Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Sep;17(3):460-6.
doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt216. Epub 2013 May 31.

Comparison of survival among neoadjuvant chemoradiation responders, non-responders and patients receiving primary resection for locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: does neoadjuvant chemoradiation benefit all?

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of survival among neoadjuvant chemoradiation responders, non-responders and patients receiving primary resection for locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: does neoadjuvant chemoradiation benefit all?

Po-Kuei Hsu et al. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: While neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery has been shown to improve the survival of patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer, it is not known whether neoadjuvant chemoradiation has a beneficial or harmful effect on the non-responders. We aimed to compare the outcomes among neoadjuvant chemoradiation responders, non-responders and patients receiving primary oesophagectomies for resectable locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Methods: Eighty-four non-T1-2N0 oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients were included. Thirty-eight patients received primary resection and 46 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The overall survival of chemoradiation responders (<50% residual tumour), non-responders (>50% residual tumour and those who shifted to definitive chemoradiation instead of surgery due to tumour progression) and patients receiving primary resection were compared. Clinical parameters were also compared between responders and non-responders.

Results: There was no overall difference in survival between neoadjuvant chemoradiation and primary resection groups (2-year overall survival rates: 45.6 vs 54.3%, P = 0.442). In patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery, pathological responders had significantly higher 2-year overall survival rates than non-responders (64.5 vs 38.9%, P = 0.043). While the pathological responders had the highest survival rate, clinicopathological non-responders (pathological non-responders and patients with tumour progression during the neoadjuvant chemoradiation period) demonstrated significantly worse outcomes than those receiving primary resection (32.0 vs 54.3%, P = 0.036). However, none of the clinical parameters, including blood profiles, images and baseline tumour characteristics, predicted the response to chemoradiation before treatment.

Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation non-responders demonstrated no benefit and an even worse outcome compared with those receiving primary resection for locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. However, no significant clinical parameters could be implemented in the clinics to predict the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation before treatment.

Keywords: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation; Oesophageal cancer; Squamous cell carcinoma; Survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
There was no survival difference between primary resection (continuous line) and neoadjuvant chemoradiation groups (dotted line; P = 0.442).
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Differences in survival were noted among ‘chemoradiation responder followed by surgery’ (open diamonds), ‘primary resection’ (open circles), ‘chemoradiation non-responder followed by surgery’ (open triangles) and ‘chemoradiation non-responder followed by definitive chemoradiation’ (open square; all P = 0.011; open diamonds vs open triangles, P = 0.043; open diamonds vs open triangles + open squares, P = 0.008; open circles vs open triangles + open squares, P = 0.036).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ. Esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2241–52. doi:10.1056/NEJMra035010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hsu PK, Wang BY, Huang CS, Wu YC, Hsu WH. Prognostic factors for post-recurrence survival in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with recurrence after resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:558–65. doi:10.1007/s11605-011-1458-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tepper J, Krasna MJ, Niedzwiecki N, Hollis D, Reed CE, Goldberg R, et al. Phase III trial of trimodality therapy with cisplatin, fluorouracil, radiotherapy, and surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer: CALGB 9781. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1086–92. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9593. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BP, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1112088. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, Gebski V, Fitzgerald L, Simes RJ, Devitt P, et al. Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for resectable cancer of the oesophagus: a randomised controlled phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:659–68. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70288-6. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms