Comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus upfront surgery with or without chemotherapy for patients with clinical stage III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Identification of a PLCE1‑regulated competing endogenous RNA regulatory network for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Phospholipase C epsilon 1 (PLCE1) and the competing endogenous RNA (ceRNA) network are crucial for tumorigenesis and the progression of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, whether PLCE1 can regulate the ceRNA network in ESCC has not been clarified. In the present study, we aimed to identify the PLCE1-regulated ceRNA network and further elucidate the regulatory mechanisms by which ESCC is promoted. Microarray analysis was used to identify differentially expressed lncRNAs (DELs) and differentially expressed genes (DEGs) from three pairs of samples of PLCE-silenced Eca109 and control Eca109 cells. Next, the ceRNA regulatory network was established and visualized in Cytoscape, and functional enrichment analysis was performed to analyze DEGs from ceRNAs. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks among the DEGs were established by the STRING database to screen hub genes. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to validate hub genes. Finally, PLCE1-related hub gene/lncRNA/miRNA axes were also constructed based on the ceRNA network. A total of 105 DELs and 346 DEGs were found to be dysregulated in the microarray data (|log2FC| >1.5, adjusted P<0.05). We constructed a PLCE1-regulated ceRNA network that incorporated 12 lncRNAs, 43 miRNAs, and 169 mRNAs. Functional enrichment analysis indicated that the DEGs might be associated with ESCC onset and development. A PPI network was established, and 9 hub genes [WD and tetratricopeptide repeats 1 (WDTC1), heat shock protein family A (Hsp70) member 5 (HSPA5), N-ethylmaleimide sensitive factor, vesicle fusing ATPase (NSF), fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor 1A (CDKN1A or P21), bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2), complement C3 (C3), GM2 ganglioside activator (GM2A) and discs large MAGUK scaffold protein 4 (DLG4)] were determined from the network. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis validated four hub genes (BMP2, CDKN1A, GM2A, and DLG4) that were treated as prognostic factors. Ultimately, hub gene/lncRNA/miRNA subnetworks were obtained based on the 4 hub genes, 13 DEmiRNAs, and 10 DELs. In conclusion, the PLCE1-regulated ceRNA contributes to the onset and progression of ESCC and the underlying molecular mechanisms may provide insights into personalized prognosis and new therapies for ESCC patients.

Post-esophagectomy Adjuvant Chemotherapy Benefits Esophageal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

Postoperative chemotherapy is an absolutely imperative treatment for advanced esophageal cancer patients, while preoperative chemotherapy is the standard therapy for clinical stage II/III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in Japan. The aim of this study was to report the effect of postoperative chemotherapy on survival after esophagectomy due to thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred thirteen consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy were included. Several regiments were performed at various times.

RESULTS

Adjuvant chemotherapy brought a significantly superior overall survival (p=0.002), although there was no significant difference in cancer-specific survival (p=0.054) for clinical stage II or stage III esophageal cancer patients. Depth of invasion (p=0.003), number of lymph node metastases (p=0.048), and venous invasion (p<0.001) were risk factors for recurrence in the adjuvant-chemotherapy group with positive lymph nodes. Additionally, a not well-differentiated type, lymphatic and venous invasions were risk factors for recurrence in the surgery-alone group without positive lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy contributes to the prognosis of clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer patients.

Validity of upfront surgery for patients with unsuspected lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer: a propensity scoring matching study

Background

Although neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy is well-established as being superior to upfront esophagectomy when locoregional lymph node (LN) metastasis is present in esophageal cancer, upfront esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy may be performed in patients with LN metastasis due to unreliable preoperative evaluations. However, outcomes in this setting remain unclear. The purpose of the present study was to clarify whether upfront esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy in patients with unsuspected lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer is appropriate.

Methods

We included 215 squamous cell esophageal cancer patients who met the study criteria. Inclusion criteria included complete (R0) and curative surgery cases, intra-thoracic esophageal cancer, preoperative biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma, and cases without LN metastasis (WL, cN0 and pN0) or with unsuspected LN metastasis (UL, cN0 and pN1). Exclusion criteria were palliation or salvage cases, other uncured previous or current primary cancers, complete remission cases, and operative mortalities (defined as patients who died during hospitalization or within one month after surgery). We compared 5-year disease- free survival (DFS) between WL and UL. In addition, we investigated the influence of neoadjuvant therapy in UL. To overcome heterogeneity in baseline characteristics between the groups, a propensity matched-analysis based on propensity scores was then carried out to create a cohort of WL with clinical characteristics similar to those in UL.

Results

The incidence of UL among preoperative N0 patients was 25.6% and the incidence of UL cases who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy was 47.2%. All subjects were stratified into either WL (160 patients) or UL (55 patients). Twenty nine of 55 patients in UL received neoadjuvant therapy before esophagectomy and all patients with LN metastasis received adjuvant therapy after esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in DFS between WL and UL (p = 0.242). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in DFS between cases that received and did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.769).

Conclusions

Upfront surgery without neoadjuvant therapy in UL is appropriate for patients who can tolerate adjuvant therapy.

Upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation strategy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Adjuvant chemoradiation is reported to have a survival benefit for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). We evaluated the “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation” strategy, in which adjuvant therapy is guided by pathological stage, in locally advanced ESCC. Data from 2976 clinical stage II/III ESCC patients, including 1735 in neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 1241 in upfront surgery groups, were obtained from a nationwide database. Patients in the upfront surgery group were further categorized into the “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation” and “upfront surgery only” groups. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates in the “neoadjuvant chemoradiation”, “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation”, and “upfront surgery only” groups were 41.5%, 45.8%, and 28.5%, respectively. In propensity score matched patients, the 3-year OS rate was 41.7% in the neoadjuvant chemoradiation group, compared to 35.6% in the “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation” group (p = 0.147), and 20.3% in the “upfront surgery only” group (p < 0.001). No survival difference was observed between the “neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery” protocol and the “upfront surgery and pathological stage-based adjuvant chemoradiation” strategy.

Investigation of operative outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy after triplet chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Preoperative chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF) has become the standard treatment for resectable stage II/III thoracic esophageal carcinoma in Japan. Recently, preoperative triplet chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) has been reported to be effective for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) has been increasingly accepted worldwide for the treatment of esophageal cancer. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and outcomes of TE after DCF therapy for patients with advanced esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The medical records of 63 consecutive patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent thoracoscopic surgery after chemotherapy were reviewed. Thirty-four patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CF, and 29 received DCF as first-line chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The clinical T stage was significantly higher in the DCF group than in the CF group (p < 0.0001), including 17 patients with T4. Lymph node metastasis was more frequent in the DCF group (p = 0.0005), and the clinical stage of the tumor was significantly higher in the DCF group than in the CF group (p = 0.0001). No significant difference existed between the two groups in operation time for the thoracic procedure (DCF 277.2 min vs. CF 302 min). Blood loss during the thoracic procedure was less in the DCF group than in the CF group (DCF 46.9 mL vs. CF 88.8 mL; p = 0.0056). No significant differences existed between the two groups in postoperative morbidity (DCF 34.5% vs. CF 47%) or mortality (DCF 0% vs. CF 2.9%) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that TE after DCF therapy for advanced esophageal cancer is as safe as TE after CF therapy.

Current Status and Future Prospects for Esophageal Cancer Treatment

The local control effect of esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection (3FLD) is reaching its limit pending technical advancement. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) by thoracotomy is slowly gaining acceptance due to advantages in short-term outcomes. Although the evidence is slowly increasing, MIE is still controversial. Also, the results of treatment by surgery alone are limiting, and multimodality therapy, which includes surgical and non-surgical treatment options including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and endoscopic treatment, has become the mainstream therapy. Esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard treatment for clinical stages II/III (except for T4) esophageal cancer, whereas chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is regarded as the standard treatment for patients who wish to preserve their esophagus, those who refuse surgery, and those with inoperable disease. CRT is also usually selected for clinical stage IV esophageal cancer. On the other hand, with the spread of CRT, salvage esophagectomy has traditionally been recognized as a feasible option; however, many clinicians oppose the use of surgery due to the associated unfavorable morbidity and mortality profile. In the future, the improvement of each treatment result and the establishment of individual strategies are important although esophageal cancer has many treatment options.