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
Multicenter Study
. 2019 Sep;23(9):1729-1741.
doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-04087-8. Epub 2019 Jan 22.

The Role of Continuing Perioperative Chemotherapy Post Surgery in Patients with Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: a Multicenter Cohort Study

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

The Role of Continuing Perioperative Chemotherapy Post Surgery in Patients with Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: a Multicenter Cohort Study

George Papaxoinis et al. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this cohort study was to assess the benefit that patients with lower esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) adenocarcinoma receive by continuing perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery.

Methods: Three hundred twelve patients underwent radical tumor surgical resection after preoperative chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was mainly ECX (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery vs. no postoperative treatment.

Results: Two hundred ten patients (67.3%) had GEJ and 102 (32.7%) lower esophageal adenocarcinoma. Microscopically clear surgical margins (R0), according to the Royal College of Pathologists, were achieved in 208 patients (66.7%). In total, 225 patients (72.1%) continued perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery. PSM was used to create two patient groups, well-balanced for basic epidemiological, clinical, and histopathological characteristics. The first included 148 patients who continued perioperative chemotherapy after surgery and the second 86, who did not receive postoperative treatment. The first group had non-significantly different median time-to-relapse (TTR 22.2 vs. 25.7 months, p = 0.627), overall survival (OS 46.1 vs. 36.7 months, p = 0.199), and post-relapse survival (15.3 vs. 8.7 months, p = 0.122). Subgroup analysis showed that only patients with microscopically residual disease after surgery (R1 resection) benefited from continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery for both TTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.556, 95% CI 0.330-0.936, p = 0.027) and OS (HR 0.530, 95% CI 0.313-0.898, p = 0.018).

Conclusions: Continuation of perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery was not associated with improved outcome in patients with E/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients with microscopically residual disease post-surgery might receive a potential benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Keywords: Adjuvant chemotherapy; Esophageal–gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma; Perioperative chemotherapy; Prognosis; Propensity score matching analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 6;355(1):11-20 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 20;27(30):5062-7 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 20;29(33):4387-93 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 1;30(19):2327-33 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 2012 May 31;366(22):2074-84 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Supplementary concepts