65P Camrelizumab combined with paclitaxel and nedaplatin as neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESPRIT): A phase II, single-arm, exploratory research

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Data from literature review and a real-world analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (NCIT) for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is supported by increasing data, but the sample size is limited, and the findings are not completely consistent. We conducted a real-world study and a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NCIT in locally advanced ESCC.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the outcomes of patients with locally advanced ESCC who completed NICT and subsequent esophagectomy at our hospital between January 2019 and December 2022, including pathological complete response (pCR) rate, major pathological response (MPR) rate, 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates, disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), 1-year recurrence rate, R0 resection rate and adverse events. Moreover, a meta-analysis of 27 published literatures was also conducted for comparison.

RESULTS

In the analysis, 128 patients were studied, with 25% achieving pCR, 46.1% MPR, and 99.2% R0 resection. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 91.41% (95% CI: 85.15%-95.63%), 75.00% (95% CI: 66.58%-82.23%) and 64.84% (95% CI: 55.91%-73.07%).ORR and DCR were 31.2% (95% CI: 23.31-39.99) and 64.1% (95% CI: 55.15%-72.38%), and the 1-year recurrence rate was 26.7% (95% CI: 22.5%-38.1%). Treatment-related events occurred in 96.1% but were acceptable. In a meta-analysis of 27 studies with 1734 patients, pooled rates for pCR, MPR, ORR, DCR, and R0 resection were 29%, 52%, 71%, 97%, and 98%, respectively, with a 1-year recurrence rate of 12%.

CONCLUSION

NCIT is safe and provides potential survival benefits for patients with locally advanced ESCC. However, randomized phase 3 trial data is still needed.

Sintilimab as maintenance treatment for local/regional recurrent esophageal squamous carcinoma after concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a single-arm Ib/II phase study

Background

Esophageal cancer (EC) is an aggressive neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract that is usually treated with a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy (RT), and/or surgery, according to disease status. Despite the availability of multimodal therapeutic strategies, local recurrence is frequently observed. However, there is no standard treatment or promising therapeutic approach for local recurrence or metastatic esophageal carcinoma after the RT. This study tended to investigate the efficacy and safety of sintilimab maintenance after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for local/regional recurrent esophageal squamous carcinoma.

Methods

This study was a single-arm, phase Ib/II trial conducted in a single site in China. Patients previously radically treated (surgery or CCRT), histologically confirmed, local or regional recurrence esophageal squamous carcinoma, qualified for the study design, were treated with 25-28 times radiotherapy plus raltitrexed once every 3 weeks for up to two cycles. Patients who have not progressed after CCRT received sintilimab as maintenance once every 3 weeks up to 1 year. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and safety. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR).

Results

Between September 2019 and March 2022, in a total of 36 enrolled patients, 34 pts completed CCRT. Three patients excluded due to violation of the exclusion criteria (1 pt) and consent withdrawal (2 pts). Finally, 33 pts were included in the final analysis, in which 3 pts had disease progression, and the remaining 30 entered maintenance therapy with sintilimab. The median follow-up time was 12.3 months. Median OS was 20.6 months (95%CI 10.5-NA) and the 1-year OS rate was 64%. Median PFS was 11.5 months (95%CI 5.29-21.3) and the 1-year PFS rate was 43.6%. The ORR was 63.6% (95%CI 44.6-77.8), including 2 cases of CR and 19 cases of PR. The DCR was 19.9%, the median DOR was 19.5 months, and the median TTR was 2.4 months. The rate of any grade TRAEs was 96.7%; ≥Grade 3 TRAE was 23.4%. The incidence of immune-related AE was 60%, most of which were grade 1-2, and only one case of thyroid-stimulating hormone increased was irAE with grade 3 or above.

Conclusion

Sintilimab has shown promising clinical efficacy and a manageable safety profile as maintenance therapy after CCRT for local/regional recurrent esophageal squamous carcinoma. In addition, further confirmation from a large-scale real-world study is still needed.

Evaluation of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and traditional neoadjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and single-arm and network meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy with or without radiotherapy [NIC(R)T] compared to traditional neoadjuvant therapies, without immunotherapy [NC(R)T].

Summary background data

NCRT followed by surgical resection is recommended for patients with early-stage esophageal cancer. However, it is uncertain whether adding immunotherapy to preoperative neoadjuvant therapy would improve patient outcomes when radical surgery is performed following neoadjuvant therapy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases, as well as international conference abstracts. Outcomes included R0, pathological complete response (pCR), major pathological response (mPR), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates.

Results

We included data from 5,034 patients from 86 studies published between 2019 and 2022. We found no significant differences between NICRT and NCRT in pCR or mPR rates. Both were better than NICT, with NCT showing the lowest response rate. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has a significant advantage over traditional neoadjuvant therapy in terms of 1-year OS and DFS, with NICT having better outcomes than any of the other three treatments. There were no significant differences among the four neoadjuvant treatments in terms of R0 rates.

Conclusions

Among the four neoadjuvant treatment modalities, NICRT and NCRT had the highest pCR and mPR rates. There were no significant differences in the R0 rates among the four treatments. Adding immunotherapy to neoadjuvant therapy improved 1-year OS and DFS, with NICT having the highest rates compared to the other three modalities.

Systematic Review Registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-12-0060/, identifier INPLASY2022120060.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Significant progress has been made in the investigation of neoadjuvant immune-chemoradiotherapy (NICRT) and neoadjuvant immune-chemotherapy (NICT) on the outcomes of esophageal cancer patients. To summarize the current developments, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy.

Methods

A search strategy of prospective studies on esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant immunotherapy was predefined to scan PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and additional major conferences for prospective studies. Efficacy was assessed by pathological complete response (pCR), major pathological response (MPR), and R0 resection rates. Safety was evaluated based on the incidence of grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), neoadjuvant therapy completion rate, surgical resection rate, and surgical delay rate. Differences between the NICRT and NICT groups were also analyzed.

Results

A total of 38 studies qualified for the analysis. The pooled pCR, MPR, and R0 resection rates were 30, 58, and 99%, respectively. The pCR and MPR in the NICRT vs. NICT group were 38% vs. 28% (p=0.078) and 67% vs. 57% (p=0.181), respectively. The pooled incidence of grade ≥ 3 TRAEs was 24% (NICRT,58%, I² = 61% vs. NICT,18%, I² = 79%; p<0.001). In addition, the pooled neoadjuvant therapy completion and surgical resection rates were 92% and 85%, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant between the NICRT and NICT groups.

Conclusions

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy is effective and safe in the short term for locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, further randomized trials are needed to confirm which combined model is more favorable.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021284266, identifier CRD42021284266.

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.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in surgically resectable esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) has developed rapidly in recent years. The efficacy and safety outcomes may change the recommended neoadjuvant therapeutic regimens for patients with EC.

METHODS

Systematic screening for articles focusing on the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in locally advanced and surgically resectable EC was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and international tumor congresses. Meta-analysis of non-comparative binary outcomes was carried out to combine the main results. The pooled results were compared with the traditional neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) using direct comparative analysis. The results were expressed as the risk ratio (RR).

RESULTS

A total of 20 articles with 621 patients were included in the present study. The pooled pathological complete response and major pathological response rates were 33.8% (95% CI: 29.6%-37.9%) and 53.5% (95% CI: 47.9%-59%), respectively, in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy (nICT) group and 39.8% (95% CI: 27%-53.9%) and 88.8% (95% CI: 64.8%-97.2%) in the neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemoradiotherapy (nICRT) group, respectively. In addition, the pooled grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) rate was 19.4% (95% CI: 11.5%-31.5%) in the nICT group. The results of direct comparison showed that compared with nCRT and nICRT, nICT could improve safety while achieving comparable efficacy. The results of subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias evaluation indicated that the above findings were stable and reliable.

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis revealed that neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with locally advanced EC was safe and effective and nICT could be used as the recommended neoadjuvant therapeutic option for patients with EC. However, additional studies are urgently needed to reveal the long-term outcomes of neoadjuvant immunotherapy.