To compare the causes of death in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery.

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with stage T3-4aN0M0/T1-4aN1-3 M0 esophageal cancer who underwent either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Overall survival (OS) and specific causes of death were analyzed and compared between the two treatment groups.

A total of 4528 patients were included: 333 (7.4%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 4195 (92.6%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The 5-year OS was comparable between the two groups, both before (42.4% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.33; P = 0.097) and after (42.2% vs. 42.2%; HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86-1.31; P = 0.567) propensity score matching. The cumulative 5-year absolute risk of death from esophageal cancer (49.9% vs. 50.6%, P = 0.470), death from non-tumor causes (7.8% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.160), death due to lung causes (2.8% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.432), and death from heart-related causes (2.2% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.524) were similar between the two treatment groups.

In patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, OS and the causes of death were comparable between those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Recently, neoadjuvant chemotherapy comprising docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil showed promising efficacy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. However, some patients do not achieve curative resection despite neoadjuvant chemotherapy using these drugs. This study aimed to clarify the pretherapeutic characteristics of these patients. We included 113 patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil for potentially resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and compared the clinical characteristics between patients who achieved curative resection (curative group) and those who failed to achieve curative resection after planned neoadjuvant chemotherapy (noncurative group). Moreover, we determined the factors predicting noncurative outcomes. Ninety-one (81%) and 22 patients (19%) were in the curative and noncurative groups, respectively. The noncurative group had significantly more tumors located in the upper third of the esophagus, larger-sized tumors, and borderline resectable tumors than the curative group (P = 0.003, 0.049, and <0.001, respectively). Moreover, the noncurative group had significantly higher serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen concentrations than the curative group (P = 0.008). Multivariable analysis identified tumor location in the upper third of the esophagus (odds ratio 7.31, P = 0.002), tumor size ≥50 mm (odds ratio 4.71, P = 0.037), and borderline resectable tumors (odds ratio 6.65, P = 0.003) as independent predictors for noncurative outcomes. Tumor location in the upper third of the esophagus, larger-sized tumors, and borderline resectable tumors might be significant predictors for noncurative outcomes in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil.

The current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer recommend a multimodal approach that includes chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Despite advances in treatment, rates of treatment failure, pathologic incomplete response, tumor metastasis, and death remain unacceptably high.

This study was a narrative literature review using the terms "resectable esophageal cancer" and "multimodal therapy" to identify prospective trials of neoadjuvant radiation and chemotherapy, individually or combined with surgery, for esophageal cancer. Trials performed between 1984 and 2022 were identified and analyzed.

gov was queried to identify ongoing studies.

Twenty-one clinical studies were identified: 15 randomized controlled trials and 6 prospective nonrandomized trials. The results of the randomized trials suggest that multimodal therapy-in the form of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in combination with radiation or chemotherapy alone, followed by surgery-is associated with better rates of local disease control and partial clinical response and, potentially, longer survival than is surgery alone. Immunotherapy is an emerging option for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer.

The treatment of patients with resectable esophageal cancer is rapidly evolving. Although previous treatment options have had only limited benefits for patients, significant progress has been made during last 3 decades. The results of the available studies suggest that advances in the treatment of esophageal cancer have the potential to improve survival in these patients; however, questions remain regarding mechanisms of action, patient selection, and the use of personalized approaches that are based on genetics.

Standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal junction squamous cancer, 5-fluorouracil plus platinum, is toxic and logistically challenging; alternative regimens are needed.

This was a phase III randomized open-label noninferiority trial at Tata Memorial Center, India, in resectable locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal junction squamous cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 3 cycles of 3-weekly platinum (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 6) with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (day 1) or 5-fluorouracil 1000 mg/m2 continuous infusion (days 1-4), followed by surgery.

Between August 2014 and June 2022, we enrolled 420 patients; 210 to each arm. Statistically significantly more patients on paclitaxel plus platinum (n =194, 92.3%) received all 3 chemotherapy cycles than on 5-fluorouracil with platinum (n = 170, 85.9%; P = .009). 5-fluorouracil plus platinum caused more grade 3 or higher toxicities (n = 124, 69.7%) than paclitaxel plus platinum (n = 97, 51.9%; P = .001). Surgery was performed in 131 (62.4%) patients on 5-fluorouracil plus platinum vs 139 (66.2%) on paclitaxel plus platinum (P = .415). Paclitaxel plus platinum resulted in higher pathologic primary tumor clearance (n = 33, 25.8%, vs n = 17, 15%; P = .04) and pathologic complete responses in 21.9% compared with 12.4% from 5-fluorouracil plus platinum (P = .053). Median overall survival was 27.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.6 to 43.5 months) from paclitaxel plus platinum, which was noninferior to 27.1 months (95% CI = 18.8 to 40.7 months) from 5-fluorouracil plus platinum (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.09; P = .346).

Neoadjuvant paclitaxel plus platinum chemotherapy is safer and results in similar R0 resections, higher pathologic tumor clearance and noninferior survival compared with 5-fluorouracil plus platinum. Paclitaxel plus platinum should replace 5-fluorouracil plus platinum as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable locally advanced esophagealor gastroesophageal junction squamous cancer.

CTRI/2014/04/004516.

This study aimed to assess the viability of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) as an organ-preservation strategy for remarkable responders who were downstaged to stage IA after receiving induction chemotherapy for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with resectable ESCC (stage IB-III, Union for International Cancer Control, International Cancer Control seventh edition) were eligible for the study. All patients received 3 cycles of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-FU (DCF) therapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] 750 mg/m2 on days 1-5, repeated every 3 weeks). Remarkable response was defined as a reduction in the tumor to T1, metastatic lymph nodes <1 cm on the short axis, and downstaging to stage IA after 3 cycles of DCF therapy. Remarkable responders then underwent dCRT, which included 2 courses of cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and 5-FU 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 to 4, repeated every 4 weeks, along with 50.4 Gy of concurrent radiation therapy. The primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival in remarkable responders following DCF therapy and subsequent dCRT. Secondary endpoints included 3-year overall survival (OS) and esophagectomy-free survival.

Of the 92 patients registered, 90 were analyzed. A remarkable response to 3 courses of DCF therapy was observed in 58.4% of patients. Among these responders, 89.8% achieved a complete response after dCRT. During the median follow-up period of 33 months (range, 1-85 months), the 1-year progression-free survival was 89.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77.2%-95.6%, primary endpoint), and the 3-year OS was 83.7%. The 3-year OS and esophagectomy-free survival rates in the analysis group were 74.1% and 45.3%, respectively. An 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography response after 2 courses of DCF therapy was significantly associated with OS (P = .0049).

In patients with resectable ESCC, dCRT for remarkable responders downstaging to stage IA after induction chemotherapy with 3 courses of DCF therapy is a feasible treatment option and provides an optimizing organ-preservation strategy of chemotherapy-based selection.

Oesophageal cancer (EC), ranking 11th in incidence and 7th in mortality globally, presents a significant health challenge, with a notable prevalence in India, especially in the northeastern region. This article examines the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in treating locally advanced EC, analyzing data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between 2000 and 2024. NACRT, involving preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, has shown improved survival rates, notably in the CROSS trial, which reported a 10-year overall survival benefit of 13%. Conversely, NACT is supported by key trials like the OE02 and MAGIC trials, demonstrating comparable survival outcomes. Key points of debate include compliance, complications, response and resection status, survival rates, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Compliance rates are similar for both modalities, though disease progression is more common after NACT. Postoperative complications and mortality rates are comparable, with NACTRT showing higher pathologic complete response (pCR) and R0 resection rates, potentially avoiding additional adjuvant radiation. While NACRT shows marginally better 3-year survival rates, particularly for squamous cell carcinoma, 5-year survival rates and HRQOL outcomes are similar for both treatments. NACTRT is associated with more respiratory symptoms, whereas NACT patients experience more gastrointestinal issues. Both NACT and NACTRT are viable options, with the choice depending on patient-specific factors and a thorough assessment of potential benefits and risks. Further research is needed to optimize treatment protocols for EC.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACRT) followed by surgery has become the standard of care for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study compared the tolerability and oncological benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with those of NACRT for the treatment of ESCC.

A prospective quasi-experimental comparative study was conducted from July 2019 to August 2023 to assess the efficacy of the NACT regimen of two cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin as an alternative to standard NACRT. Either NACT or NACRT was given to patients with resectable ESCC (clinical stage IB-IIIC), after which they underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. Radiological and pathological responses to neoadjuvant therapy, perioperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence-free and overall survival rates were compared.

Out of the 74 patients enrolled, 63 were included in the study after exclusion. Of these, 30 received NACT, and 33 received NACRT. The baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, incidence of neoadjuvant therapy-related adverse events, and perioperative morbidity were comparable between the two groups. The median number of lymph nodes retrieved (21 vs 19, p=0.19) and R0 resection rate (100% vs 94%) were similar. Although the pathological response was significantly better in the NACRT arm, at a median follow-up of 32.5 (20.75-48) months, there was a non-significant trend toward better recurrence-free survival in the NACRT group (57 vs 36 months, p-value - 0.831), with median overall survival yet to be achieved in both groups.

Compared with NACRT, NACT for ESCC is well tolerated and has non-inferior oncological outcomes. NACT could be a feasible alternative to NACRT in such patients, especially if the radiotherapy option is not feasible or available.

Surgery for cancer of the esophagus or gastro-esophageal junction can be performed with a variety of minimally invasive and open approaches. The left thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (LTE) is an open technique that gives an opportunity to operate in the chest and abdomen with excellent exposure of the gastro-esophageal junction through a single incision, and there is currently no equivalent minimally invasive technique available. The aim of this multi-institutional review was to study a large contemporary international study cohort of patients treated with LTE. An international multicenter cohort study was performed including all patients treated with LTE at six high-volume centers for gastro-esophageal cancer surgery between 2012 and 2022. Patient data were prospectively collected in each participating centers' institutional database. Information about patient, tumor, and treatment details were collected. The study cohort included a total of 793 patients treated with LTE during the study period. The most frequently observed complications were pneumonia in 185/727 (25.5%) patients and atrial fibrillation in 91/727 (12.5%). Anastomotic leak occurred in 35/727 (4.8%) patients; no patient suffered from conduit necrosis. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 15/785 (1.9%) patients and 90-day mortality in 39/785 (5.0%) patients. Factors with statistically significant association with survival were American Society for Anesthesiologists-score, tumor location, tumor stage, and tumor free resection margins. Neoadjuvant therapy was not associated with increased survival compared to surgery alone but neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed statistically significant improved survival with hazard ratio 0.60 (95% confidence intervals:0.44-0.80, P = 0.001) in a multivariable adjusted model. This study demonstrates that LTE can be applied in selected patients with results that are comparable to other large studies of open and minimally invasive surgery for esophageal or gastro-esophageal cancer at high-volume centers.

The prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone.

To assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes.

Literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023.

Two blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach.

Overall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality.

The analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00]).

In this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.

Patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) scheduled for neoadjuvant radiotherapy still have a poor prognosis. This study was to explore the prognostic value of the pretreatment systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) in patients with locally advanced ESCC after neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NRT).

Eighty-two consecutive patients with ESCC scheduled for neoadjuvant radiotherapy between 2011 and 2017 were enrolled in this study. SII values (SII = platelet × neutrophil/lymphocyte), prognostic nutritional index values (PNI = albumin concentration (g/L) + 5 × total lymphocyte count (109/L)), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were retrospectively collected and calculated before treatment. The Cut-off Finder application was applied to find out the cut-off points of the SII, NLR, PNI and PLR. A regression model was used to examine prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) rates.

The median follow-up was 44 months (3 to 83). Sixty patients (73.17%) underwent surgery as scheduled. This study found that factors improving OS were a lower SII (≤916.6 × 109/L) (P=0.040) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) (P=0.034). The patients with a lower SII and NCRT had a better OS (P< 0.001). Moreover, additionally, a higher SII was associated with a lower resectability rate (P=0.035).

The SII can predict resectability in ESCC patients following neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Both the SII and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy appear to influence OS.

Radiation therapy is an effective treatment modality in the management of patients with esophageal cancer regardless of tumor location (proximal, middle, or distal esophagus) or histology (squamous cell vs adenocarcinoma). The addition of neoadjuvant CRT to surgery in patients who are surgical candidates has consistently shown a benefit in terms of locoregional recurrence, pathologic downstaging, and overall survival. For patients who are not surgical candidates, CRT has a role as definitive treatment.

This study aimed to develop and validate robust predictive models for patients with oesophageal cancer who achieved a pathological complete response (pCR) and those who did not (non-pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy.

Clinicopathological data of 6517 primary oesophageal cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy were obtained from the National Cancer Database for the training cohort. An independent cohort of 444 Chinese patients served as the validation set. Two distinct multivariable Cox models of overall survival (OS) were constructed for pCR and non-pCR patients, respectively, and were presented using web-based dynamic nomograms (graphical representation of predicted OS based on the clinical characteristics that a patient could input into the website). The calibration plot, concordance index and decision curve analysis were employed to assess calibration, discrimination and clinical usefulness of the predictive models.

In total, 13 and 15 variables were used to predict OS for pCR and non-pCR patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy followed by oesophagectomy, respectively. Key predictors included demographic characteristics, pretreatment clinical stage, surgical approach, pathological information and postoperative treatments. The predictive models for pCR and non-pCR patients demonstrated good calibration and clinical utility, with acceptable discrimination that surpassed that of the current tumour, node, metastases staging system.

The web-based dynamic nomograms for pCR (https://predict-survival.shinyapps.io/pCR-eso/) and non-pCR patients (https://predict-survival.shinyapps.io/non-pCR-eso/) developed in this study can facilitate the calculation of OS probability for individual patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and radical oesophagectomy, aiding clinicians and patients in making personalised treatment decisions.

Neoadjuvant therapy is an essential modality for reducing the clinical stage of esophageal cancer; however, the superiority of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is unclear. Therefore, a discussion of these two modalities is necessary.

To investigate the benefits and complications of neoadjuvant modalities.

To address this concern, predefined criteria were established using the PICO protocol. Two independent authors performed comprehensive searches using predetermined keywords. Statistical analyses were performed to identify significant differences between groups. Potential publication bias was visualized using funnel plots. The quality of the data was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool 2 (RoB2) and the GRADE approach.

Ten articles, including 1928 patients, were included for the analysis. Significant difference was detected in pathological complete response (pCR) [P < 0.001; odds ratio (OR): 0.27; 95%CI: 0.16-0.46], 30-d mortality (P = 0.015; OR: 0.4; 95%CI: 0.22-0.71) favoring the nCRT, and renal failure (P = 0.039; OR: 1.04; 95%CI: 0.66-1.64) favoring the nCT. No significant differences were observed in terms of survival, local or distal recurrence, or other clinical or surgical complications. The result of RoB2 was moderate, and that of the GRADE approach was low or very low in almost all cases.

Although nCRT may have a higher pCR rate, it does not translate to greater long-term survival. Moreover, nCRT is associated with higher 30-d mortality, although the specific cause for postoperative complications could not be identified. In the case of nCT, toxic side effects are suspected, which can reduce the quality of life. Given the quality of available studies, further randomized trials are required.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment is mostly limited to patients who exhibit pathologic complete response (pCR). Existing estimates of pCR rates among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy have not been synthesized and lack precision.

We conducted an independently funded systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023397402) of pCR rates among patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radiation). Studies were identified from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database searches. Eligible studies included trials published from 1992 to 2022 that focused on nonmetastatic esophageal cancer, including the gastroesophageal junction. Histology-specific pooled pCR prevalence was determined using the Freeman-Tukey transformation and a random effects model.

After eligibility assessment, 84 studies with 6451 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinomas was 9% (95% CI: 6%-14%), ranging from 0% to 32%. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in squamous cell carcinomas was 32% (95% CI: 26%-39%), ranging from 8% to 66%. For adenocarcinoma, the pooled prevalence of pCR was 6% (95% CI: 1%-12%) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 22% (18%-26%) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Under one-third of patients with esophageal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemo(radiation) experience pCR. Patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas had higher rates of pCR than those with adenocarcinomas. As pCR represents an increasingly utilized endpoint in neoadjuvant trials, these estimates of pooled pCR rates may serve as an important benchmark for future trial design.

Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors is progressing slowly. Although immunotherapy for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors has made great progress, the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for locally resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors have not been clearly demonstrated. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and advance the current research.

Original articles describing the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors published up until October 15, 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and other major databases. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for heterogeneity and subgroup analysis.

A total of 1074 patients from 33 studies were included. The effectiveness of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was mainly evaluated using pathological complete remission (PCR), major pathological remission (MPR), and tumor regression grade (TRG). Among the included patients, 1015 underwent surgical treatment and 847 achieved R0 resection. Of the patients treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy, 24% (95% CI: 19%-28%) achieved PCR and 49% (95% CI: 38%-61%) achieved MPR. Safety was assessed by a surgical resection rate of 0.89 (95% CI: 85%-93%), incidence of ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of 28% (95% CI: 17%-40%), and incidence of ≥ 3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of 19% (95% CI: 11%-27%).

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy, especially neoadjuvant dual-immunotherapy combinations, is effective and safe for resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction tumors in the short term. Nevertheless, further multicenter randomized trials are required to demonstrate which combination model is more beneficial.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=358752, identifier CRD42022358752.

Currently, the optimal treatment for neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer is not clear, and there is no evidence that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is superior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT). Due to the publication of new clinical trials and defects in previous meta-analyses, we conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nCRT and nCT.

The following databases were searched for studies: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library (updated to April 22, 2023). All randomized trials comparing nCRT with nCT in locally advanced esophageal cancer met the inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (Cochrane collaboration software). Primary outcomes assessed from the trials included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), pathological complete response (pCR), R0 resection rate, postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, and grade 3 or higher adverse events (3 + AEs).

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 7 randomized controlled studies involving 1372 patients (686 receiving nCRT and 686 receiving nCT). Compared with nCT, nCRT significantly improved OS (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.94), PFS (HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66-0.93), pCR (OR = 13.00; 95% CI: 7.82-21.61) and R0 resection (OR = 1.84; 95% CI: 1.32-2.57), but was associated with higher postoperative mortality (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.26-4.25) and grade 3 + AEs (OR = 2.21; 95% CI: 1.36-3.58). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between nCRT and nCT (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.82-1.61). Subgroup analysis showed significant survival benefit in squamous cell carcinoma (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.68-0.98), but not in adenocarcinoma (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.63-1.08).

Our meta-analysis found superior efficacy associated with nCRT compared with nCT in both tumor regression and prolonged survival, but increased the risk of postoperative mortality and grade 3 + AEs. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was more likely to benefit from nCRT than esophageal adenocarcinoma in the term of OS.

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer (EC) treatment is still a subject of debate.

To compare the clinical efficacy and toxic side effects between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) for locally advanced EC (LAEC).

A comprehensive search was conducted using multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database Article. Studies up to December 2022 comparing nCRT and nCT in patients with EC were selected.

The analysis revealed significant differences between nCRT and nCT in terms of disease-free survival. The results indicated that nCRT provided better outcomes in terms of the 3-year overall survival rate (OSR) [odds ratio (OR) = 0.95], complete response rate (OR = 3.15), and R0 clearance rate (CR) (OR = 2.25). However, nCT demonstrated a better 5-year OSR (OR = 1.02) than nCRT. Moreover, when compared to nCRT, nCT showed reduced risks of cardiac complications (OR = 1.15) and pulmonary complications (OR = 1.30).

Overall, both nCRT and nCT were effective in terms of survival outcomes for LAEC. However, nCT exhibited better performance in terms of postoperative complications.

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Pathological response is a critical factor in predicting long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer after preoperative therapy. However, the validity of using pathological response as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for esophageal cancer has not yet been established. In this study, a literature-based meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate pathological response as a proxy endpoint for survival in esophageal cancer.

Three databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies investigating neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. The correlation between pathological complete response (pCR) and OS were assessed using a weighted multiple regression analysis at the trial level, and the coefficient of determination (R2) was calculated. The research design and histological subtypes were considered in the performance of subgroup analysis.

In this meta-analysis, a total of 40 trials, comprising 43 comparisons and 55,344 patients were qualified. The surrogacy between pCR and OS was moderate (R2 = 0.238 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.500 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.541 in log settings). pCR could not serve as an ideal surrogate endpoint in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (R2 = 0.511 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.460 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.523 in log settings). A strong correlation was observed in studies comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (R2 = 0.595 in direct comparison, R2 = 0.840 for pCR reciprocals, R2 = 0.800 in log settings).

A lack of surrogacy of pathological response for long-term survival at trial level is established in this study. Hence, caution should be exercised when using pCR as the primary endpoint in neoadjuvant studies for esophageal cancer.

Post-operative pulmonary complications (POPC) are common in patients undergoing esophagectomy and neoadjuvant radiotherapy may exacerbate POPC. This study assessed whether neoadjuvant radiation increases the incidence of POPC in patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignancy.

The American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database files from 2016 to 2018 were queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignancy. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to create balanced cohorts in which the control group received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and the treatment cohort received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). A subset analysis was performed on patients with pre-existing pulmonary disease (PEPD). Primary outcomes were POPC and 30-day mortality.

The all-patient analysis did not demonstrate a consistent association between neoadjuvant radiation and POPC. However, in patients with PEPD, POPC occurred more often in the nCRT cohort. Comparing nCRT to nCT and after IPTW adjustment for confounders, there was higher odds of pneumonia (aOR = 3.0, P = .002), unplanned intubation (aOR = 2.0, P = .03), and extended mechanical ventilation (aOR = 3.6, P = .002).

In esophageal cancer patients with PEPD that undergo nCRT vs nCT prior to esophagectomy, the greater risk of POPCs must be weighed against the potential for improved oncologic outcomes.

This study aimed to compare clinicopathologic, oncologic, and health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) and chemotherapy (nCT) in the ENSURE international multicenter study.

nCT and nCRT are the standards of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC) treated with curative intent. However, no published randomized controlled trial to date has demonstrated the superiority of either approach.

ENSURE is an international multicenter study of consecutive patients undergoing surgery for LAEC (2009-2015) across 20 high-volume centers (NCT03461341). The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS), secondary outcomes included histopathologic response, recurrence pattern, oncologic outcome, and HRQL in survivorship.

A total of 2211 patients were studied (48% nCT, 52% nCRT). pCR was observed in 4.9% and 14.7% ( P <0.001), with R0 in 78.2% and 94.2% ( P <0.001) post nCT and nCRT, respectively. Postoperative morbidity was equivalent, but in-hospital mortality was independently increased [hazard ratio (HR)=2.73, 95% CI: 1.43-5.21, P= 0.002] following nCRT versus nCT. Probability of local recurrence was reduced (odds ratio=0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93, P =0.012), and distant recurrence-free survival time reduced (HR=1.18, 95% CI: 1.02-1.37, P =0.023) after nCRT versus nCT, with no difference in OS among all patients (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 0.98-1.25, P =0.113). On subgroup analysis, patients who underwent R0 resection following nCT as compared with nCRT had improved OS (median: 60.7 months, 95% CI: 49.5-71.8 vs 40.8 months, 95% CI: 42.8-53.4, P <0.001).

In this European multicenter study, nCRT compared with nCT was associated with reduced probability of local recurrence but reduced distant recurrence-free survival for patients with LAEC, without differences in OS. These data support tailored patient-specific decision-making in the overall approach to achieving optimum outcomes in LAEC.

Adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (AEG) has become increasingly common in Western and Asian populations. Surgical resection is the mainstay of treatment for AEG; however, determining the distance from the upper edge of the tumor to the esophageal margin (PM) is essential for accurate prognosis. Despite the relevance of these studies, most have been retrospective and vary widely in their conclusions. The PM is now widely accepted to have an impact on patient outcomes but can be masked by TNM at later stages. Extended PM is associated with improved outcomes, but the optimal PM is uncertain. Academics continue to debate the surgical route, extent of lymphadenectomy, preoperative tumor size assessment, intraoperative cryosection, neoadjuvant therapy, and other aspects to further ensure a negative margin in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. This review summarizes and evaluates the findings from these studies and suggests that the choice of approach for patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction should take into account the extent of esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy. Although several guidelines and reviews recommend the routine use of intraoperative cryosections to evaluate surgical margins, its generalizability is limited. Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy are more likely to increase the R0 resection rate. In particular, intraoperative cryosections and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were found to be more effective for achieving negative resection margins in signet ring cell carcinoma.

The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups.

All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158).

IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively).

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.

Historically, oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas were associated with a poor prognosis. The advent of neoadjuvant therapy has transformed the management of oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas further and offers the possibility to reverse disease progression, eliminate micrometastasis, and offer potentially better outcomes for these patients. This review provides an overview of landmark clinical trials in this area, with different treatment regimens considered over the years as well as potential therapeutic agents on the horizon that may transform the management of oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinomas further.

Although neoadjuvant treatment has become the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, previous studies comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) have demonstrated inconclusive results.

Our study cohort included 3978 patients from 85 institutions. Those who underwent NAC or NACRT followed by surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were eligible for inclusion. We used the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method to compare the outcomes between NAC and NACRT.

Among the 3978 patients, 3777 (94.9%) received NAC and 201 (5.1%) received NACRT. After IPTW adjustment, the NACRT group had more patients with pathologically downstaged diseases and significantly better pathological response compared with the NAC group (p < 0.001); however, 5-year overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and regional recurrence-specific survival (RRSS) were comparable between the groups. Subgroup analysis stratifying patients according to cT category showed that among cT1-2 patients, those in the NACRT group had significantly longer 5-year OS, RFS, and RRSS than those in the NAC group (P = 0.024, < 0.001, and 0.020, respectively). In contrast, no significant differences were observed among cT3-4a patients. The competing risks regression model showed comparable subdistribution hazard ratios for 10-year cancerous and noncancerous deaths between the NAC and NACRT groups.

Compared with NAC, NACRT for ESCC did not promote better survival despite better therapeutic effects and did not increase noncancerous deaths.

To evaluate effectiveness of concurrent radiotherapy in esophageal cancer patient treated with neoadjuvant therapy.

The data of 1026 consecutive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) were retrospectively collected. The main inclusion criteria were patients with locally advanced (cT2-4N0-3M0) ESCC who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) followed by MIE, and divided into two groups according to different neoadjuvant strategies. Propensity score matching was performed to improve the comparability between the two groups.

After exclusion and matching, 141 patients were enrolled retrospectively: 92 received NCT, and 49 received NCRT. No difference in clinicopathologic characteristics or incidence of adverse events between groups. A shorter operation time (215.7 ± 35.5 min) (p < 0.001), less blood loss (111.2 ± 67.7 ml) (p = 0.0007) and a greater number of lymph nodes retrieved (33.8 ± 11.7) (p = 0.002) were observed in NCT group than in NCRT group. The incidence of postoperative complications was similar between groups. Although patients in NCRT group had better pathological complete response (16, 32.7%) (p = 0.0026) and ypT0N0 (10, 20.4%) (p = 0.0002) rates, there was no significant difference in 5-year progression-free survival (p = 0.1378) or disease-specific survival (p = 0.1258) between groups.

Compared with NCRT, NCT has certain advantages in that it can simplify the surgical procedure and decrease the surgical technique required without compromising the surgical oncological outcomes and long-term survival of patients.

We hypothesized that, on average, patients do not benefit from additional adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer, although subsets of patients might. Therefore, we sought to identify profiles of patients predicted to receive the most survival benefit or greatest detriment from adding adjuvant therapy.

Although neoadjuvant therapy has become the treatment of choice for locally advanced esophageal cancer, the value of adding adjuvant therapy is unknown.

From 1970 to 2014, 22,123 patients were treated for esophageal cancer at 33 centers on 6 continents (Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration), of whom 7731 with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma received neoadjuvant therapy; 1348 received additional adjuvant therapy. Random forests for survival and virtual-twin analyses were performed for all-cause mortality.

Patients received a small survival benefit from adjuvant therapy (3.2±10 months over the subsequent 10 years for adenocarcinoma, 1.8±11 for squamous cell carcinoma). Consistent benefit occurred in ypT3-4 patients without nodal involvement and those with ypN2-3 disease. The small subset of patients receiving most benefit had high nodal burden, ypT4, and positive margins. Patients with ypT1-2N0 cancers had either no benefit or a detriment in survival.

Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy has value primarily for patients with more advanced esophageal cancer. Because the benefit is often small, patients considering adjuvant therapy should be counseled on benefits versus morbidity. In addition, given that the overall benefit was meaningful in a small number of patients, emerging modalities such as immunotherapy may hold more promise in the adjuvant setting.

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (nICT) is a novel and promising therapy model for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.The objective of this study aimed to assessed the impact of additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy on patients' short-term outcomes, particularly the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) and pathological response.

Patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT)/ nICT combination with radical esophagectomy were enrolled from three medical centers in China. The authors used propensity score matching (PSM, ration:1:1, caliper=0.01) and inverse probability processing weighting (IPTW) to balance the baseline characteristics and compare the outcomes. Conditional logistic regression and weighted logistic regression analysis were used to further evaluate whether additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy would increase the risk of postoperative AL.

A total of 331 patients getting partially advanced ESCC receiving nCT or nICT were enrolled from three medical centers in China. After PSM/IPTW, the baseline characteristics reached an equilibrium between the two groups. After matching, there were no significant difference in the AL incidence between the two groups ( P =0.68, after PSM; P =0.97 after IPTW), and the incidence of AL in the two groups was 15.85 versus 18.29%, and 14.79 versus 15.01%, respectively. After PSM/IPTW, both groups were similar in pleural effusion and pneumonia. After IPTW, the nICT group had a higher incidence of bleeding (3.36 vs. 0.30%, P =0.01), chylothorax (5.79 0.30%, P =0.001), and cardiac events (19.53 vs. 9.20%, P =0.04). recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (7.85 vs. 0.54%, P =0.003). After PSM, both groups were similar in palsy of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (1.22 vs. 3.66%, P =0.31) and cardiac events (19.51 vs. 14.63%, P =0.41). Weighted logistic regression analysis showed that additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy was not responsible for AL (OR=0.56, 95% CI: [0.17, 1.71], after PSM; 0.74, 95% CI: [0.34,1.56], after IPTW). The nICT group had dramatically higher pCR in primary tumor than the nCT group ( P =0.003, PSM; P =0.005, IPTW), 9.76 versus 28.05% and 7.72 versus 21.17%, respectively.

Additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy could benefit pathological reactions without increasing the risk of AL and pulmonary complications. The authors require further randomized controlled research to validate whether additional neoadjuvant immunotherapy would make a difference in other complications, and determine whether pathologic benefits could translate into prognostic benefits, which would require longer follow-up.

Locally advanced esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis, while an increasing number of patients are diagnosed with that. Neoadjuvant therapy has become a hot topic in treating locally advanced esophageal cancer to improve its survival benefit. The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery has been confirmed by many studies, and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy are included in the guidelines. In recent years, targeted therapy and immunotherapy have emerged, and more studies are evaluating the efficacy of combining them with neoadjuvant therapy for operable esophageal cancer patients. Even though the preliminary data is disappointing, many trials are still under investigation without improving survival benefits. New indexes used as surrogate endpoints (e.g., major pathologic response and pathological complete response) are emerging to accelerate the development and approval of neoadjuvant drugs. This review summarized the research progress in neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer and discussed which primary endpoint should be used in neoadjuvant therapy trials.

Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) carcinoma represents a specific site of disease, given the opportunities for multimodal clinical care and management and the possibilities of combined treatments. It encompasses various clinical subgroups of disease that are heterogeneous and deserve different treatments; therefore, the guidelines have progressively evolved over time, considering the evidence provided by clinical trials. The aim of this narrative review was to summarize the main evidence, which orientates the current guidelines, and to collect the main ongoing studies to address existing gray areas.

Complications after esophagectomy are common and the possible increase in postoperative complications associated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is of concern. The aim of our study was to analyze if the addition of radiotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases the incidence and severity of postoperative complications, including evaluation of the relation between radiation doses to the heart and lungs and postoperative complications.

The study was based on an institutional surgical database for esophageal cancer. The study period was October 2008 to March 2020. Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were compared to patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and dose/volume parameters for the lungs and heart considered. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative complications.

During the study period, 274 patients underwent surgery for esophageal cancer, 93 patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 181 patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The median prescribed radiation dose to the planning target volume was 41.4 Gy, the median of the mean lung dose was 6.2 Gy, and the median of the mean heart dose was 20.3 Gy. The addition of radiotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase the incidence of postoperative complications. Neither were radiation doses to the lungs and heart associated with postoperative complications. Taxane-based chemotherapy regimens were however associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications.

In our cohort, the addition of neoadjuvant radiotherapy to chemotherapy was not associated with postoperative complications. However, taxane-based chemotherapy regimens, with or without concomitant radiotherapy, were associated with postoperative complications.