Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial

Comparison of esophageal cancer survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus definitive chemoradiotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy remains the gold standard for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer (EC); however, chemoradiotherapy without surgery has been recommended in specific cases. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyse the survival between surgeries after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy in order to provide a theoretical basis for clinically individualised differential treatment. We conducted an initial search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Library, and Embase for English-only articles that compared treatment regimens and provided survival data. According to the final I2 value of the two survival indicators, the random effect model or fixed effect model was used to calculate the overall hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Cochrane's Q test was used to judge the heterogeneity of the studies, and a funnel plot was used to evaluate for publication bias. A sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the stability of the included studies. A total of 38 studies involving 29161 patients (neoadjuvant therapy: 15401, definitive chemoradiotherapy: 13760) were included in the analysis. The final pooled results (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.67-0.82) showed a statistically significant increase in overall survival with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine the effects of heterogeneity, additional treatment regimens, study types, and geographic regions, as well as histologic differences, complications, and recurrence, on the overall results. For people with esophageal cancer that can be removed, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with surgery improves survival compared to definitive chemoradiotherapy. However, more research is needed to confirm these results and help doctors make decisions about treatment.

Long-Term Survival and Recurrence Patterns in Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients with Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery

BACKGROUND

The higher pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has not translated into significant gains in overall survival. Data on the long-term survival of patients who obtained a pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the long-term prognosis and recurrence patterns in these patients.

METHODS

The study enrolled patients with locally advanced ESCC after neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery in the authors' hospital between January 2007 and December 2020. The factors predictive of pCR were analyzed. Furthermore, propensity score-matching was performed for those who did and those who did not have a pCR using 1:5 ratio for a long-term survival analysis. Finally, the survival and recurrence patterns of patients obtaining pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

A pCR was achieved for 61 (8.70%) of the 701 patients in the study. Univariate analysis showed that the patients without alcohol drinking had a higher possibility of obtaining a pCR, although multivariate analysis failed to confirm the difference as significant. After propensity score-matching, the 5-year overall survival was 84.50% for the patients who had a pCR and 52.90% for those who did not (p < 0.001). Among the 61 patients with a pCR, 9 patients (14.80%) experienced recurrence, including 6 patients with locoregional recurrence and 3 patients with distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Advanced ESCC patients with pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a favorable prognosis, yet some still experienced recurrence, particularly locoregional recurrence. Therefore, for this group of patients, regular follow-up evaluation also is needed.

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy vs Chemotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

The prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone.

Objective

To assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes.

Data Sources

Literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023.

Study Selection

Two blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality.

Results

The analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil-cisplatin plus cetuximab in operable, locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: Results of a phase I-II trial (FFCD-0505/PRODIGE-3)

Background

Radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil (5FU) and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal cancer is associated with a 20-25% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Cetuximab increases the efficacy of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck carcinomas. The aim of this phase I/II trial was to determine the optimal doses and the pCR rate with chemoradiotherapy (C-RT) plus cetuximab.

Methods

A 45-Gy radiotherapy regimen was delivered over 5 weeks. The phase I study determined the dose-limiting toxicity and the maximum tolerated dose of 5FU-cisplatin plus cetuximab. The phase II trial aimed to exhibit a pCR rate > 20 % (25 % expected), requiring 33 patients (6 from phase I part plus 27 in phase II part). pCR was defined as ypT0Nx.

Results

The phase I study established the following recommended doses: weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 one week before, and 250 mg/m2 during radiotherapy); 5FU (500 mg/m2/day, d1-d4) plus cisplatin (40 mg/m2, d1) during week 1 and 5. In the phase II part, 32 patients received C-RT before surgery, 31 patients underwent surgery, and resection was achieved in 27 patients. A pCR was achieved in five patients (18.5 %) out of 27. After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached.

Conclusions

Adding cetuximab to preoperative C-RT was toxic and did not achieve a pCR > 20 % as required. The recommended doses, determined during the phase I part, could explain these disappointing results due to a reduction in chemotherapy dose-intensity.

Trial registration

This trial was registered with EudraCT number 2006-004770-27.

Role of Preoperative Radiation Therapy for Resectable Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

While surgery is the primary curative treatment for resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, rates of locoregional and distant recurrence remain high with surgery alone, especially in more advanced disease. Multimodal approaches with perioperative therapy including chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy (RT) have thus evolved as ways to reduce the rates of disease recurrence and improve survival outcomes. This review article provides a comprehensive literature review on the role of preoperative RT for resectable gastric and GEJ cancer.

METHODS

A literature review on the role of preoperative RT for resectable gastric and GEJ cancer was conducted.

RESULTS

Preoperative RT has the potential to facilitate tumor downstaging and improved R0 resection, allowing for better locoregional control and thereby survival. For resectable locally advanced GEJ cancer, preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is currently a standard of care option along with perioperative chemotherapy, based on evidence from randomized trials. In resectable gastric cancer, however, the role of preoperative CRT is less defined with no randomized data to date, although phase II single-arm studies have shown promising results. Current standard of care for gastric cancer remains perioperative chemotherapy, with consideration for preoperative CRT in select cases.

CONCLUSION

Results from ongoing and future randomized controlled trials are expected to help define the role of preoperative CRT compared to perioperative chemotherapy alone as well as postoperative CRT for gastric and GEJ cancer.

Esophagogastric Cancer: The Current Role of Radiation Therapy

Radiation therapy is an effective treatment modality in the management of patients with esophageal cancer regardless of tumor location (proximal, middle, or distal esophagus) or histology (squamous cell vs adenocarcinoma). The addition of neoadjuvant CRT to surgery in patients who are surgical candidates has consistently shown a benefit in terms of locoregional recurrence, pathologic downstaging, and overall survival. For patients who are not surgical candidates, CRT has a role as definitive treatment.

Multi-disciplinary management of esophageal carcinoma: Current practices and future directions

Esophageal cancer in one of the most malignant and hard-to-treat cancers. Esophageal squamous carcinoma (ESCC) is most common in Asian countries, whereas adenocarcinoma at the esophago-gastric junction (EGJ AC) is more prevalent in the Western countries. Due to differences in both genetic background and response to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, both histologic subtypes need different paradigms of management. Since the landmark CROSS study has demonstrated the superior survival benefit of tri-modality including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy prior to esophagectomy, the tri-modality becomes the standard of care; however, it is suitable for a highly-selected patient. Tri-modality should be offered for every ESCC patient, if a patient is fit for surgery with adequate cardiopulmonary reserve, regardless of ages. Definitive chemoradiotherapy remains the best option for a patient who is not a surgical candidate or declines surgery. On the contrary, owing to doubtful benefits of radiotherapy with potentially more toxicities related to radiotherapy in EGJ AC, either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or peri-operative chemotherapy would be more preferable in an EGJ AC patient. In case of very locally advanced disease (cT4b), the proper management is more challenging. Even though, palliative care is the safe option, multi-modality therapy with curative intent like neoadjuvant chemotherapy with conversion surgery may be worthwhile; however, it should be suggested on case-by-case basis.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy improves outcomes for resectable gastroesophageal junction cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAIT) has developed rapidly in patients with gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). The suggested neoadjuvant treatment regimens for patients with GEJC may vary in light of the efficacy and safety results.

METHODS

A search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was completed to locate studies examining the safety and effectiveness of NAIT for resectable GEJC. We analyzed the effect sizes (ES) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in addition to subgroups and heterogeneity. Meta-analyses were performed using Stata BE17 software.

RESULTS

For these meta-analyses, 753 patients were chosen from 21 studies. The effectiveness of NAIT was assessed using the pathological complete response (pCR), major pathological response (MPR), and nodal downstage to ypN0 rate. The MPR, pCR, and nodal downstage to ypN0 rate values in NAIT were noticeably higher (MPR: ES = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.36-0.54; pCR: ES = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.21-0.32; nodal downstage to ypN0 rate: ES = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.48-0.72) than those of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) (MPR < 30%; pCR: ES = 3%-17%; nodal downstage to ypN0 rate: ES = 21%-29%). Safety was assessed using the treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) incidence rate, surgical delay rate, surgical complications incidence rate, and surgical resection rate. In conclusion, the incidence of trAEs, incidence of surgical complications, and surgical delay rate had ES values of 0.66, 0.48, and 0.09, respectively. These rates were comparable to those from nCT or nCRT (95% CI: 0.60-0.70; 0.15-0.51; and 0, respectively). The reported resection rates of 85%-95% with nCT or nCRT were comparable to the mean surgical resection rate of 90%.

CONCLUSION

NAIT is an effective treatment for resectable GEJC; additionally, the level of NAIT toxicity is acceptable. The long-term effects of NAIT require further study.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with sequential perioperative toripalimab in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer

BACKGROUND

Programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor demonstrated durable antitumor activity in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but the clinical benefit of perioperative immunotherapy in ESCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) combined with the PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab in patients with resectable ESCC.

METHODS

From July 2020 to July 2022, 21 patients with histopathologically confirmed thoracic ESCC and clinical staged as cT1-4aN1-2M0/cT3-4aN0M0 were enrolled. Eligible patients received radiotherapy (23 fractions of 1.8 Gy, 5 fractions a week) with concurrent chemotherapy of paclitaxel/cisplatin (paclitaxel 45 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and two cycles of toripalimab 240 mg every 3 weeks after nCRT for neoadjuvant therapy before surgery, four cycles of toripalimab 240 mg every 3 weeks for adjuvant therapy after surgery. The primary endpoint was the major pathological response (MPR) rate. The secondary endpoints were safety and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients were included, of whom 20 patients underwent surgery, 1 patient refused surgery and another patient was confirmed adenocarcinoma after surgery. The MPR and pathological complete response (pCR) rates were 78.9% (15/19) and 47.4% (9/19) for surgery ESCC patients. 21 patients (100.0%) had any-grade treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being lymphopenia (100.0%), leukopenia (85.7%), neutropenia (52.4%). 14 patients (66.7%) had adverse events of grade 3 with the most common being lymphopenia (66.7%). The maximum standardized uptake value and total lesion glycolysis of positron emission tomography/CT after neoadjuvant therapy well predicted the pathological response. The peripheral CD4+%, CD3+HLA-DR+/CD3+%, CD8+HLA-DR+/CD8+%, and IL-6 were significant differences between pCR and non-pCR groups at different times during neoadjuvant therapy. Three patients had tumor relapse and patients with MPR have longer disease-free survival than non-MPR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

nCRT combined with perioperative toripalimab is effective and safe for locally advanced resectable ESCC. Long-term survival outcomes remain to be determined.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04437212.

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.

Evaluation of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction tumors: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors is progressing slowly. Although immunotherapy for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors has made great progress, the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for locally resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors have not been clearly demonstrated. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and advance the current research.

Methods

Original articles describing the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors published up until October 15, 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and other major databases. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for heterogeneity and subgroup analysis.

Results

A total of 1074 patients from 33 studies were included. The effectiveness of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was mainly evaluated using pathological complete remission (PCR), major pathological remission (MPR), and tumor regression grade (TRG). Among the included patients, 1015 underwent surgical treatment and 847 achieved R0 resection. Of the patients treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy, 24% (95% CI: 19%-28%) achieved PCR and 49% (95% CI: 38%-61%) achieved MPR. Safety was assessed by a surgical resection rate of 0.89 (95% CI: 85%-93%), incidence of ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of 28% (95% CI: 17%-40%), and incidence of ≥ 3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of 19% (95% CI: 11%-27%).

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy, especially neoadjuvant dual-immunotherapy combinations, is effective and safe for resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction tumors in the short term. Nevertheless, further multicenter randomized trials are required to demonstrate which combination model is more beneficial.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=358752, identifier CRD42022358752.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, the optimal treatment for neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer is not clear, and there is no evidence that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT). Due to the publication of new clinical trials and defects in previous meta-analyses, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nCRT and nCT.

METHODS

The following databases were searched for studies: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library (updated to April 22, 2023). All randomized trials comparing nCRT with nCT in locally advanced esophageal cancer met the inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (Cochrane collaboration software). Primary outcomes assessed from the trials included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), pathological complete response (pCR), R0 resection rate, postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, and grade 3 or higher adverse events (3 + AEs).

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 7 randomized controlled studies involving 1372 patients (686 receiving nCRT and 686 receiving nCT). Compared with nCT, nCRT significantly improved OS (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.94), PFS (HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66-0.93), pCR (OR = 13.00; 95% CI: 7.82-21.61) and R0 resection (OR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.32-2.57), but was associated with higher postoperative mortality (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.26-4.25) and grade 3 + AEs (OR = 2.21; 95% CI: 1.36-3.58). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between nCRT and nCT (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.82-1.61). Subgroup analysis showed significant survival benefit in squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.98), but not in adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.63-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis found superior efficacy associated with nCRT compared with nCT in both tumor regression and prolonged survival, but increased the risk of postoperative mortality and grade 3 + AEs. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was more likely to benefit from nCRT than esophageal adenocarcinoma in the term of OS.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Total neoadjuvant therapy in oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma

Adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction represent a large burden of cancer death in the Western World with an increasing incidence. In the past two decades, the overall survival of patients on a potentially curative treatment pathway has more than doubled due to the addition of perioperative oncological therapies to surgery. However, patients often fail to respond to oncological treatment or struggle to complete their treatment after surgery. In this review, we discuss the current evidence for total neoadjuvant therapy and options for assessment of treatment response.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Surgical and Perioperative Treatments for Esophagogastric Junction Cancer

Esophagogastric junction cancer (EGJC) is a rare malignant disease that occurs in the gastroesophageal transition zone. In recent years, its incidence has been rapidly increasing not only in Western countries but also in East Asia, and it has been attracting the attention of both clinicians and researchers. EGJC has a worse prognosis than gastric cancer (GC) and is characterized by complex lymphatic drainage pathways in the mediastinal and abdominal regions. EGJC was previously treated in the same way as GC or esophageal cancer, but, in recent years, it has been treated as an independent malignant disease, and treatment focusing only on EGJC has been developed. A recent multicenter prospective study revealed the frequency of lymph node metastasis by station and established the optimal extent of lymph node dissection. In perioperative treatment, the combination of multi-drug chemotherapy, radiation therapy, molecular targeted therapy, and immunotherapy is expected to improve the prognosis. In this review, we summarize previous clinical trials and their important evidence on surgical and perioperative treatments for EGJC.

Great Debate: Chemoradiation Should be Added to Chemotherapy as a Neoadjuvant Treatment Strategy for Resectable Gastric Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Most patients with resectable gastric cancer present with locally advanced disease and warrant neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on level 1 evidence. However, the incremental benefit of adding radiation to chemotherapy as a neoadjuvant treatment strategy for these patients is less clear.

METHODS

While awaiting the results of two ongoing randomized clinical trials attempting to specifically address this question (TOPGEAR and CRITICS-II), this article presents the debate between two gastric cancer surgery experts supporting each side of the argument on the use or omission of neoadjuvant radiation in this setting.

RESULTS

On the one hand, neoadjuvant radiation may be better tolerated compared with modern triplet chemotherapy and may be associated with higher rates of major pathologic response. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that radiation may offer a survival benefit when the tumor is located at the gastroesophageal junction or there is concern for a margin-positive resection. However, in the setting of adequate surgery, no survival benefit has been demonstrated by adding radiation to modern chemotherapy, likely reflecting the fact that death from gastric cancer is a result of distant recurrence, which is not addressed by local treatment such as radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

While awaiting the results of the TOPGEAR and CRITICS-II trials, this discussion of current evidence can facilitate the refinement of an optimal neoadjuvant therapy strategy in patients with resectable gastric cancer.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).

METHODS

This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022.

RESULTS

EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

A risk scoring system for early diagnosis of anastomotic leakage after subtotal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most critical postoperative complications after subtotal esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer. This study attempted to develop an optimal scoring system for stratifying the risk for AL.

METHODS

The study included 171 patients who underwent subtotal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer followed by esophagogastrostomy in the cervical region from January 2011 to April 2021 at Nagoya University Hospital. AL was defined by radiologic or endoscopic evidence of anastomotic breakdown using some modalities. A risk scoring system for an early diagnosis of AL was established using factors determined in the multivariate analysis. A score was calculated for each patient, and the patients were classified into three categories according to the risk for AL: low-, intermediate- and high-risk. The trend of the risk for AL among the categories was evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (17%) developed AL. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that sinistrous gross features of drain fluid (P < 0.001; odds ratio (OR), 10.2), radiologic air bubble sign (P < 0.001; OR, 15.0) and the level of drain amylase ≥280 U/L on postoperative Day 7 (P < 0.001; OR, 9.0) were significantly associated with AL. According to the matching number of the above three risk factors and categorization into three risk groups, the incidence of AL was 6.1% (8/131) in the low-risk group, 45.5% (15/33) in the intermediate-risk group and 85.7% (6/7) in the high-risk group (area under curve, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

The present AL-risk scoring system may be useful in postoperative patient care after subtotal esophagectomy.

Peri-operative chemotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in treatment of gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinomas: A 10-year cohort study

BACKGROUND

Gastro-oesophageal junctional (GOJ) cancers have been, more latterly, considered a distinct tumor entity with characteristic genetic profiles. The optimal multimodal therapy of advanced GOJ cancers remains debatable. In this comparative study, we analyzed the outcomes of peri-operative chemotherapy (CT) versus pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in treatment of advanced GOJ adenocarcinomas.

METHODS

This study included patients with locally advanced but resectable GOJ adenocarcinomas who underwent surgical resection after oncological therapy between 2010 till 2019 at our institution. Follow up to May 2021 was completed. The outcomes between CT and CRT groups were retrospectively analyzed. The long-term follow up data was obtained via direct contact with the patients during oncological clinics, cross-checked with hospital/national patients' electronic databases.

RESULTS

107 patients had GOJ cancers; 90 (84%) patients met our inclusion criteria. Perioperative chemotherapy was administrated in 65 (72%) patients. Overall median survival rate was 2.2 years in CRT-group compared to 2.4 years in CT-group (p-value 0.29), with comparable recurrence rates (48% vs 36% respectively). R0-resections were higher in CRT-group (84%) compared to CT-group (71%), yet insignificant p-value 0.197. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy achieved higher complete pathological response (28% vs 6%, p-value 0.009) and negative lymph nodes rates (64% vs 37%, p-value 0.014) compared to CT-group. Short-term outcomes (postoperative complications, morbidity rates and length of hospital stay) were similar across both groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was associated with higher complete pathological response and negative lymph nodes rates for GOJ adenocarcinomas compared to peri-operative chemotherapy, without an increase in postoperative complications or morbidity rates. However, it wasn't associated with improved overall or disease-free survival rates.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Data Comparison from A Japanese Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Although neoadjuvant treatment has become the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, previous studies comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) have demonstrated inconclusive results.

METHODS

Our study cohort included 3978 patients from 85 institutions. Those who underwent NAC or NACRT followed by surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were eligible for inclusion. We used the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method to compare the outcomes between NAC and NACRT.

RESULTS

Among the 3978 patients, 3777 (94.9%) received NAC and 201 (5.1%) received NACRT. After IPTW adjustment, the NACRT group had more patients with pathologically downstaged diseases and significantly better pathological response compared with the NAC group (p < 0.001); however, 5-year overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and regional recurrence-specific survival (RRSS) were comparable between the groups. Subgroup analysis stratifying patients according to cT category showed that among cT1-2 patients, those in the NACRT group had significantly longer 5-year OS, RFS, and RRSS than those in the NAC group (P = 0.024, < 0.001, and 0.020, respectively). In contrast, no significant differences were observed among cT3-4a patients. The competing risks regression model showed comparable subdistribution hazard ratios for 10-year cancerous and noncancerous deaths between the NAC and NACRT groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with NAC, NACRT for ESCC did not promote better survival despite better therapeutic effects and did not increase noncancerous deaths.

Adjuvant Therapy After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Who Needs It?

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that, on average, patients do not benefit from additional adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer, although subsets of patients might. Therefore, we sought to identify profiles of patients predicted to receive the most survival benefit or greatest detriment from adding adjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND

Although neoadjuvant therapy has become the treatment of choice for locally advanced esophageal cancer, the value of adding adjuvant therapy is unknown.

METHODS

From 1970 to 2014, 22,123 patients were treated for esophageal cancer at 33 centers on 6 continents (Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration), of whom 7731 with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma received neoadjuvant therapy; 1348 received additional adjuvant therapy. Random forests for survival and virtual-twin analyses were performed for all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Patients received a small survival benefit from adjuvant therapy (3.2±10 months over the subsequent 10 years for adenocarcinoma, 1.8±11 for squamous cell carcinoma). Consistent benefit occurred in ypT3-4 patients without nodal involvement and those with ypN2-3 disease. The small subset of patients receiving most benefit had high nodal burden, ypT4, and positive margins. Patients with ypT1-2N0 cancers had either no benefit or a detriment in survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy has value primarily for patients with more advanced esophageal cancer. Because the benefit is often small, patients considering adjuvant therapy should be counseled on benefits versus morbidity. In addition, given that the overall benefit was meaningful in a small number of patients, emerging modalities such as immunotherapy may hold more promise in the adjuvant setting.

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.

To compare neoadjuvant concurrent chemo-radiotherapy followed by surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery in carcinoma esophagus patients: A single institutional study in the Indian population

Objective

This single institutional study compared neoadjuvant concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (NACCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by surgery in locally advanced middle and lower-1/3 carcinoma esophagus patients in terms of toxicity, clinical response, operative complications, disease downstaging, resection rates, pathological response, recurrence, and survival.

Materials

and

Methods

This randomized prospective comparative study comprised 40 consecutive patients divided equally between two study arms NACCRT (n = 20; 41.4 Gy radiation dose; carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 2/paclitaxel 50 mg/m2; 5 cycles) and NACT (n = 20; carboplatin AUC 5/paclitaxel 175 mg/m2; 2 cycles) from March 2014 to December 2016. Follow-up was done for 4 years. Chi-square test, Fischer's-exact test were used for comparative analysis and Kaplan-Meier analysis for survival.

Results

Statistically significant esophagitis in NACCRT and peripheral-neuropathy in NACT was observed (P < 0.001). NACCRT recorded more postoperative complications, higher complete resection (R0) rates, and pathologically complete response (pCR). Tumor downstaging was significant in both study groups (n < 0.001). Four-year median disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were 28.50 months and 38 months in NACCRT versus 28 months and 35.5 months in NACT, respectively. In both NACCRT and NACT, pCR cases showed improved median DFS and OS compared to pathological partial response (pPR) (n < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated significant activity and tolerable toxicity of taxane-based therapy in NACCRT and NACT. Both groups recorded no survival benefit over each other, although pCR cases resulted in statistically significant survival advantage compared to clinical partial response. NACCRT resulted in lesser toxicity, numerically higher R0-resection, pCRs, median DFS, and OS compared to NACT.

Current trends in perioperative treatment of resectable gastric cancer

In the last few decades, the treatment strategy for locally advanced resectable gastric cancer (GC) has shifted to a multimodal approach, which potentially decreases recurrence risk and improves survival rates. Perioperative therapy leads to downstaging, increased curative resection rates, and prolonged disease-free and overall survival, by preventing micrometastases in patients with resectable GC. Application of neoadjuvant therapy provides information about tumor biology and in vivo sensitivity. A consensus regarding the therapeutic approach for non-metastatic GC does not exist, and many clinical trials aim to clarify this aspect. Advances in precision medicine and the role of immunotherapy have been the focus of research in GC treatment. Herein, the current status and possible future developments of perioperative therapy for locally advanced resectable GC are reviewed, based on the most recent randomized clinical trials.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy is recommended for locally advanced esophageal cancer, but the optimal strategy remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients staged as cT3-4aN0-1M0 ESCC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to the nCRT or nCT group stratified by age, cN stage, and centers. The chemotherapy, based on paclitaxel and cisplatin, was administered to both groups, while concurrent radiotherapy was added for the nCRT group; then MIE was carried out. The primary endpoint was 3-year overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03001596).

RESULTS

A total of 264 patients were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. By 30 November 2021, 121 deaths had occurred. The median follow-up was 43.9 months (interquartile range 36.6-49.3 months). The overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was comparable between the nCRT and nCT strategies [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.18; P = 0.28], with a 3-year survival rate of 64.1% (95% CI 56.4% to 72.9%) versus 54.9% (95% CI 47.0% to 64.2%), respectively. There were also no differences in progression-free survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.16; P = 0.27) and recurrence-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71-1.60; P = 0.75), although the pathological complete response in the nCRT group (31/112, 27.7%) was significantly higher than that in the nCT group (3/104, 2.9%; P < 0.001). Besides, a trend of lower risk of recurrence was observed in the nCRT group (P = 0.063), while the recurrence pattern was similar (P = 0.802).

CONCLUSIONS

NCRT followed by MIE was not associated with significantly better overall survival than nCT among patients with cT3-4aN0-1M0 ESCC. The results underscore the pending issue of the best strategy of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced bulky ESCC.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma: A pooled analysis of prospective clinical trials

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) plus radical esophagectomy is currently the standard treatment for resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) carcinoma. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable esophageal or GEJ carcinoma. Prospective clinical trials investigating efficacy and/or safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) followed by radical esophagectomy in patients with newly diagnosed resectable esophageal or GEJ carcinoma were identified through literature search. Quality assessment was performed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Preliminary treatment outcomes of pathologically complete response (pCR, ypT0N0) and grade 3-4 adverse effects (AEs) were pooled together and then compared with standard NCRT of the historical control CROSS study by Chi-square (χ²) test. A two-sided P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 17 eligible non-randomized trials with 455 participants were included into analysis. The most common primary endpoint was pCR (n = 7, 41%), and the median sample size and follow-up period was 23 patients and 7.9 months, respectively. For patients receiving neoadjuvant immunotherapy, the overall pCR, R0 resection, and grade 3-4 AE rates were 33.2%, 95.5%, and 35.1%, respectively. For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and adenocarcinoma (EAC), neoadjuvant immunochemoradiotherapy showed no significant improvement in pCR rate than NCRT (ESCC, 50% vs 48.7%, P = 0.9; EAC, 32.6% vs 23.1%, P = 0.22). Grade 3-4 AEs were the most common in patients with neoadjuvant immunochemoradiotherapy, significantly higher than immunochemotherapy (46.7% vs 32.8%, P = 0.04) and NCRT (46.7% vs 18.1%, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, for patients with resectable esophageal or GEJ carcinoma, the addition of ICIs to standard NCRT could not improve pCR rate in both ESCC and EAC, but significantly increased the risk of severe AEs. Large-scale phase 3 randomized trials were urgently needed to further confirm the survival benefit and safety profile of neoadjuvant immunotherapy.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy versus Chemotherapy for Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma; Which Is the Optimal Treatment Option?

Background: Locally advanced gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJ) is treated with either perioperative chemotherapy (CT) or preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCT) followed by surgery. The aim of this study was to compare pathologic response and long-term outcomes in junction adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant RCT versus CT. Methods: All patients with locally advanced GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) followed by surgery between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: A total of 94 patients were included, 67 (71.2%) RCT and 27 (28.8%) CT. Complete pathologic response was more frequent in RCT patients (13.4% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.009) with a trend to better lymph node control (ypN0) (55.2% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.057). RCT offered no benefit in R0 resection (66.7% vs. 72.1% CT, p = 0.628) and was related to higher postoperative cardiovascular complications (35.8% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.017). Long-term overall and disease-free survival were similar (5-year OS 61.1% RCT vs. 75.7% CT, p = 0.259; 5-year DFS 33.5% RCT vs. 22.8% CT; p = 0.763). NAT type was neither independently associated with pathologic response nor long-term survival. Discussion: Patients with locally advanced GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with RCT had more postoperative cardiovascular complications but higher rates of complete pathologic response and a trend to superior locoregional lymph node control. This did not translate in a survival or recurrence benefit.

Evaluation of Clinical and Safety Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy Combined With Chemotherapy for Patients With Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

A considerable number of clinical trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with resectable esophageal cancer are emerging. However, systematic evaluations of these studies are lacking.

Objective

To provide state-of-the-art evidence and normative theoretical support for neoadjuvant immunotherapy for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant original articles and conference proceedings that were published in English through April 1, 2022.

Study Selection

Published phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included patients with resectable stage I to IV esophageal cancer who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) before surgery as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for meta-analysis were followed to extract data. A random-effects model was adopted if the heterogeneity was significant (I2 statistic >50%); otherwise, the common-effects model was used. Data analyses were conducted from April 2 to 8, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Pathological complete response (pCR) rate and major pathological response (MPR) rate were considered to be the primary outcomes calculated for the clinical outcomes of neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Incidence of treatment-related severe adverse events was set as the major measure for the safety outcome. The rate of R0 surgical resection was summarized. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to histologic subtype and ICI types.

Results

A total of 27 clinical trials with 815 patients were included. Pooled rates were 31.4% (95% CI, 27.6%-35.3%) for pCR and 48.9% (95% CI, 42.0-55.9%) for MCR in patients with esophageal cancer. In terms of safety, the pooled incidence of treatment-related severe adverse events was 26.9% (95% CI, 16.7%-38.3%). Most patients achieved R0 surgical resection (98.6%; 95% CI, 97.1%-99.6%). Regarding histologic subtypes, the pooled pCR rates were 32.4% (95% CI, 28.2%-36.8%) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and 25.2% (95% CI, 16.3%-35.1%) in esophageal adenocarcinoma. The pooled MPR rate was 49.4% (95% CI, 42.1%-56.7%) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy had promising clinical and safety outcomes for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to validate the findings and benefits of ICIs.

Neoadjuvant Chemo-Radiation Using IGRT in Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer

The goal of this study was to see how effective and safe neoadjuvant chemoradiation with image-guided IMRT was in patients with locally advanced resectable gastric cancer. Between January 2013 and June 2019, patients with locally advanced (cT3/cT4 or N+) gastric cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy at PUMCH (Peking Union Medical College Hospital) were retrospectively studied. Using concurrent chemotherapy (Capecitabine alone or XELOX*2 cycles), radiotherapy (IMRT (intensity-modulated radiation therapy) 45 Gy, 25#, 5 weeks) was delivered with IGRT (image-guided radiotherapy) before the start of each weeks therapy to ensure accuracy and repeatability. A total of 95 patients were enrolled in the study, 93 (97.9%) stage cT3/T4 and 85 (89.5%) stage N+. Of these, 85 patients (89.5%) had a tumor located in the upper 1/3 of the stomach, and 93/95 patients (97.9%) completed neoadjuvant chemoradiation, with 80 patients (84.2%) undergoing stomach resection (58 D2 and 22 D1 gastrostomies). Pathology downstaging was found in 68 patients (85.0%), with 66 patients (82.5%) receiving T downstaging and 56 patients (70.0%) receiving N downstaging. There were 11 individuals (13.8%) who had a pathological complete response (PCR). The average period of follow-up was 44.7 months (19-96 months). The 5-year OS (overall survival), LRFS (local recurrence-free survival), and DMFS (distant metastasis free survival) rates of patients were 47.0% (95% CI: 38.6-55.4), 86.55% (95% CI: 79.1-93.99) and 60.71% (95% CI: 51.49-69.93%), respectively. Thirteen (13.7%) patients had grade 3-4 leukopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia, while 9 (9.5%) patients had grade 3-4 anemia, and 5 (5.3%) patients had grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia. PCR was found to be a significant predictive factor for OS in multivariate analysis (HR = 11.211, 95% CI: 1.500-83.813, p = 0.024). The method of using IGRT image-guided IMRT (45 Gy, 25 fractions, 5 weeks) combined with concurrent chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced resectable gastric cancer was equally effective when compared to the clinical efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with clinical outcomes achieving equal efficacy, with similar PCR rates and high rates of OS, LRFS, and DMFS, as well as good tolerances of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with acceptable side effects.

Patterns of failure after salvage chemoradiotherapy for postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer: 20-year experience in a single institution in Japan

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate patterns of recurrence after salvage chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) for postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed records for 114 patients with postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer treated by platinum-based chemoradiotherapy between 2000 and 2020, and we evaluated the patterns of failure in patients who had recurrence again or who had been observed for 2 years or more after SCRT at the last observation date.

RESULTS

One hundred and three patients were enrolled in this study. The median observation period for survivors was 60 months. Fifty-three patients died of esophageal cancer and nine patients died of other diseases. The 5-year overall survival rate, cause-specific survival rate and disease-control rate were 43.7%, 45.3% and 37.0%, respectively. Sixty-five patients had failure after SCRT. In those patients, 26 patients had only distant organ or non-regional lymph node metastases, 26 patients had only loco-regional failure, and 13 patients had both. Of those 65 patients, 64 patients showed failure within 42 months after SCRT. Of 39 patients with loco-regional failure, failure in the irradiated field was observed in 28 patients. Of those 28 patients, 27 patients showed failure within 24 months and the other patient showed failure at 26.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The patterns of failure after SCRT for patients with postoperative loco-regional recurrent esophageal cancer were shown. The patterns of failure suggest that follow-up for at least 4 years after SCRT should be performed for those patients.

Evaluation of tumor regression by neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for esophageal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are treated with multimodal therapy, namely surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) depending on patient and tumor level factors. Yet, there is little consensus on choice of the optimum systemic therapy. To compare the pathological complete response (pCR) after FLOT, non-FLOT-based chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy regimes in patients with EACs. A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review and Scopus databases. Studies were included if they had investigated the use of chemo(radio)therapy regimens in the neoadjuvant setting for EAC and reported the pCR rates. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to compare the pooled pCR rates between FLOT, non-FLOT and CRT cohorts. We included 22 studies that described tumor regression post-NAC. Altogether, 1,056 patients had undergone FLOT or DCF regimes, while 1,610 patients had received ECF or ECX. The pCR rates ranged from 3.3% to 54% for FLOT regimes, while pCR ranged between 0% and 31% for ECF/ECX protocols. Pooled random-effects meta-meta-analysis of proportions showed a statistically significant higher incidence of pCR in FLOT-based chemotherapy at 0.148 (95%CI: 0.080, 0.259) compared with non-FLOT-based chemotherapy at 0.074 (95%CI: 0.042, 0.129). However, pCR rates were significantly highest at 0.250 (95%CI: 0.202, 0.306) for CRT. The use of enhanced FLOT-based regimens have improved the pCR rates for chemotherapeutic regimes but still falls short of pathological outcomes from CRT. Further work can characterize clinical responses to neoadjuvant therapy and determine whether an organ-preservation strategy is feasible.

American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Locoregional Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Systematic Review and Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the data regarding the use of neoadjuvant, perioperative, surgical, and adjuvant treatment options in localized gastric cancer patients and to develop Appropriate Use Criteria recommended by a panel of experts convened by the American Radium Society.

METHODS

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses methodology was used to develop an extensive analysis of peer-reviewed phase 2/2R/3 trials, as well as meta-analyses found within the Ovid Medline database between 2010 and 2020. The expert panel then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in 5 representative clinical scenarios through a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi).

RESULTS

For patients with medically operable locally advanced gastric cancer, the strongest recommendation was for perioperative chemotherapy based on high-quality data. Acceptable alternatives included surgery followed by either chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT). For patients with upfront resection of stages I to III gastric cancer (no neoadjuvant therapy), the group strongly recommended adjuvant therapy with either chemotherapy alone or CRT, based on high-quality data. For patients with locally advanced disease who received preoperative chemotherapy without tumor regression, the group strongly recommended postoperative chemotherapy or postoperative CRT. Finally, for medically inoperable gastric cancer patients, there was moderate consensus recommending definitive concurrent CRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of chemotherapy and/or radiation, either in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or perioperative setting, results in improved survival rates for patients compared with surgery alone. For inoperable patients, definitive CRT is a reasonable treatment option, though largely palliative.

Comparison of different neoadjuvant treatments for resectable locoregional esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The best pattern of neoadjuvant therapy for resectable locoregional esophageal cancer has not been determined. Our study evaluated the efficacy and postoperative events of different treatments using the Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We systematically tracked randomized clinical trials from the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The following treatments were included: neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (NCRT + S), neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NCT + S), neoadjuvant radiotherapy followed by surgery (NRT + S), and surgery alone (S). The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were used to assess the quality of included trials. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival or disease-free survival (PFS/DFS) were assessed through hazard ratios (HR). Locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, postoperative mortality, and postoperative morbidity were assessed through odds ratios (OR). These outcomes were compared between different treatments through Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty trials with 4384 patients were included. Compared with S, only NCRT + S could significantly improve OS for patients with esophageal cancer (HR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.88). NCRT + S and NCT + S significantly improved PFS/DFS compared with S (NCRT + S vs. S, HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.81; NCT + S vs. S, HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.97). NCRT + S significantly reduced both locoregional recurrence (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.88) and distant metastasis (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.90) compared with S. There were no differences in postoperative morbidity between the four treatments. However, NCRT + S also increased postoperative mortality compared with S (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.09-2.82) and NCT + S (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.11-3.51).

CONCLUSION

NCRT + S is the most efficient neoadjuvant treatment for resectable locoregional esophageal cancer. However, NCRT + S increases the risk of postoperative mortality but not morbidity.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is common in the developing world with decreasing incidence in developed countries and carries significant morbidity and mortality. Major risk factors for ESCC development include significant use of alcohol and tobacco. Screening for ESCC can be recommended in high-risk populations living in highly endemic regions. The treatment of ESCC ranges from endoscopic resection therapy or surgery in localized disease to chemoradiotherapy in metastatic disease, and prognosis is directly related to the stage at diagnosis. New immunotherapies and molecular targeted therapies may improve the dismal survival outcomes in patients with metastatic ESCC.

Survival and complications after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal squamous cell cancer: A meta-analysis

Objectives

To compare the survival and complications of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, Wanfang Data, CBM, and VIP databases from inception to November 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan (version 5.3) and Stata version 15.0.

Results

A total of 18 studies were included, which involved 3137 patients, The results of the metaanalysis showed that the pathological complete remission rate (odds ratio [OR] = 5.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.85–9.50, p<0.00001) and complete tumor resection rate (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.57–3.41, p<0.0001) in the NCRT group were significantly better than those in the NCT group. Our meta-analysis results showed that 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (1-year overall survival [OS]: OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.11–2.05, p = 0.009; 3-year OS: OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.36–2.21, p<0.0001; 5-year OS: OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.30–1.99, p<0.00001) in the NCRT group were significantly higher than those in the NCT group. NCRT can lead a significant survival benefit compared with NCT and there was no significant difference between the two neoadjuvant treatments in terms of postoperative complications.

Conclusion

The use of NCRT in the treatment of patients with ESCC patients showed significant advantages in terms of survival and safety relative to the use of NCT.

A Comparison Between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Treating Esophageal Carcinoma: A Study at a Tertiary Care Cancer Center in Suburban India

Background and objective

Esophageal carcinoma remains a disease associated with high mortality rates among patients even after receiving treatment. Management with surgery alone offers a five-year survival of only 20%. Hence adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies were instituted to treat this condition along with surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by surgery is currently the standard of care. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is also recommended by some authors as a method of adequate care. There is a scarcity of studies in the literature comparing NACRT with NACT. In light of this, we employed the criteria of pathological response as a primary endpoint to compare the effectiveness of NACT and NACRT in treating esophageal carcinoma.

Materials and methods

A total of 50 patients with esophageal cancer having Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores 0-2 with cancer stages cT2-T4a, cN0-N1, and cM0 were enrolled. The patients were further classified into two groups of 25 each. While one group received chemotherapy using inj. paclitaxel and carboplatin (NACT group), the other was managed with inj paclitaxel and carboplatin as well as 42 Gy of fractionated irradiation (NACRT group). Six weeks after the last dose of radiation or three weeks after chemotherapy, they were evaluated and offered transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE).

Results

Squamous cell carcinoma was found in 39 (78%) cases and 11 (22%) cases had adenocarcinoma. Pathologically complete or near-complete responses were seen in 42% of patients in the NACRT group and 22% in the NACT group.

Conclusion

While NACT and NACRT are both effective therapies for esophageal cancers, NACRT offers better tumor regression compared to NACT. Given the higher rates of complete or near-complete response in the NACRT group, NACRT is likely to offer higher overall survival rates than NACT.

The Safety and Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Camrelizumab Plus Chemotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study

Background

Neoadjuvant anti-programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) blockade has been explored in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in locally advanced ESCC.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled ESCC patients who received surgery within 3 months of treatment with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy from June 2019 to January 2021.

Results

A total of 34 eligible patients were enrolled. The neoadjuvant treatment was well tolerated with no serious treatment-related adverse events. Thirty-two (94.1%) patients achieved a R0 resection, and 14 patients (41.2%) developed postoperative complications. The objective response rate (ORR) was 61.8% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 100.0%. The major pathological response (MPR), pathological complete response (pCR), and clinical to pathological downstaging rate were 50.0%, 35.3%, and 79.4%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 14.8 months, 30 (88.2%) patients who underwent surgical resection remain alive. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) at 12 months were 86.4% and 92.8%, respectively.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is safe and efficacious in treating patients with locally advanced ESCC.

Comparable Clinical Outcome Using Small or Large Gross Tumor Volume-to-Clinical Target Volume Margin Expansion in Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of small primary gross tumor volume (GTV)-to-clinical target volume (CTV) margin expansion in neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Medical records of 139 patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and radical esophagectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated with longitudinal primary GTV-to-CTV margin expansion of 2 cm and no additional expansion of the CTV through the esophagus were classified into a small margin (SM) group (37 patients). The remaining 102 patients were classified as a large margin (LM) group. Patterns of recurrence including local and out-field regional recurrence rates were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes including rates of local control, regional control, failure-free survival, and overall survival were also compared. More patients in the SM group underwent paclitaxel + carboplatin, Mckeown esophagectomy, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy than in the LM group. With a median follow-up of 25.6 months, there was no significant difference in the crude rate of local recurrence (10.8% vs. 6.9%, P=0.694), out-field regional recurrence (27.0% vs. 19.6%, P=0.480), or out-field regional recurrence without in-field recurrence (10.8% vs. 12.7%, P=0.988) between the two groups. There was no significant difference in failure-free survival (5-year, 34.4% vs. 30.6%, P=0.652) or overall survival (44.1% vs. 38.5%, P=1.000), either. Esophageal fistula was not reported in the SM group (0.0% vs. 7.9%, P=0.176). In conclusion, a radiation field with 2 cm of longitudinal primary GTV-to-CTV was feasible in the neoadjuvant setting for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treatment.

Prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing surgery versus no surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Esophageal surgery is an invasive surgical method with high surgical risk, and seriously affects postoperative quality of life. This study compared the prognosis of patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (Neo-CRT) plus surgery and Neo-CRT alone, in order to explore the necessity of continuing operation after Neo-CRT.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 223 patients who received Neo-CRT in Taizhou Hospital Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University from June 2007 to December 2014. According to the treatment, the patients were divided into Neo-CRT plus surgery group (operation group, n=185) and single Neo-CRT group (non-operation group, n=38). Patients in both groups were followed up for a long time until death or deadline. The overall survival (OS), adverse reactions, recurrence and death results of the two groups were evaluated. The risk factors of poor prognosis were analyzed.

Results

The two groups were comparable. The median follow-up time was 23.5 months in non-operation group and 112.9 months in operation group. The 1-year survival rate, 2-year survival rate and 5-year survival rate in non-operation group were 69.9%, 47.7% and 31.8%, respectively. The rates in operation group were 94.0%, 79.3% and 65.0%, respectively. The incidence of low hemoglobin was 73.7% (non-operation group) and 53.0% (operation group). The infection rates were 15.8% and 2.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of leukopenia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia between the two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that recurrence and treatment were independent risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients.

Conclusions

To sum up, no matter in terms of recurrence rate or OS rate, the prognosis of patients in the operation group was better than that in the non-operation group. Therefore, Neo-CRT combined with esophagectomy is recommended for locally advanced ESCC with acceptable surgical risk.

Skeletal Muscle Change During Neoadjuvant Therapy and Its Impact on Prognosis in Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Gastrointestinal cancers are the most common malignant tumors worldwide. As the improvement of survival by surgical resection alone for cancers is close to the bottleneck, recent neoadjuvant therapy has been emphasized and applied in the treatment. Despite the advantage on improving the prognosis, some studies have reported neoadjuvant therapy could reduce skeletal muscle and therefore affect postoperative outcomes. However, the conclusions are still controversial.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to September 2, 2021. The inclusion criteria were observational studies, published in English, of individuals aged ≥18 years who underwent neoadjuvant therapy with gastrointestinal cancers and were assessed skeletal muscle mass before and after neoadjuvant therapy, with sufficient data on skeletal muscle change or the association with clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis was conducted by using the STATA 12.0 package when more than two studies reported the same outcome.

Results

A total of 268 articles were identified, and 19 studies (1,954 patients) were included in the review. The fixed effects model showed that the risk of sarcopenia increased 22% after receiving neoadjuvant therapy (HR=1.22, 95% CI 1.14, 1.31, Z=4.286, P&lt;0.001). In the random effects model, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with skeletal muscle loss, with a standardized mean difference of -0.20 (95% CI -0.31, -0.09, Z=3.49, P&lt;0.001) and a significant heterogeneity (I2 =62.2%, P&lt;0.001). Multiple meta regression indicated that population, neoadjuvant therapy type, and measuring tool were the potential sources of heterogeneity. The funnel plot revealed that there was no high publication bias in these studies (Begg’s test, P=0.544) and the sensitivity analysis showed stable results when separately excluding studies. For the postoperative outcomes, the results revealed that muscle loss during neoadjuvant therapy was significantly related to overall survival (HR=2,08, 95% CI =1.47, 2.95, Z=4.12, P&lt;0.001, I2 = 0.0%), but not related to disease-free survival and other short-term outcomes.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that skeletal muscle decreased significantly during neoadjuvant therapy in patients with gastrointestinal cancers and skeletal muscle loss was strongly associated with worse overall survival. More high-quality studies are needed to update and valid these conclusions in a more specific or stratified way.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021292118)

The quality of life in neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer treatment trial (QUINTETT): Randomized parallel clinical superiority trial

Background

We compared the health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients undergoing trimodality therapy for resectable stage I‐III esophageal cancer.

Methods

A total of 96 patients were randomized to standard neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5‐fluorouracil chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (neoadjuvant) followed by surgical resection or adjuvant cisplatin, 5‐fluorouracil, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy (adjuvant) following surgical resection.

Results

There was no significant difference in the functional assessment of cancer therapy‐esophageal (FACT‐E) total scores between arms at 1 year (p = 0.759) with 36% versus 41% (neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant), respectively, showing an increase of ≥15 points compared to pre‐treatment (p = 0.638). The HRQOL was significantly inferior at 2 months in the neoadjuvant arm for FACT‐E, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ‐OG25), and EuroQol 5‐D‐3 L in the dysphagia, reflux, pain, taste, and coughing domains (p < 0.05). Half of patients were able to complete the prescribed neoadjuvant arm chemotherapy without modification compared to only 14% in the adjuvant arm (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy related adverse events of grade ≥2 occurred significantly more frequently in the neoadjuvant arm (100% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). Surgery related adverse events of grade ≥2 were similar in both arms (72% vs. 86%, p = 0.107). There were no 30‐day mortalities and 2% vs. 10% 90‐day mortalities (p = 0.204). There were no significant differences in either overall survival (OS) (5‐year: 35% vs. 32%, p = 0.409) or disease‐free survival (DFS) (5‐year: 31% vs. 30%, p = 0.710).

Conclusion

Trimodality therapy is challenging for patients with resectable esophageal cancer regardless of whether it is given before or after surgery. Newer and less toxic protocols are needed.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancers

Esophageal carcinoma is one of the most aggressive malignant diseases. At present, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy are regarded as the standard modalities for the treatments of locally advanced esophageal cancers based on several landmark trials. However, the optimal regimen, radiation dose, and surgical intervals are uncertain and the rate of recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy is high. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy and reaching a pathological complete response have been reported to have a better survival benefit and a fewer recurrence risk than those non-pathological complete responses. Nevertheless, less than half of patients will reach a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy, and the methods to evaluate the efficacy after neoadjuvant therapy accurately are limited. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been recommended for the treatments of advanced esophageal cancers. Recently, research has been beginning to evaluate the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy combined with neoadjuvant therapy. Here, we will review and discuss the development of the neoadjuvant therapy of locally advanced esophageal cancers and unsolved clinical problems.