy. After the completion of the draft systematic review and practice guideline, the report was distributed through a mailed survey to 133 health care providers in Ontario for review and feedback.

RESULTS

The updated literature search yielded eight new randomised controlled trial reports and seven new meta-analysis reports for consideration, together with the evidence reviewed in the original review publication. Of the 31 practitioners who responded to the mailed survey, 80% agreed with the draft recommendations as stated, 83% agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline and 86% indicated that they would probably use the guideline in their own practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy is recommended as the preferred modality for the management of surgically resectable patients with oesophageal cancer. Preoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone is an alternative choice for the management of these patients.

Circulating tumor cells in gastrointestinal malignancies: current techniques and clinical implications

Since their introduction more than 50 years by Engell, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been evaluated in cancer patients and their detection has been correlated with clinical outcome, in esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer. With the availability of refined technologies, the identification of CTCs from peripheral blood is emerging as a useful tool for the detection of malignancy, monitoring disease progression, and measuring response to therapy. However, increasing evidence suggests a variety of factors to be responsible for disease progression. The analysis of a single CTC marker is therefore unlikely to accurately predict progression of disease with sufficient resolution and reproducibility. Here we discuss the current concept of CTCs, summarize the available techniques for their detection and characterization, and aim to provide a comprehensive update on the clinical implications of CTCs in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies.

Therapeutic strategies in oesophageal carcinoma: role of surgery and other modalities

Traditionally, surgery is considered the best treatment for oesophageal cancer in terms of locoregional control and long-term survival. However, survival 5 years after surgery alone is about 25%, and, therefore, a multidisciplinary approach that includes surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, alone or in combination, could prove necessary. The role of each of these treatments in the management of oesophageal cancer is under intensive research to define optimum therapeutic strategies. In this report we provide an update on treatment strategies for resectable oesophageal cancers on the basis of recent published work. Results of the latest randomised trials allow us to propose the following guidelines: surgery is the standard treatment, to be used alone for stages I and IIa, or possibly with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for stage IIb disease. For locally advanced cancers (stage III), neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is appropriate for adenocarcinomas. Chemoradiotherapy alone should only be considered in patients with squamous-cell carcinomas who show a morphological response to chemoradiotherapy, and produces a similar overall survival to chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, but with less post-treatment morbidity. Although the addition of surgery to chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy could result in improved local control and survival, surgery should be done in experienced hospitals where operative mortality and morbidity are low. Moreover, surgery should be kept in mind as salvage treatment in patients with no morphological response or persistent tumour after definitive chemoradiotherapy.

Randomized controlled study on preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell cancer in a single institution

The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical results between preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRT group) and surgery alone (Surgery group) by a randomized controlled study. Twenty-two patients were assigned to the CRT group and 23 to the Surgery group. A total radiation dose of 40 Gy was applied and in the same period, intravenous chemotherapy was performed using cisplatin (7 mg over 2 h) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU; 350 mg over 24 h). Surgical treatment was performed in 20 patients in the CRT group except for two patients with bone metastasis after CRT. According to histological effects of primary tumors, the number of patient with Grades 1, 2 and 3 was 11, 7 and 3, respectively. Frequency of lymphatic and venous invasion was significantly lower in the CRT group than in the Surgery group. The 5-year survival rate was 57% in the CRT group and 41% in the Surgery group (P = 0.58). According to the histological effect in the CRT group, 5-year survival was 30% for Grade 1, 83% for Grade 2 and 100% for Grade 3 (P = 0.0069). This randomized trial did not demonstrate a statistically significant survival difference between the CRT group and the Surgery group.

Preoperative chemotherapy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been the treatment of choice for localized esophageal cancer. A number of studies have investigated whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery leads to an improvement in cure rates but the individual reports have been conflicting. An explicit systematic update of the role of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of resectable thoracic esophageal cancer is, therefore, warranted.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to determine the role of preoperative chemotherapy on patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinomas.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMBASE (1988 to 2006) and CANCERLIT (1993 to 2002). There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All trials of patients with potentially resectable carcinomas of the esophagus (of any histologic type) who were randomised to having either chemotherapy or no chemotherapy before surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was survival, which was assessed using hazard ratios. This is an amendment to the original review which used relative risks to assess survival at yearly intervals. Hazard ratios (HR) have now been introduced to summarise the complete survival experience in a single analysis. The risk ratio (relative risk; RR) was used to compare rates of resections, tumour recurrences and treatment morbidity and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

There were eleven randomised trials involving 2019 patients. Eight trials (1729 patients) reported sufficient detail on survival to be included in a meta-analysis for the primary outcome. There was some evidence to suggest that preoperative chemotherapy improves survival, but this was inconclusive (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.04). There was no evidence to suggest that the overall rate of resections (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01) or the rate of complete resections (R0) (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.15) differ between the preoperative chemotherapy arm and surgery alone. There is no evidence that tumour recurrence (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22) or non-fatal complication rates (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06) differ for preoperative chemotherapy compared to surgery alone. Trials reported risks of toxicity with chemotherapy that ranged from 11% to 90%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In summary, preoperative chemotherapy plus surgery may offer a survival advantage compared to surgery alone for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer, but the evidence is inconclusive. There is some evidence of toxicity and preoperative mortality associated with chemotherapy.

Efficacy and toxicity of fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cisplatin/nedaplatin treatment as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced esophageal carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Patients with advanced esophageal carcinoma including clinical T4 tumor, extensive lymph node metastasis, or intramural metastasis have a dismal prognosis, despite recent multimodality treatments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy using fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cisplatin or nedaplatin (FAP/N) in these patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-six patients were enrolled in this study. The first 9 patients received 600 mg/m2 fluorouracil on days 1-7 and days 29-35, and 30 mg/m2 doxorubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on days 1 and 29 (FAP). The next 17 patients received modified FAP, in which 50 mg/m2 nedaplatin was given instead of cisplatin (FAN).

RESULTS

Grade 3 or 4 toxicities developed in 6 patients (23.1%) during chemotherapy, but there was no discontinuation of treatment. The clinical response rate was 46.2%. Twenty-one patients (80.8%) underwent esophagectomy, and R0 resection was achieved in 16 patients (61.5%). The 1-year survival rates of 26 patients, 21 patients with resectable tumor, 16 with R0 resection, and 12 clinical responders, were 31.3%, 32.1%, 33.3%, and 45.5%, respectively, each with a median survival time of 9 months. The median progression-free survival time of 26 patients was 6 months; in 16 patients with R0 resection progression-free survival was 6.5 months. There was no correlation between the recurrence pattern and tumor spread before treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

FAP/N was found to have acceptable toxicities and the ability to control locoregional tumors, but made little contribution to patient survival. The efficacy of this treatment for patients with advanced esophageal carcinoma, however, may not yet be apparent.

Preoperative chemotherapy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery has been the treatment of choice for localized esophageal cancer. A number of studies have investigated whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery leads to an improvement in cure rates, but the individual reports have been conflicting. An explicit systematic update of the role of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of resectable thoracic esophageal cancer is therefore warranted.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to determine the role of preoperative chemotherapy on patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinomas.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE (1966 - 2003), EMBASE (1988 - 2003) and CancerLit (1993 - 2003). There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Types of studies. Studies that randomised patients with potentially resectable carcinomas of the esophagus (of any histologic type) to chemotherapy or no chemotherapy before surgeries were included in this review. Types of participants. The participants consisted of patients with localized potentially resectable thoracic esophageal carcinomas. Trials involving patients with carcinomas of the cervical esophagus were excluded. Types of interventions. Trials that compared chemotherapy before surgery (esophagectomy) with surgical resections alone (esophagectomy) were included. Types of outcome measures. The primary outcome was overall survival at yearly intervals after randomisation. Secondary outcomes of interest included rates of resections, response to chemotherapy, rates of local and distant recurrences, quality-of-life, and treatment morbidity and mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All analyses were carried out on intention-to-treat. Survival at 1, 2, 3, 4 and five years were used as endpoints of clinical relevance along with the median survival. The risk ratio (relative risk; RR) was the primary measure of effect for survival, rates of resections, and tumour recurrences. The risk difference (RD) was used to describe differences in response to chemotherapy, treatment morbidity and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 11 randomised trials involving 2051 patients. At 1- year and 2-year the risk ratios showed no difference in survival between preoperative chemotherapy and surgery alone. The 3-year risk ratios found a 21% increase in survival (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.68; p = 0.25) and a 24% increase in survival with preoperative chemotherapy at 4 years (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.68; p = 0.15) but they did not reach statistical significance. Only at 5 years did the results become significant (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.97; p = 0.02). The overall rate of resections and the rate of complete resections (R0) did not differ between the preoperative chemotherapy arm and surgery alone. The pooled clinical response to chemotherapy was about 36% (RD = 0.36; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.47) but the complete pathologic response was a disappointing 3% (RD = 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04). No single agent or combination of chemotherapeutic agents was found to be superior to the others. There was a 19% reduction in local recurrence with preoperative chemotherapy, but this was not significant (RR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; p = 0.3). Preoperative chemotherapy was somewhat more harmful to patients than surgery alone.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

In summary, preoperative chemotherapy plus surgery appears to offer a survival advantage at 3, 4, and 5 years, which reached significance only at 5 years compared to surgery alone for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer of any histologic type. The number needed to treat for one extra survivor at five years is eleven patients. The results are tempered by the increased toxicity and mortality associated with chemotherapy. The most beneficial chemotherapy combination appears to be cisplatin and 5-flurouracil based, however, the dosing is unclear.