Dataset Information

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment: which one is better for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

ABSTRACT: Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer worldwide, and especially in some areas of China is the fourth most common cause of death and is of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) histology in >90% of cases. Surgery alone was the mainstay of therapeutic intervention in the past, but high rates of local and systemic failure have prompted investigation into multidisciplinary management. In this review, we discuss the key issues raised by the recent availability of esophageal SCC treatment with the addition of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy to the surgical management of resectable disease and discuss how clinical trials and meta-analysis inform current clinical practice. None of the randomized trials that compared neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy with surgery alone in esophageal SCC has demonstrated an increase in overall survival in those patients treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been accepted recently for esophageal cancer because such a regimen offers great opportunity for margin negative resection, improved loco-regional control and increased survival. The majority of the available evidence currently reveals that only selected locally advanced esophageal SCC are more likely to benefit from the adjuvant therapy. The focus of future trials should be on identification of the optimum regimen and should aim to minimize treatment toxicities and effect on quality of life, as well as attempt to identify and select those patients most likely to benefit from specific treatment options.

SUBMITTER: Xu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3495900 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment: which one is better for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Xu Yaping Y Yu Xinmin X Chen Qixun Q Mao Weimin W

World journal of surgical oncology 20120825

Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer worldwide, and especially in some areas of China is the fourth most common cause of death and is of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) histology in >90% of cases. Surgery alone was the mainstay of therapeutic intervention in the past, but high rates of local and systemic failure have prompted investigation into multidisciplinary management. In this review, we discuss the key issues raised by the recent availability of esophageal SCC treatment with th ...[more]

PMID: 22920951

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe optimal treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains controversial. Surgery is the primary treatment but with poor results. Attempts to improve patient survival have been made by introducing chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both. However, randomized comparisons for all these strategies are not always available. This network meta-analysis compared the overall survival of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy with surgery alone to identify the most effective approach.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for relevant studies published before April 2021. Only phase II and III randomized controlled trials comparing the following treatments were included: surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT), radiotherapy (NRT) or chemoradiotherapy (NCRT), adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT), radiotherapy (ART), or chemoradiotherapy (ACRT). The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of overall survival (OS) was identified as the measurement of effectiveness. A network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the evidence under the Bayesian framework, and the relative effects of all possible comparisons were made. The ranking analysis was performed to support the decision in clinical practice.ResultsA total of 19 relevant trials with 3,749 patients were identified. Compared with surgery alone, NCRT (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.89) and NCT (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94) significantly improved OS, while other treatments, including NRT (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66-1.08), ACRT (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.49-1.08), ACT (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75-1.21), and ART (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66-1.14), provided no significant survival advantage. None of the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments showed a statistically significant difference in OS to each other when compared in pairs.ConclusionFor resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, this network meta-analysis showed that NCRT may be the optimal strategy, NCT may be the second choice, while other multimodality treatments could not improve OS compared with surgery alone. It remains unclear whether ESCC will benefit from adding radiotherapy into the neoadjuvant treatment.Systematic review registrationWe registered this meta-analysis protocol at the prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=172745 (Identification code: CRD42020172745).

Project description:BackgroundCarcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced.MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios.ResultsThirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate.- Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials).- Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials).- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery.- Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy.ConclusionFor adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.

Project description:BackgroundResearches on programmed cell death (PD-1) as neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer is underway, which brings hope for individuals with the disease. However, a study dedicated to lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) specifically has yet to be conducted. Now, data from our pilot prospective research neoadjuvant study provide new insights in the field of neoadjuvant regimen for LUSC.MethodsBetween June 2019 and July 2020, 37 adults with untreated, surgically resectable stage IIB-IIIB LUSC were enrolled into this prospective study. Patients received 2 cycles of pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) with chemotherapy (albumin-bound paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 + carboplatin AUC 5) via intravenous administration every 3 weeks, and underwent surgical treatment 3-4 weeks after the second cycle. The primary endpoint of the study was the tumor pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. The toxicity profile, tumor major pathological remission, complete resection rate, response rate, and operative and postoperative complications were also evaluated.ResultsThe postoperative pathological specimens of 17 (45.9%) patients suggested pCR. Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab with chemotherapy had an acceptable side-effect profile, and no patients withdrew from the study preoperatively due to disease progression or toxicity. A major pathological response occurred in 24 (64.9%) resected tumors. All tumors were completely resected (R0, 100%). According to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RESIST), a response was evaluated before surgery in 32 (86.5%) patients by computed tomography. Twenty-five (67.6%) patients underwent thoracoscopic surgery. No deaths or postoperative major complications requiring reoperation occurred. Recurrence or metastasis was found in 2 patients during follow-up of 2-14 months.ConclusionsThe early outcomes of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting as a novel treatment for resectable stage IIB-IIIB LUSC showed a high pCR rate that has not been seen previously, as well as a high R0 resection rate and a low toxicity profile. The long-term efficacy of this novel treatment and the validity of the present findings should be confirmed with longer follow-up and prospective comparative trials.

Dataset Information

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment: which one is better for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Publications

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment: which one is better for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets