Neoadjuvant Carboplatin/Paclitaxel versus 5-Fluorouracil/Cisplatin in Combination with Radiotherapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Comparative Study

Temporal Trends in Survival Outcomes for Patients with Esophageal Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy: A 14-Year Analysis

BACKGROUND

The prognosis for patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery has shown improvement in recent years. We sought to identify the critical factors contributing to enhanced survival outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively examined 427 patients with esophageal cancer treated with nCRT and esophagectomy across two periods: P1 (from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2011) and P2 (from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017). The introduction of the CROSS regimen and total meso-esophagectomy in P2 prompted an evaluation of their effects on perioperative outcomes and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

During P2, the occurrence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy increased significantly from 3.9 to 16.8% (p < 0.001), while pneumonia and in-hospital mortality rates remained unchanged. The median OS improved from 19.2 to 29.2 months (p < 0.001) between P1 and P2. Multivariable analysis identified higher nodal yields and the achievement of major response as favorable prognostic factors. Conversely, an involved circumferential resection margin (CRM), an advanced ypN stage, and pneumonia were independently associated with poor outcomes. Patients treated during P2 had a lower prevalence of involved CRM (10% vs. 25.1%, p < 0.001), a higher rate of major response (52.7% vs. 34.8%, p < 0.01), and a greater nodal yield (27.8 vs. 10.9, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical outcomes following nCRT and surgery have improved significantly over time. This progress can be attributed to multiple factors, with the primary drivers being the refinement of nCRT protocols and the application of radical surgery.

Doublet chemotherapy, triplet chemotherapy, or doublet chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer (JCOG1109 NExT): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy is the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, the prognosis remains poor and more intensive neoadjuvant treatment might be needed to improve patient outcomes. We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy, triplet chemotherapy, and doublet chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced OSCC.

METHODS

In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients aged 20-75 years with previously untreated locally advanced OSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were recruited from 44 centres across Japan. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally via a web-based system to receive neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy (two courses of fluorouracil [800 mg/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-5] and cisplatin [80 mg/m2 per day on day 1] separated by an interval of 3 weeks [NeoCF]), triplet chemotherapy (three courses of fluorouracil [750 mg/m2 per day on days 1-5], cisplatin [70 mg/m2 per day on day 1], and docetaxel [70 mg/m2 per day on day 1] repeated every 3 weeks [NeoCF+D]), or doublet chemotherapy (two courses of fluorouracil [1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4] and cisplatin [75 mg/m2 per day on day 1] separated by an interval of 4 weeks) plus 41·4 Gy radiotherapy [NeoCF+RT]) followed by oesophagectomy with regional lymph node dissection. Randomisation was stratified by T stage and institution. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Analysis of safety included all patients who received at least one course of chemotherapy, and analysis of surgical complications included those who also underwent surgery. This study is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs031180202, and the trial is complete.

FINDINGS

A total of 601 patients (529 male individuals and 72 female individuals) were randomly assigned between Dec 5, 2012, and July 20, 2018, with 199 patients in the NeoCF group, 202 patients in the NeoCF+D group, and 200 patients in the NeoCF+RT group. Compared with the NeoCF group, during a median follow-up period of 50·7 months (IQR 23·8-70·7), the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the NeoCF+D group (72·1% [95% CI 65·4-77·8] vs 62·6% [55·5-68·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·68, 95% CI 0·50-0·92; p=0·006) but not in the NeoCF+RT group (68·3% [61·3-74·3]; HR 0·84, 0·63-1·12; p=0·12). Grade 3 or higher febrile neutropenia occurred in two (1%) of 193 patients in the NeoCF group, 32 (16%) of 196 patients in the NeoCF+D group, and nine (5%) of 191 patients in the NeoCF+RT group. Treatment-related adverse events leading to termination of neoadjuvant therapy were more common in the NeoCF+D group (18 [9%] of 202 participants) than in the NeoCF+RT group (12 [6%] of 200) and NeoCF group (eight [4%] of 199). There were three (2%) treatment-related deaths during neoadjuvant therapy in the NeoCF group, four (2%) deaths in the NeoCF+D group, and two (1%) deaths in the NeoCF+RT group. Grade 2 or higher postoperative pneumonia, anastomotic leak, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis were reported in 19 (10%), 19 (10%), and 28 (15%) of 185 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF group; 18 (10%), 16 (9%), and 19 (10%) of 183 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF+D group; and 23 (13%), 23 (13%), and 17 (10%) of 178 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF+RT group. The in-hospital deaths following surgery included three deaths in the NeoCF group, two deaths in the NeoCF+D group, and one in the NeoCF+RT group.

INTERPRETATION

Neoadjuvant triplet chemotherapy followed by oesophagectomy resulted in a statistically significant overall survival benefit compared with doublet chemotherapy and might be the new standard of care for locally advanced OSCC who are in good condition in Japan. Neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy plus radiotherapy did not show significant improvement of survival compared with doublet chemotherapy.

FUNDING

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus thoracoscopic approach: multi-institutional study on short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy and conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy are superior to open techniques. However, few studies have directly compared the outcomes of the two minimally invasive approaches.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients from six medical centres with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent minimally invasive oesophagectomy between 2015 and 2022. Perioperative outcomes were compared after applying inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

The study included 577 patients (robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy: 206; conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy: 371). After applying inverse probability of treatment weighting, robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy was found to yield a higher number of mediastinal nodes compared with conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (14.86 versus 12.66, P = 0.017). Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy was notably effective in retrieving upper mediastinal left recurrent laryngeal nerve nodes, averaging 1.97 nodes versus 1.14 nodes harvested by conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (P < 0.001). This was coupled by a significant decrease in nerve palsy rates (13.9% versus 22.8%, P = 0.020). A significantly larger percentage of patients in the robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy group had an uncomplicated postoperative course (51.8% versus 34%, P < 0.001). Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy also led to a reduction in pneumonia rates (8.6% versus 15.2%, P = 0.041) and was linked to a shorter length of stay (length of stay; 16.64 versus 21.14 days, P = 0.007). The advantage of robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy in reducing the length of stay was especially pronounced in patients with a high Charlson co-morbidity index (≥2, mean difference 8.46 days; P = 0.0069) and those who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (mean difference 5.63 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the use of robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy led to fewer cases of pneumonia and faster recovery compared with conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Additionally, robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy significantly improved the feasibility and safety of performing lymph node dissection along the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Eastern versus Western countries: meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma can be treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy followed by oesophagectomy. Discrepancies in pathological response rates have been reported between studies from Eastern versus Western countries. The aim of this study was to compare the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in Eastern versus Western countries.

METHODS

Databases were searched until November 2022 for studies reporting pCR rates after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Multi-level meta-analyses were performed to pool pCR rates separately for cohorts from studies performed in centres in the Sinosphere (East) or in Europe and the Anglosphere (West).

RESULTS

For neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 51 Eastern cohorts (5636 patients) and 20 Western cohorts (3039 patients) were included. Studies from Eastern countries included more men, younger patients, more proximal tumours, and more cT4 and cN+ disease. Patients in the West were more often treated with high-dose radiotherapy, whereas patients in the East were more often treated with a platinum + fluoropyrimidine regimen. The pooled pCR rate after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 31.7% (95% c.i. 29.5% to 34.1%) in Eastern cohorts versus 40.4% (95% c.i. 35.0% to 45.9%) in Western cohorts (fixed-effect P = 0.003). For cohorts with similar cTNM stages, pooled pCR rates for the East and the West were 32.5% and 41.9% respectively (fixed-effect P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is less favourable in patients treated in Eastern countries compared with Western countries. Despite efforts to investigate accounting factors, the discrepancy in pCR rate cannot be entirely explained by differences in patient, tumour, or treatment characteristics.

Recent progress in chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma is a common malignancy worldwide. Definitive chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for patients with resectable stage oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma who cannot undergo surgery, as well as those with locally advanced unresectable oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. However, it has several disadvantages such as poor survival, radiation-related toxicities and severe and lethal complications related to salvage treatment for residual or recurrent disease. Numerous clinical trials on chemoradiotherapy have been conducted to confirm the optimal combination of irradiation and chemotherapy. For advanced disease, multimodal treatment strategies including salvage surgery are essential. Palliative chemoradiotherapy is also crucial for dysphagia in locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma with or without metastatic lesions. Recently, the synergistic mechanism of radiotherapy combined with immunotherapy has been reported. Early phase clinical trials suggest that a combination of immunotherapy and chemoradiotherapy can improve clinical outcomes with manageable side effects, but further investigations are needed. Here, we reviewed the existing clinical data and current development of chemoradiotherapy combined with immunotherapy in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Comparison of therapeutic outcomes in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) may not always receive resection despite the possible achievement of a pathologic complete response (pCR) being associated with superior survival benefit. We aimed to compare outcomes among ESCC patients with or without pCR and those refusing surgery.

METHODS

In total, 111 medically operable, non-cervical ESCC patients after the same protocol of nCRT (platinum/5-fluorouracil plus radiation 50Gy) were prospectively enrolled between 2011 and 2021. Eighty-three of them underwent esophagectomy comprising pCR (n = 32) and non-pCR (n = 51), while 28 operable patients declined surgery (refusal-of-surgery group). Predictors and survival data were analyzed.

RESULTS

In terms of esophagectomy, 38.5% (32/83) patients achieved pCR. The pCR group exhibited better pretreatment performance status than the non-pCR group (adjusted odds ratio: 0.11, 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.58; p = 0.01). Among pCR, non-pCR, and refusal-of-surgery groups, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 56%, 29% and 50% (p = 0.08) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 52%, 28% and 36% (p = 0.07) respectively. The pCR group had significantly better OS and PFS than the non-PCR group (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.33 and 1.93, p = 0.02 and 0.049 respectively) but not the refusal-of-surgery group.

CONCLUSION

Better pretreatment performance status is associated with higher chance of pCR. Consistent with previous studies, we found attainment of pCR confers the best OS and PFS. Suboptimal OS in the refusal-of-surgery group reflects some of them would have residual disease in addition to complete remission. Further studies are needed to identify prognostic factors of pCR to select candidates who could validly decline esophagectomy.

Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with cisplatin/5-flourouracil or carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with resectable cancer of the esophagus and the gastroesophageal junction - comparison of postoperative mortality and complications, toxicity, and pathological tumor response

PURPOSE

In 2012, the CROSS trial implemented a new neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy protocol for patients with locally advanced, resectable cancer of the esophagus prior to scheduled surgery. There are only limited studies comparing the CROSS protocol with a PF-based (cisplatin/5-fluorouracil) nRCT protocol.

METHODS

In this retrospective, monocentric analysis, 134 patients suffering from esophageal cancer were included. Those patients received either PF-based nRCT (PF group) or nRCT according to the CROSS protocol (CROSS group) prior to elective en bloc esophagectomy. Perioperative mortality and morbidity, nRCT-related toxicity, and complete pathological regression were compared between both groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed in order to identify independent factors for pathological complete response (pCR).

RESULTS

Thirty-day/hospital mortality showed no significant differences between both groups. Postoperative complications ≥ grade 3 according to Clavien-Dindo classification were experienced in 58.8% (PF group) and 47.6% (CROSS group) (p = 0.2) respectively. nRCT-associated toxicity ≥ grade 3 was 30.8% (PF group) and 37.2% (CROSS group) (p = 0.6). There was no significant difference regarding the pCR rate between both groups (23.5% vs. 30.5%; p = 0.6). In multivariate analysis, SCC (OR 7.7; p < 0.01) and an initial grading of G1/G2 (OR 2.8; p = 0.03) were shown to be independent risk factors for higher rates of pCR.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that both nRCT protocols are effective and safe. There were no significant differences regarding toxicity, pathological tumor response, and postoperative morbidity and mortality between both groups. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and favorable preoperative tumor grading (G1 and G2) are independent predictors for higher pCR rate in multivariate analysis.

Treatment burden and cost-effectiveness analysis of the neoadjuvant CROSS regimen in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study

High-quality evidence indicated that both neoadjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel (CROSS) and cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (PF) regimens in combination with radiotherapy improve survival outcomes compared to surgery alone in patients with esophageal cancer. It is not yet known whether they may differ in terms of treatment burden and healthcare costs. A total of 232 Taiwanese patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who had undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with either the CROSS (n = 153) or the PF (n = 79) regimens were included. Hospital encounters and adverse events were assessed for determining treatment burden. Cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using the total costs incurred over 3 years in relation to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with PF, the CROSS regimen was associated with a lower treatment burden: shorter inpatient days on average (4.65 ± 10.05 vs. 15.14 ± 17.63 days; P < 0.001) and fewer admission requirements (70% of the patients were never admitted vs. 20% in the PF group; P < 0.001). Patients in the CROSS group experienced significantly less nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. While the benefits observed in the CROSS group were associated with additional nCRT-related expenditures (1388 United States dollars [USD] of added cost per patient), this regimen remained cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000 USD per life-year, the probability of the CROSS regimen to be more cost-effective than PF was 94.1% for PFS but decreased to 68.9% for OS. The use of the CROSS regimen for nCRT in patients with ESCC was associated with a lower treatment burden and was more cost-effective than PF.

Survival Outcomes of Patients with Esophageal Cancer Who Did Not Proceed to Surgery after Neoadjuvant Treatment

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study examined outcomes in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients who did not undergo surgical resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

METHODS

Patients receiving nCRT between 2012 and 2020 were divided into two groups: group 1 (scheduled surgery) and group 2 (no surgery). Group 2 was further categorized into subgroups based on reasons for not proceeding to surgery: group 2a (disease progression), group 2b (poor general conditions), and group 2c (patient refusal). Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Group 1 comprised 145 patients, while subgroups 2a, 2b, and 2c comprised 24, 16, and 31 patients, respectively. The 3-year OS rate was significantly lower in group 2 compared with group 1 (34% versus 56%, p < 0.001). A subgroup analysis showed varying 3-year OS rates: 13% for group 2a, 25% for group 2b, and 58% for group 2c (p < 0.001). Propensity score matching for group 2c and group 1 revealed no significant difference in 3-year OS rates (p = 0.91).

CONCLUSION

One-third of ESCC patients receiving nCRT did not undergo surgical resection. Overall survival in this group was generally poorer, except for those who refused surgery (group 2c).

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

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

Unexpected Movement of the Esophagus across the Aorta

Tumor regression throughout treatment would induce organ movement, but little is known of this in the esophagus. To achieve successful tumor regression, radiation therapy requires several weeks of radiation to be delivered accurately to the tumor. Usually, a 5–10 mm margin is allowed for set-up error and internal organ motion. Our case exhibited an unexpectedly large movement of the esophagus across the aorta with tumor regression that extended outside the margin and thus outside the radiotherapy field. These movements may affect subsequent invasive procedures or treatment during cancer therapy. After the unexpected large movement of the esophagus due to tumor regression, we revised the radiotherapy plan to reflect the new esophageal position. This implied that regular imaging and close monitoring are required during treatment of esophageal cancer.