Neoadjuvant chemoradiation radiation dose levels for surgically resectable esophageal cancer: predictors of use and outcomes

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Followed by Surgery for Locally Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma Esophagus: Demographics and Evaluation of Prognostic Factors at a Tertiary Care Center in India

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery has been the standard of care for locally advanced carcinoma esophagus. We present our experience and inference of various factors associated with the same treatment and the prognostic influence of the same. A retrospective analysis of a cohort of 132 squamous cell carcinoma esophagus patients post neoadjuvant chemoradiation operated with curative intent was carried out. The 2-year overall survival rate was 64.5%. A pathological complete response was achieved in 32.5% of patients and was the only factor that significantly determined overall survival (p = 0.048). Neoadjuvant chemoradiation before surgery for locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the esophagus remains the standard of care with a pathological complete response being a significant factor in predicting overall survival. More prospective randomized studies are necessary to analyze factors affecting and predicting a pathological complete response which would help organ preservation in patients with a complete response.

Fragmented care, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and overall survival in patients receiving surgery and chemotherapy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Increasing regionalization for esophagectomy for cancer may lead patients to travel for surgery at one institution and receive chemotherapy at another closer to home. We explore the effects on survival for care fragmentation, the Commission on Cancer status of secondary institutions providing chemotherapy, and the type of institution performing surgery.

METHODS

We queried the National Cancer Database to identify all patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and received perioperative chemotherapy between 2006 and 2019. Patients were divided into single-center care, fragmented-to-Commission on Cancer care, or fragmented-to-non-Commission on Cancer care. We identified associations using multivariable logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 18,502 patients met the criteria for inclusion: 8,290 (44.8%) received single-center care; 3,414 (18.5%) fragmented-to-Commission on Cancer care; and 6,798 (36.4%) fragmented-to-non-Commission on Cancer care. Fragmented care was more likely in White patients (adjusted odds ratio = 1.25; P < .001) and in patients nonadjacent to a metropolitan area (adjusted odds ratio = 1.36; P < .001). Overall survival was equivalent between single-center and fragmented care, but undergoing an esophagectomy at an academic center was associated with improved survival (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.82; P = .016). In patients with an esophagectomy at a nonacademic center, overall survival was best if perioperative chemotherapy was administered at Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities compared with chemotherapy at fragmented-to-non-Commission on Cancer centers (P = .022).

CONCLUSION

Most of the esophageal cancer care in the US is fragmented at multiple institutions. When care is fragmented, it is most commonly at non-Commission on Cancer centers for perioperative chemotherapy. Overall survival is best when esophagectomy is performed at an academic center, and perioperative therapy is administered at Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities.

Nivolumab adjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer: a review based on subgroup analysis of CheckMate 577 trial

Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Approximately 50% of patients have locally advanced disease. The CROSS and NEOCRTEC5010 trials have demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment for patients with resectable disease. However, a pathological complete response is frequently not achieved, and most patients have a poor prognosis. The CheckMate 577 trial demonstrates that nivolumab adjuvant therapy improves disease-free survival in patents without a pathological complete response. However, there are still numerous clinical questions of concern that remain controversial based on the results of the subgroup analysis. In this review, we aim to offer constructive suggestions addressing the clinical concerns raised in the CheckMate 577 trial.

Safety and efficacy of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus cisplatin in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus cisplatin (TP) or carboplatin (TC) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (LA-ESCC) who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center retrospective study assessed patients with LA-ESCC (cT2N + M0, cT3-4aNanyM0) receiving NCRT plus curative-intent esophagectomy with TP or TC regimen. The primary endpoints were grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) and overall survival (OS). AEs were compared using a t-test according to CTCAE 4.0. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared using the log-rank test; the treatment effect was measured using hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

We included 151 and 50 patients in the TC and TP groups, respectively. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were well balanced between groups. The TP group exhibited significantly higher hematologic and non-hematologic AEs than the TC group, and the noticeable difference was the incidence of febrile neutropenia of grade 3 or higher (P = 0.011). No significant intergroup differences were noted considering postoperative complications, resection margins, or pathological complete remission rate (all P > 0.05). OS and progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between groups. The estimated 3-year OS and PFS rates were 65.1% versus 69.4% and 58.4% versus 53.5% for TP and TC groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In patients with LA-ESCC, we recommend TC, not TP, as an optimal chemotherapy regimen for NCRT, given its superiorsafety profile and comparable efficacy.

Nonregional Lymph Nodes as the Only Metastatic Site in Stage IV Esophageal Cancer

Introduction

Metastatic involvement of at least one nonregional lymph node currently renders patients with esophageal cancer as having stage IV disease. However, the management and outcomes of patients whose sole determinant of stage IV status is nonregional lymph nodes (abbreviated as "stage IV-nodal" disease) have not been fully characterized.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, the National Cancer Database was queried to identify patients 18 years of age or older who were diagnosed with stage IV esophageal cancer between 2016 and 2019. Survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models in the overall sample and a propensity-matched sample. Patients with "stage IV-nodal" disease were compared with patients with systemic metastases involving a single organ or multiple organs.

Results

Overall, 11,589 patients with clinical stage IV esophageal cancer were identified, including 1331 (11.5%) patients with stage IV-nodal disease. Patients with stage IV-nodal disease were more likely to receive chemotherapy (77%) than those with single systemic organ metastases (64%) and multiorgan metastases (63%) (p < 0.0001); patients with stage IV-nodal disease were also more likely to receive radiation (49%) than those with single systemic organ metastases (40%) and multiorgan metastases (39%) (p < 0.0001). Squamous cell carcinoma (OR = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-1.86, p < 0.0001) and academic facility type (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.4, p = 0.0009) were associated with higher likelihood of the stage IV-nodal presentation. Patients with stage IV-nodal disease experienced superior survival (hazard ratio = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.66-0.78, p < 0.0001) than those with stage IV-single systemic metastases (reference group) and stage IV-multiorgan disease (hazard ratio = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.24-1.37).

Conclusions

Approximately 12% of patients with stage IV esophageal cancer lack systemic metastases at presentation. These patients with stage IV-nodal disease are more likely to receive treatment and experience superior survival. Further study of the stage IV-nodal population and consideration of a potential stage IV subclassification system is justified.

Prognostic Effect of the Dose of Radiation Therapy and Extent of Lymphadenectomy in Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Carcinoma

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been used for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the optimal dose of radiation therapy and the effect of lymphadenectomy after neoadjuvant therapy on patient outcomes are uncertain. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery for ESCC. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who received radiation doses of 45.0 Gy (PF4500) and 50.4 Gy (PF5040). Subgroup analysis was performed based on the number of lymph nodes removed through lymph node dissection (LND). Data from a total of 126 patients were analyzed. No significant differences were found in 3-year OS and DFS between the PF4500 and PF5040 groups (OS: 45% versus 54%, p = 0.218; DFS: 34% versus 37%, p = 0.506). In both groups, no significant differences were found in 3-year locoregional-specific DFS between patients with a total LND number ≤17 and >17 (PF4500, 35% versus 50%, p = 0.291; PF5040 group, 45% versus 46%, p = 0.866). The PF5040 and PF4500 groups were comparable in terms of survival outcomes and local control. Although no additional survival benefits were identified, the extent of LND should not be altered according to the radiation dose.

The Key Clinical Questions of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer—A Review

Over 50% of individuals with esophageal cancer (EC) present with advanced stages of the disease; therefore, their outcome following surgery alone is poor, with only 25%–36% being alive 5 years post-surgery. Based on the evidence that the CROSS and NEOCRTEC5010 trials provided, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is now the standard therapy for patients with locally advanced EC. However, there are still many concerning clinical questions that remain controversial such as radiation dose, appropriate patient selection, the design of the radiation field, the time interval between chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and surgery, and esophageal retention. With immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) rapidly becoming a mainstay of cancer therapy, along with radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery, the combination mode of immunotherapy is also becoming a hot topic of discussion. Here, we try to provide constructive suggestions to answer the perplexing problems and clinical concerns for the progress of nCRT for EC in the future.

Gross Tumor Volume Predicts Survival and Pathological Complete Response of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

Background

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neo-CRT) plus surgery has greatly improved the prognosis of locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) patients. But which factors may influence the pathological tumor response and long-term survival remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to identify the prognostic biomarkers of locally advanced EC patients receiving neo-CRT.

Methods

We reviewed the data of 72 patients with cT2-4N0-3M0 EC who underwent neo-CRT at our hospital. The patients received intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a total radiation dose of 41.4–60.0 Gy. Most patients received platinum + paclitaxel-based combination regimens every three weeks for 2–4 cycles. The recorded data included age, sex, smoking history, alcohol use, histology, tumor location, clinical TNM stage, tumor length, gross tumor volume (GTV), GTV of primary tumor (GTVp), GTV of lymph nodes (GTVn), radiation dose, and number of chemotherapy cycles. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and pathological complete response (pCR) were analyzed.

Results

The 3-year OS and PFS rates of these patients who underwent neo-CRT were 51.14% and 43.28%, respectively. In the univariate analyses, smoking history, clinical stage, GTV, GTVp, and GTVn were significantly associated with OS, whereas alcohol use, GTV, GTVp, and GTVn were significantly associated with PFS. Furthermore, in the multivariate analysis, GTV was an independent prognostic predictor of OS (hazard ratio (HR): 14.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.747–53.33, P < 0.0001) and PFS (HR: 6.090, 95% CI: 2.398–15.47, P < 0.0001). In addition, GTV < 60.50 cm³ compared to > 60.50 cm³ was significantly associated with higher pCR rate (59.3% and 27.8%, respectively, P = 0.038). High dose (> 50 Gy) and increased number of chemotherapy cycles (≥ 3) didn’t improve the OS or PFS in patients with GTV > 60.50 cm³.

Conclusion

GTV was an independent prognostic factor of long-term survival in EC patients, which may be because GTV is associated with histological response to neo-CRT. Additionally, patients with GTV > 60.50 cm³ didn’t benefit from increased radiation dose or increased number of chemotherapy cycles.

Comparison of Pathologic Complete Response Rates and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients With Surgically Resectable Esophageal Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy vs 41.4 Gy

Background

Excellent outcomes and high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) have been reported in patients with operable esophageal carcinoma using 41.4 Gy of radiation with concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel. With pCR rates similar to studies using higher doses, it remains unclear whether doses greater than 41.4 Gy result in improved outcomes. This study aims to compare pCR rates and oncologic outcomes in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy vs 41.4 Gy.

Methods

We reviewed the charts of patients with operable esophageal carcinoma who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by oncologic resection. Our primary endpoint was the pCR rate. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. 

Results

We identified 43 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Nineteen patients were treated with 41.4 Gy and 24 were treated with 50.4 Gy. Cohorts were well-matched, except for a significantly higher percentage of patients with adenocarcinoma (AC) (89.5% vs 54.2%, p = 0.02), usage of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (100% vs 47.6%; p = 0.002), and usage of carboplatin, plus paclitaxel (100% vs 75%; p = 0.003) in the 41.4 Gy group. The pCR rate for the cohort was 44.2%. No differences in the pCR rate (41.7% vs 47.4%), three-year overall survival (OS) (73.7% vs 77.5%), or three-year PFS (52.8% vs 43.7%) were observed. Late toxicity rates also did not vary significantly (p = 0.2). No grade 4 or 5 events were observed.

Conclusion

In this small series, there were no differences in the pCR rate, PFS, or OS between those treated with 50.4 Gy and 41.4 Gy. Larger, multi-institutional series are needed to validate these findings.

Omitting surgery in esophageal cancer patients with complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery is a standard treatment modality for locally-advanced esophageal cancer. However, patients who achieve clinical complete response (cCR) after nCRT have been reported to have better prognosis. Further, the role of surgery in these patients is controversial. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether surgery is still useful in patients with cCR after nCRT.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases for studies on surgical efficacy in complete responders after concurrent chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. The publication date was set to January 1, 2010-January 31, 2020. The hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio were used to compare the 2-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), incidence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, and treatment mortality between the nCRT and nCRT plus surgery groups.

RESULTS

Six articles involving 609 patients were included. There was a significant benefit of nCRT for OS (HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04), but not for DFS (HR = 1.55, 95% CI 0.35-6.86, p = 0.56). The nCRT group tended to have lower mortality than the nCRT plus surgery group (risk ratio = 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-1.18, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Omitting surgery provides better OS in complete responders after nCRT. Adding surgery could increase the morbidity and mortality and decrease the quality of life. Thus, nCRT alone could be a feasible approach for patients with cCR.

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

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

Utility of positron emission-computed tomography for predicting pathological response in resectable oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiation

OBJECTIVES

For patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer, improved complete pathological response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) and the detrimental effects on the quality of life related to oesophagectomy have led to the need for a reliable method to select patients who have achieved complete pathological response and do not need surgery. The reliability of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission-computed tomography (PET-CT) for predicting the pathological response after nCRT was evaluated.

METHODS

Patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer who were treated with nCRT and oesophagectomy from July 2010 to February 2017 were analysed. On the post-nCRT PET-CT, a complete metabolic response was defined as all tumourous lesions demonstrating maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ≤2.5. To minimize the effect of radiation-induced oesophagitis, complete metabolic response was also defined as no viable lesion distinguishable from the background with diffuse uptake. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were analysed for SUVmax, [X]ΔSUVmax and %ΔSUVmax.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma were analysed. The rate of complete pathological response was 27.8%, and that of complete metabolic response was 7.6%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value based on SUVmax ≤2.5 and visual normalization were 95%, 14%, 74% and 50%, respectively. Analysis for [X]ΔSUVmax and %ΔSUVmax using the optimal cut-off values determined by the receiver operating characteristic curves did not show an improved predictive efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

PET-CT is not a reliable tool for predicting pathological response. Patients diagnosed with resectable oesophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy should not be exempt from surgery based on PET-CT results.

Chemoradiotherapy Using Carboplatin plus Paclitaxel versus Cisplatin plus Fluorouracil for Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer

BACKGROUND

Trimodality therapy (TMT) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) using concurrent carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CP) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locoregional esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. Alternatively, nCRT with cisplatin plus fluorouracil (CF) can be used. Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) with CP or CF can be used if surgery is not planned. In the absence of comparative trials, we aimed to evaluate outcomes of CP and CF in the settings of TMT and dCRT.

METHODS

A single-site, retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre to identify all patients who received CRT for locoregional esophageal or GEJ cancer. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression model. The inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used for sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2015, 93 patients with esophageal (49%) and GEJ (51%) cancers underwent nCRT (n = 67; 72%) or dCRT (n = 26; 28%). Median age was 62.3 years and 74% were male. Median follow-up was 23.9 months. Comparing CP to CF in the setting of TMT, the OS and DFS rates were similar. In the setting of dCRT, CP was associated with significantly inferior 3-year OS (36 vs. 63%; p = 0.001; HR 3.1; 95% CI: 1.2-7.7) and DFS (0 vs. 41%; p = 0.004; HR 3.6; 95% CI: 1.4-8.9) on multivariable and IPTW sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

TMT with CF and CP produced comparable outcomes. However, for dCRT, CF may be a superior regimen.

Drivers of 30- and 90-day Postoperative Death After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation, followed by esophagectomy, is a standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancers. The ChemoRadiOtherapy plus Surgery versus Surgery alone (CROSS) trial reported a 30-day mortality rate of 6%. We sought to evaluate 30- and 90-day mortality in similar patients in the United States and identify predictors of higher mortality rates.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with cT3-4/N+ esophageal cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy. Bivariate univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used to identify predictors of 30- and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 7691 patients. Readmission within 30 days of surgery occurred in 6.0% of patients. Mortality was 2.9% at 30 days and 7.2% at 90 days. Positive surgical margins conferred a more than doubled risk of 30- and 90-day mortality, 5.5% vs 2.7% and 14.6% vs 6.8% (both P < .001). Facility surgical volume impacted 30-day mortality, whereas readmission was associated with 90-day mortality, both exceeding 10% (P = .004 and P = .001, respectively). In patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery converted to open, 90-day mortality was 12.1% (P < .01). For patients 69 years and older, 90-day mortality was also 12.1% (P < .001). Patients who underwent esophagectomy more than 45 days from completion of chemoradiation also had higher 90-day mortality at 8.3% vs 6.2% (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative death at 30 and 90 days after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy appears to be on par with randomized data. Positive surgical margins, squamous cell carcinomas, age 69 and older, readmission within 30 days, and conversion from a minimally invasive operation to an open operation all carry a 90-day mortality risk exceeding 10%.

Stop hedging your bets: reasons for non-adherence to a tri-modality regimen in the treatment of esophageal cancer in a multidisciplinary setting

Background

In locally-advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC), providers' concerns regarding eventual surgical candidacy can persuade physicians to defer to definitive doses of 50 Gy or higher preoperatively. We report the successful completion rate of tri-modality therapy (TMT) (documented at the outset) and reasons for TMT non-adherence at a large multi-disciplinary esophageal program.

Methods

LAEC patients diagnosed 2007-2016 from a prospective institutional database were subdivided into CRT/S+ [completed chemoradiation (CRT) and surgery] and CRT/S- (CRT and no subsequent surgery) groups. Chart review provided surgery non-adherence reasons.

Results

A total of 283 patients met planned TMT criteria: 164 (58.0%) patients received 50 or 50.4 Gy CRT, 27 patients (9.5%) received greater than 50.4 Gy, and 92 patients received less than 50 Gy (32.5%, only 8 patients received CRT to 41.4 Gy); 221 (78.1%) completed surgery (CRT/S+), while 62 (21.9%) failed to advance to surgery (CRT/S-): 25 of 62 CRT/S- patients (40.3%) evidenced metastatic progression before surgery, 4 (6.5%) were deemed unresectable intraoperatively, 4 (6.5%) expired prior to planned surgery (3 from unknown causes, 1 suicide), 8 (12.9%) experienced significant CRT-related medical decompensation and were withdrawn from surgical consideration, 16 (25.8%) voluntarily declined surgery post-CRT (largely due to long-term quality of life concerns), and 5 (8.1%) failed to advance for unknown reasons. Four of the 16 patients who voluntarily declined surgery after CRT received less than 50 Gy. The 22.2% of CRT/S+ patients achieved pathologic complete response (21.6% for adenocarcinoma and 29.0% for squamous cell carcinoma).

Conclusions

Our institution's 78% surgery completion rate among TMT-indicated patients highlights the benefits of upfront multidisciplinary care. Metastatic disease development most commonly truncated TMT with a low rate failing due to medical decompensation. Given the number of patients who voluntarily declined surgery following CRT, TMT counseling and involvement of a patient advocate are paramount prior to treatment planning.

Prognostic significance of lung radiation dose in patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Background

The prognostic significance of radiation dose to the lung or heart is unknown in esophageal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (trimodal therapy). This study aimed to determine the association between lung and heart radiation dose volumes and prognosis of esophageal cancer after trimodal therapy.

Methods

This study reviewed 123 esophageal cancer patients treated with trimodal therapy in two tertiary institutions between 2010 and 2015. The dose-volume histogram parameter of Vx was defined as the percentage of total organ volume receiving a radiation dose of x (Gy) or more. Predictors of overall survival (OS) were identified using Cox regression models. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were used to select cut-off values for dose-volume.

Results

Median follow-up was 28.3 months (range: 4.7–92.8 months). Median OS and progression-free survival were 34.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.4–40.6 months) and 24.8 months (95% CI, 18.9–30.7 months), respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that lung V20 (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04–1.14; p < 0.001) and lung V5 (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00–1.05; p = 0.03) were associated with OS when adjusting for surgical margin and pathological treatment response. The 5-year OS for patients with lung V20 ≤ 23% vs. patients with lung V20 > 23% was 54.4% vs. 5% (p < 0.001) whereas that for patients with lung V5 ≤ 56% vs. patients with lung V5 > 56% was 81.5% vs. 23.4% (p < 0.001). Mean heart dose showed no association with survival outcomes.

Conclusions

Lung radiation dose was independently associated with survival outcomes in esophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-019-1283-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Influence of Neoadjuvant Radiation Dose on Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy and Survival in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by resection is standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, however, a significant portion of these patients do not undergo surgical intervention. This study evaluates radiation dose and other factors associated with undergoing esophageal resection and their impact on outcomes including survival.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between 2010 and 15 were queried from the National Cancer Database and stratified into low-dose radiation (41.4 Gy) (LDR) or high-dose radiation (50.0 or 50.4 Gy) (HDR) groups. Multivariable Logistic and Cox Regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of multiple variables on the likelihood of undergoing esophagectomy and overall survival, respectively. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce bias between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 3633 patients met study criteria with 3005 (82.7%) undergoing esophagectomy. A greater proportion received HDR (3163 (87.1%)) than LDR (470 (12.9%)). The use of LDR increased from 4.7% (n = 22) in 2010 to 20.7% (n = 154) in 2015. Factors associated with undergoing esophagectomy included LDR, adenocarcinoma histology, and younger age. Radiation dosage did not impact overall survival, but undergoing esophagectomy was associated with improved survival. After propensity matching, a greater portion of the LDR group underwent esophagectomy (87.0 vs 81.1%, p = 0.013). There was no difference in R0 3 resection (93.2 vs 92.4%, p = 0.678) or complete pathologic response (19.3 vs 21.5%, p = 0.442) between LDR and HDR groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of LDR is increasing but still underutilized. LDR is associated with increased rates of esophagectomy without negatively impacting overall survival, R0 resection, or complete pathologic response.

Induction Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Does Dose Affect Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Wide variation is seen in the dosage of preoperative induction radiation therapy for esophageal cancer. We investigated associations between outcomes after esophagectomy and dosage of induction radiation therapy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing induction radiation therapy (30 to 70 Gy), followed by esophagectomy, were identified from the National Cancer Database and classified as low (<40 Gy), standard (40 to 50.4 Gy), and high dose (>50.4 Gy). Perioperative outcomes and overall survival were compared. Subgroup analysis compared two common dosages: 45 Gy and 50.4 Gy.

RESULTS

From 2004 to 2014, 10,738 patients (84.7%) received standard-dose radiation, increasing from 69.7% in 2004 to 93.6% in 2014 (p < 0.001), 1,329 (10.5%) received low-dose radiation, and 608 (4.8%) received high-dose radiation. Higher rates of pathologic complete response (pCR; low: 11.7%, standard: 16.2%, high: 21.0%; p < 0.001) and downstaging (low: 52.0%, standard: 56.4%, high: 63.1%, p = 0.001) were observed as the dosage increased. On multivariable analysis, compared with standard-dose, high-dose radiation was associated with higher 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.11; p < 0.001) without a higher likelihood of downstaging or pCR. Low-dose radiation was associated with lower likelihood of downstaging (OR, 0.85; p = 0.04) and pCR (OR, 0.67; p < 0.001) without lowering the risk of 30-day mortality. The dose of 50.4 Gy was associated with higher likelihood of pCR (OR, 1.12; p = 0.04), without affecting 30-day mortality, compared with 45 Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose induction radiation (>50.4 Gy) is associated with increased perioperative death after esophagectomy, without a significant improvement in tumor response. Low-dose radiation (<30 Gy) is associated with worse tumor response without a lower risk of perioperative death. Within standard dosages, 50.4 Gy is associated with higher likelihood of pCR without adversely affecting perioperative mortality compared with 45 Gy.