Pre- versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Optimal Treatment Strategies for Resectable Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Real-World Triple Cohort Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching

Purpose

This study aims to identify the most effective treatment approach and compares the survival rates, along with complications, in patients with locally resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who were treated with one of the three treatment patterns: neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NCT+S), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (NCRT+S), or surgery followed by chemoradiotherapy (S+CRT).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of ESCC patients who received one of these treatments between March 2015 and March 2022. This analysis aimed to identify differences in long-term survival, pathological responses, and complications across the three treatment groups. To address potential confounding factors, propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox proportional hazards models were utilized.

Results

This study included a cohort of 715 patients: 197 in the NCT+S group, 188 in the NCRT+S group, and 330 in the S+CRT group, all meeting the selection criteria. After PSM, the median disease-free survival (DFS) time was 38.9 months, 25.6 months, and 15.3 months for NCRT+S, NCT+S, and S+CRT groups, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in the 5-year DFS and 5-year OS among the three groups (P=0.04 and P=0.02, post-matching, respectively). Notably, neoadjuvant therapy showed a correlation with increased postoperative anastomotic leakage rates (17.5% in NCRT+S, 10% in NCT+S, and 5% in S+CRT; P=0.03, post-matching), regardless of the PSM adjustment.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that neoadjuvant therapy before surgery offers a significant survival advantage over postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with locally advanced resectable ESCC. Despite similar safety profiles, neoadjuvant therapy appears to be associated with a higher incidence of anastomotic leakage after surgery.

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.

Nomogram for prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy established based on non-textbook outcome

BACKGROUND

Non-textbook outcome (non-TO) represents a new prognostic evaluation index for surgical oncology. The present study aimed to develop new nomograms based on non-TO to predict the mortality and recurrence rate in patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

The study involved a retrospective analysis of 613 ESCC patients, from the prospectively maintained database from January 2011 to December 2018. All the included ESCC patients underwent MIE, and they were randomly (1:1) assigned to the training cohort (307 patients) and the validation cohort (306 patients). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to analyze the differences recorded between overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). In the case of the training cohort, the nomograms based on non-TO were developed using Cox regression, and the performance of these nomograms was calibrated and evaluated in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

Significant differences were recorded for 5-year OS and DFS between non-TO and TO groups (p < 0.05). Multivariate cox analysis revealed that non-TO, intraoperative bleeding, T stage, and N stage acted as independent risk factors that affected OS and DFS (p < 0.05). The results for multivariate regression were used to build non-TO-based nomograms to predict OS and DFS of patients with ESCC, the t-AUC curve analysis showed that the nomograms predicting OS and DFS were more accurate as compared to TNM staging, during the follow-up period in the training cohort and validation cohort. Further, the nomogram score was used to divide ESCC patients into low-, middle-, and high-risk groups and significant differences were recorded for OS and DFS between these three groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-TO was identified as an independent prognostic factor for ESCC patients. The nomograms based on non-TO could availably predict OS and DFS in ESCC patients after MIE.

A population-based study in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer aligned with CheckMate 577

Background:

Results of CheckMate 577 show an improved disease-free survival for patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer treated with adjuvant nivolumab compared with placebo (22.4 versus 11.0 months). Population-based data can provide insights in outcomes from clinical practice. The aim of our study was to investigate disease-free and overall survival in a nationwide population aligned with the inclusion criteria of CheckMate 577.

Patients and Methods:

Resected patients with stage II/III esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (2015–2016) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with cervical esophageal cancer, irradical resection, or complete pathological response were excluded. Disease-free and overall survival were assessed from 12 weeks after resection using Kaplan-Meier methods. In addition, to adjust for differences in characteristics between CheckMate 577 and our population-based cohort, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison was performed for pathological lymph node status and pathological tumor status.

Results:

We identified 634 patients. Sixty percent of patients were diagnosed with recurrence or were deceased at the end of follow-up. Median disease-free survival was 19.7 months and median overall survival was 32.2 months. After the matching procedure, the median disease-free survival was 17.2 months and median overall survival was 28.2 months.

Conclusions:

Disease-free survival in our population-based study was considerably longer than the placebo population of CheckMate-577 (19.7 versus 11.0 months). Possible explanations are differences in characteristics, quality of esophageal cancer care, or differential strategies for evaluation of recurrence. In the Netherlands postoperative imaging is not part of the standard follow-up as opposed to the standard postoperative imaging in the CheckMate 577 trial. The difference in postoperative imaging could partially explain the longer disease-free survival observed in our study. Quality and optimization of current treatment modalities remain important aspects of esophageal cancer care.

Postoperative Radiotherapy for Thoracic Esophageal Carcinoma with Upfront R0 Esophagectomy

Multidisciplinary therapies can improve the survival of patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma. However, the determination of the optimal modality is still a controversial subject. Many randomized controlled trials in the late 20th century showed that there was no survival benefit when postoperative radiotherapy was added to surgery for esophageal carcinoma. As a result, the treatment modality shifted thereafter to neoadjuvant therapies. Even so, these trials are criticized for many limitations and an increasing number of studies (mainly nonrandomized controlled trials) has indicated that postoperative radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy can improve the survival of patients with a poor prognosis after R0 esophagectomy. Additionally, a large number of patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma still choose upfront surgery in the clinical practice due to many reasons. Therefore, postoperative radiotherapy seems to be a feasible treatment for these patients with a poor prognosis, particularly in the new era of conformal radiotherapy. Here, we review published studies on postoperative radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy, and we discuss the clinical issues related to postoperative radiotherapy, such as the indication, target volume, total radiation dosage, time interval and complications of postoperative radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy, to make recommendations of postoperative radiotherapy for both current practice and future research in esophageal carcinoma.

The Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Inconclusive results are available as to whether chemo/radiotherapy should be administered to resectable esophageal cancer patients before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) or after surgery (adjuvant therapy). The paper, via a meta-analysis of effects of treatment modalities when administering chemo/radiotherapy, aims to systematically evaluate the effect of timing of chemo/radiotherapy and surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for clinical trials of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal cancer. Using meta-analysis, we conducted direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of overall survival, complete resection rate (R0 resection), perioperative mortality, leakage rate and local recurrence in patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies involving 7985 patients with esophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Twenty-five randomized controlled studies indirectly compared neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy with surgery alone, while five non-randomized controlled studies and two randomized controlled studies directly compared neoadjuvant with adjuvant therapy. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery, compared with surgery along with adjuvant therapy, showed a significant overall survival advantage in our pooled analysis (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Directly compared with adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy demonstrated a lower local recurrence rate (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.43-0.74) with low heterogeneity (I² = 1%). Neoadjuvant therapy, comparing to surgery with or without adjuvant therapy, showed a significantly higher R0 resection rate (OR 2.86; 95% CI 2.02-4.04) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 38%) and no significant differences in postoperative anastomotic leakage (P = 0.50). However, neoadjuvant therapy, compared with surgery adjuvant therapy, significantly increased perioperative mortality in both direct and indirect comparisons (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher overall survival and R0 resection rate without increasing postoperative anastomotic leakage for patients with resectable esophageal cancer, whereas neoadjuvant therapy was associated with higher perioperative mortality after esophagectomy.

The Prognostic Impact of Extracapsular Lymph Node Involvement in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The role of extracapsular lymph node involvement (ELNI) in esophageal cancer has not been fully investigated. We aim to assess its incidence and prognostic significance in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) treated with and without neoadjuvant treatments.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent esophagectomy for ESCC in a single medical center was retrospectively reviewed. Patients with positive lymph node involvement were classified as either with ELNI or without ELNI (intracapsular lymph node involvement, ILNI). The impact of ELNI on overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease recurrence was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 336 patients, including 179 without (NCRT -) and 157 with (NCRT +) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, were included. Seventy-two of 179 (40.2%) patients in NCRT - group were with positive lymph node, of whom 19 (26.4%) had ELNI, whereas 49 (31.2%) patients in NCRT + group had positive lymph node, of whom 25 (51.0%) had ELNI. In NCRT + group, patients with ELNI had worse outcome compared to those with ILNI in 5-year OS (10.4 vs. 13.8%, p = 0.008), and DFS (5.3 vs. 17.5%, p = 0.008). The presence of ELNI was also associated with more distant recurrence (p = 0.03). In contrast, there was no survival difference between patients with ELNI and ILNI in NCRT - group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ILNI, ELNI is a significant poor prognostic factor in patients with ESCC treated with neoadjuvant treatments, but not in those with primary surgery.

The Prognostic Value of a Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Digestive Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 21 Studies

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) before radical excision has become the preferred initial option for locally advanced digestive cancers such as esophageal cancer (EC), esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC), gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC), rectal cancer (RC), and pancreatic cancer (PC). Although some patients reportedly achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy, the published data are inconsistent regarding whether pCR yields a survival benefit. The current meta-analysis was performed to assess the potential prognostic value of pCR after preoperative therapy for patients with digestive cancers.

METHODS

An extensive electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed for relevant articles, from which data relative to independent correlations of pCR with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted for analysis. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

The study identified 6780 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results showed that pCR was significantly correlated with better OS (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.43-0.58; P < 0.001) and DFS (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.40-0.60; P < 0.001) for the digestive cancer patients who achieved pCR than for those who did not achieve pCR. Subgroup analysis showed that the correlation of pCR with OS was significant in EC (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.69; P < 0.001), EGJAC/GAC (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17-0.86; P = 0.02), RC (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28-0.81; P = 0.006), and PC (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.97; P = 0.04). In addition, the survival benefit for pCR patients was of similar magnitude, irrespective of the type of study, type of NAT, or ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

A pCR is correlated with favorable survival outcomes compared with a non-pCR for digestive cancer patients after NAT.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Versus Upfront Esophagectomy in Clinical Stage II and III Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCRT) compared to upfront esophagectomy (UE) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is controversial. Our purpose was to determine whether clinical stages based on the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system could guide treatment decision.

METHODS

Data from 2503 patients with clinical stages II and III ESCC diagnosed between 2008 and 2014 were obtained from a nationwide database. Propensity score matching was used to identify well-balanced pairs of patients. Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank test were used in the survival analysis. The outcomes of patients receiving "NCRT followed by surgery" or "UE" strategies were compared.

RESULTS

The treatment modality (UE or NCRT) was not a prognostic factor in clinical stage II ESCC (HR: 0.97; p = 0.778). In contrast, the UE group demonstrated a significantly worse outcome compared with the NCRT group in clinical stage III ESCC (HR: 1.39; p < 0.001). After matching, patients who underwent UE for clinical stage II ESCC had median survival/3-year overall survival (OS) rates of 27.8 months/39.2% compared with 32.7 months/49.8% in the NCRT group (p = 0.508). The patients who underwent UE for clinical stage III ESCC had median survival/3-year OS rates of 17.9 months/28.2% in the UE group compared with 24.0 months/41.8% in the NCRT group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that NCRT strategy improved survival compared with UE in clinical stage III ESCC but not in clinical stage II tumors.

Application of the Eighth AJCC TNM Staging System in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging system separates classifications for the clinical (c), pathologic (p), and postneoadjuvant pathologic (yp) stages. We aimed to evaluate its application in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

Patient data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Registry database. Patients who underwent esophagectomy for c stage I to III ESCC were included for survival analysis.

RESULTS

Data of 3,399, 1,805, and 1,594 patients were included for c, p, and yp staging, respectively. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates for c stage I, II, and III were 67.4%, 46.7%, and 38.4%, respectively. The 3-year OS rates for p stage I, II, III, and IV were 70.7%, 49.8%, 30.8%, and 10.6%, respectively. The 3-year OS rates for yp stage I, II, III, and IV were 59.4%, 37.8%, 27.6%, and 3.7%, respectively. Survival curve analysis demonstrated a robust discriminatory capability and monotonicity of gradients of the new system. However, yp stage I was observed in a heterogeneous group of patients with substantial survival differences. Meanwhile, patients in the ypT0 N0 stage had a 5-year OS rate of 52.1%, which was equivalent to that of patients with p stage I (54.5%). The 5-year OS rate of patients in the ypTis-2N0 was 39.1%, which was equivalent to that of patients in p stage II (40.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study serves as an external validation of the newly released staging system in the prognostication of patients with ESCC and suggests subgrouping of the yp stage I into ypT0 N0 and non-ypT0 N0 in the future.

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.