Progression-Free Survival as Early Efficacy Endpoint in Resectable Esophageal Cancer Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Systematic Review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zhu J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8801608 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The efficacy of surgery alone for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) is still unsatisfactory. Presently, induction therapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment. Preoperative chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiation (CRT) are proven effective induction therapies; however, few sample studies have addressed these treatments, thus, their superiority remains uncertain. We performed a systemic review and meta analysis to test the hypothesis that induction CRT prior to surgery could improve survival compared with induction CT alone.A comprehensive search of PubMed and the Ovid database for relevant studies comparing EC patients undergoing resection after treatment with induction CT alone or induction CRT was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were extracted from these studies to provide pooled estimates of the effect of induction therapy on overall survival.Five studies met the criteria for analysis. Statistical analysis demonstrated a survival benefit of induction CRT compared with induction CT alone (HR0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = 0.002). Further analysis showed that induction CRT perioperative mortality and complication rates were higher than for induction CT alone (HR 2.96, 95% CI 1.38-6.37; HR1.6, 95% CI 1.30-1.98; P = 0.01, respectively).Published evidence comparing the different efficacies of induction CT and induction CRT is sparse, with few samples of adenocarcinoma. This analysis supports the view that, compared with induction CT, induction CRT could achieve a long-term survival benefit in EC patients.
| S-EPMC4773296 | biostudies-other
Project description:Radiology-based outcomes, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR), are used as surrogate endpoints in oncology trials. We aimed to assess the surrogacy relationship of PFS with overall survival (OS) in clinical trials of systemic therapies targeting advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by novel meta-regression methods. A search of databases (PubMed, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Meeting Libraries, Clinicaltrials.gov) for trials of systemic therapies for advanced HCC reporting both OS and PFS was performed. Individual patient data were extracted from PFS and OS Kaplan-Meier curves. Summary median PFS and OS data were obtained from random-effect model. The surrogate relationships of median PFS, first quartile (Q1), third quartile (Q3), and restricted mean survival time (RMST) for OS were evaluated by the coefficient of determination R2. Heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression. We identified 49 trials, 11 assessing immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and 38 multikinase inhibitors (MKIs). Overall, the correlation between median PFS and median OS was weak (R2 = 0.20. 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]-0.02;0.42). Surrogacy robustness varied between treatment classes and PFS endpoints. In ICI trials only, the correlations between Q1-PFS and Q1-OS and between 12-month PFS-RMST and 12-month OS-RMST were high (R2 = 0.89, 95%CI 0.78-0.98, and 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-0.96, respectively). Interaction p-values obtained by meta-regression confirmed the robustness of results. In trials of systemic therapies for advanced HCC, the surrogate relationship of PFS with OS is highly variable depending on treatment class (ICI or MKI) and evaluation time-point. In ICI trials, Q1-PFS and 12-month PFS-RMST are robust surrogate endpoints for OS.
| S-EPMC7796103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEsophageal cancer is a highly malignant cancer with a very poor prognosis. For resectable esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant treatment could improve the prognosis of esophageal cancer. However, current clinical neoadjuvant treatment options for esophageal cancer are still limited. The application of immunotherapy is a potentially beneficial new neoadjuvant treatment option for esophageal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for the neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer.MethodsWe will search Wanfang Database, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Embase, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published before July, 2021. We will also search the unpublished clinical trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in esophageal cancer in preprint website (such as bioRXiv and medRxiv) up to July, 2021. We will perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be included in this study. The risk of bias will be evaluated for each included study using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We will use RevMan 5.3 software for statistical analysis of the data.ResultsThe results of this study will provide evidence of immunotherapy using as neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. This meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal seeking for publication.ConclusionThe results of this study will provide a reliable basis for clinicians and patients to formulate the best pre-surgical treatment plan for resectable esophageal cancer.Systematic review registrationINPLASY202120026.
| S-EPMC8177427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Progression-free survival (PFS) has been adopted as the primary endpoint in many randomized controlled trials, and can be determined much earlier than overall survival (OS). We investigated whether PFS is a good surrogate endpoint for OS in trials of first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), and whether this relationship has changed with the introduction of new treatment types. Methods:In a meta-analysis, we identified summary data [hazard ratio (HR) and median time] from published randomized controlled trials. Linear regression was used to assess the association between treatment effects on PFS and OS overall, and for subgroups defined by treatment type, postprogression survival (PPS) and established prognostic factors. Results:Correlation between HRs for PFS and OS, in 26 trials with 30 treatment comparisons comprising 24,870 patients, was modest (r2 = 0.52, weighted by trial sample size). The correlation diminished with recency: preplatinum/paclitaxel era, r2= 0.66; platinum/paclitaxel, r2= 0.44; triplet combinations, r2= 0.22; biologicals, r2= 0.30. The median PPS increased over time for the experimental (Ptrend = 0.03) and control arms (Ptrend = 0.003). The difference in median PPS between treatment arms strongly correlated with the difference in median OS (r2 = 0.83). In trials where the control therapy had median PPS of less than 18 months, correlation between PFS and OS was stronger (r2 = 0.64) than where the median PPS was longer (r2 = 0.48). Conclusions:In EOC, correlation in the relative treatment effect between PFS and OS in first-line platinum-based chemotherapy randomized controlled trials is moderate and has weakened with increasing availability of effective salvage therapies.
| S-EPMC6080081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Radiation dose used in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) varies in different trials and clinical practice. Methods and Materials: Data from patients diagnosed with ESCC receiving NCRT followed by esophagectomy were retrospectively collected from February 2013 to December 2017. Lower dose (LD) radiotherapy was defined as ≤45 Gy, and >45 Gy was considered as higher dose (HD). Survival rates were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with long-rank test. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify variables associated with survival. Results: A total of 118 patients treated with NCRT were included in our analysis: 62 patients received LD radiotherapy, and 56 patients received HD radiotherapy. The median follow-up time was 24.3 months (0.67-65.3 m). Two-years overall survival (OS) rates were 75.0 and 79.0% in HD and LD group, respectively (P = 0.360), and complete pathological remission (pCR) rates in two groups were 42.9 and 30.6%, respectively (P = 0.17). The incidences of toxic effects including post-operative complications were not significantly different between two groups. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor T stage, M1a disease, smoking history, and pCR rate were significantly associated with OS. Conclusions: In ESCC patients treated with NCRT followed by surgery, higher radiation dose was not significantly associated with a higher pCR rate and longer survival. Lower radiation dose might be a preferable time-dose fraction scheme. Our finding needs to be further validated by randomized trials.
| S-EPMC7468494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs neoadjuvant therapy of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) is becoming more widely used, better indicators of progression are needed to help guide therapeutic decisions.Materials and methodsA retrospective review was performed on all patients with BRPC who received 24 weeks of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with chemotoxicity or medical comorbidities limiting treatment completion and nonexpressors of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) were excluded. Serum CA19-9 response was analyzed as a predictor of disease progression, recurrence, and survival.ResultsOne hundred four patients were included; 39 (37%) progressed on treatment (18 local and 21 distant) and 65 (63%) were resected (68% R0). Multivariate logistic regression analysis determined that the percent decrease in CA19-9 from baseline to minimum value (odds ratio [OR] 0.947, p ≤ .0001) and the percent increase from minimum value to final restaging CA19-9 (OR 1.030, p ≤ .0001) were predictive of progression. A receiver operating characteristics curve analysis determined cutoff values predictive of progression, which were used to create four prognostic groups. CA19-9 responses were categorized as follows: (1) always normal (n = 6); (2) poor response (n = 31); (3) unsustained response (n = 19); and (4) sustained response (n = 48). Median overall survival for Groups 1-4 was 58, 16, 20, and 38 months, respectively (p ≤ .0001).ConclusionPatients with initially elevated CA19-9 levels who do not have a decline to a sustained low level are at risk for progression, recurrence, and poor survival. Alternative treatment strategies prior to an attempt at curative resection should be considered in this cohort.Implications for practiceThis study identified percent changes in carbohydrate antigen 19-9 blood levels while on chemotherapy that predict tumor growth in patients with advanced pancreas cancer. These changes could be used to better select patients who would benefit from surgical removal of their tumors and improve survival.
| S-EPMC7543354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for resectable proximal gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and distal esophageal cancer have evolved over several decades. Treatment recommendations differ based on histologic type-squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) versus adenocarcinoma (AC)-as well as the exact location of the tumor. Recent and older clinical trials in this area were critically reviewed. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with concurrent taxane- or fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has an established role for both AC and SCC of the distal esophagus and GEJ. The use of perioperative chemotherapy for gastric AC is based on the FLOT4 and MAGIC trials; however, the utility of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in this setting requires further evaluation. Additional clinical trials evaluating chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and radiation that are currently in process are highlighted, given the need for further disease control.
| S-EPMC8996907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant treatment over surgery alone and that of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) over neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) in resectable esophageal carcinoma remains inconclusive. This study (NewEC) used global data to comprehensively evaluate these comparisons and to provide a preferable strategy for patient subsets.MethodsThis study included a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from inception to May 2019 from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and congresses and a registry-based cohort study with patients from Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts, USA) and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangzhou, China) recruited from November 2000 and June 2017, to cross-validate the comparisons among NCRT versus NCT versus surgery. The GRADE approach was used to assessed quality of evidence in meta-analysis. Neural network machine learning propensity score-matched analysis was used to account for confounding by patient-level characteristics in the cohort study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The study was registered with PROSPERO CRD42017072242 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04027543.FindingsOf 22,070 studies assessed, there were 38 (n = 6,993 patients) eligible RCTs. Additionally, 423 out of 467 screened patients were included in the cohort study. The results from trials showed that NCT had a better OS than surgery alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·79-0·98; high quality) and was only favorable for adenocarcinoma (HR 0·83, 95% CI 0·72-0·96; moderate quality). High-quality evidence showed a significantly better OS for NCRT than surgery alone (HR 0·74, 95% CI 0·66-0·82) for both adenocarcinoma (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·62-0·86) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·65-0·83). The OS benefit of NCRT over NCT was seen in the pairwise (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·62-0·99; high quality) and network (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·72-0·93; high quality) meta-analyses, with similar results before (HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·40-0·91) and after (HR 0·44, 95% CI 0·25-0·77) matching in the cohort study, leading to a significantly increased 5-year OS rate in both adenocarcinoma and SCC before and after matching. The increased benefits from NCT or NCRT were not associated with the risk of 30-day or in-hospital mortality.InterpretationNewEC Study provided high-quality evidence supporting the survival benefits of NCRT or NCT over surgery alone, with NCRT presenting the greatest benefit for resectable esophageal carcinoma.FundingNational Science and Technology Major Project, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, the Guangzhou Science and Technology Major Program, the Medical artificial intelligence project of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, the Guangdong Science and Technology Department, the Guangdong Province Medical Scientific Research Foundation, and Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital Intermural Program.
| S-EPMC7327891 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC3495900 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC529457 | biostudies-literature