Dataset Information

Single-Agent Versus Double-Agent Chemotherapy in Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Lessons learned

The efficacy of single-agent chemotherapy was not significantly different from that of double-agent chemotherapy in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Single-agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy had lower gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicity. Overall survival and progression-free survival were not significantly different between single- and double-agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

Background

This multicenter, randomized, phase II trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of single-agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy using the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 with those of double-agent concurrent chemoradiotherapy using S-1 and cisplatin in patients with inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Methods

Patients with inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (clinical stages I to III) were randomly allocated to the single-agent group (S-1) or the double-agent group (S-1/cisplatin). The concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan was similar for both groups: planning target volume 1.8 Gy/f*30-33f and planning gross target volume of 2 Gy/f*30-33f. The primary outcome measure was the endoscopic complete response rate.

Results

Of the 105 patients randomized, 89 were assessable. The endoscopic complete response rate was 46.9% (23/49) in the single-agent group and 52.5% (21/40) in double-agent group. The median progression-free survival within a median follow-up of 23 months was 20 and 21 months, respectively. The median overall survival was 26 months and not reached, respectively. Grade 3 hematological toxicities occurred in 4.1% and 27.5% of the patients in the single- and the double-agent group, respectively.

Conclusion

Single-agent chemotherapy in concurrent chemoradiotherapy for inoperable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma has good efficacy and safety, thus warranting a phase III trial.

SUBMITTER: Zhao Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8108049 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT-AC) is currently recommended as the standard treatment for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NAC-CCRT) is an alternative strategy for decreasing tumor size and controlling micrometastases before main treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare survival outcomes between LA-NPC patients treated with CCRT-AC and those treated with NAC-CCRT.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included consecutive histologically confirmed LA-NPC patients that were treated with NAC-CCRT or CCRT-AC at Siriraj Hospital during the March 2010 to October 2014 study period. CCRT in both protocols consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 with concurrent radiotherapy. Either NAC or AC consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin on day 1 and fluorouracil/leucovorin on days 1-4 for a maximum three cycles. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS). Flexible parametric survival analysis was used, because the proportional hazards assumption of Cox regression was violated.ResultsOf the 266 LA-NPC patients that received treatment during the study period, 79 received NAC-CCRT and 187 received CCRT-AC. Median follow-up was 37 months. Significantly more patients with advanced clinical stage (stage IVA-IVB) received NAC-CCRT (86% in NAC-CCRT vs. 29% in CCRT-AC; p < 0.001). Compared to CCRT-AC in crude analysis, 3-year and 5-year OS of NAC-CCRT were 72% vs. 86% and 62% vs. 75% respectively (p = 0.059). Interestingly, the 3-year and 5-year post-estimation adjusted OS was 84% and 74% for NAC-CCRT and 81% and 70% for CCRT-AC, respectively (HR: 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-1.56; p = 0.571). Also, adjusted analysis of distant-metastasis survival, NAC-CCRT showed HR was 0.79 (95% CI:0.37-1.72, p = 0.557). Conversely, adjusted analysis of locoregional relapse (LLR)-free survival revealed NAC-CCRT to have a significantly higher risk of LRR (HR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.98-4.87; p = 0.057).ConclusionsThe results suggested that prognosis in the NAC-CCRT treated patients was not superior to that of the CCRT-AC treated individuals. In patients that receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, locoregional relapse should be of concern. High-risk distant metastasis patients (N3 stage) that could achieve survival advantage from NAC-CCRT is an interesting and important topic for further study.