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
. 2021 Jan 7:10:604657.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.604657. eCollection 2020.

Long-Term Survival in Nonsurgical Esophageal Cancer Patients Who Received Consolidation Chemotherapy Compared With Patients Who Received Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Alone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xiaojie Xia  1 , Zeyuan Liu  2 , Qin Qin  1 , Xiaoke Di  1 , Zhaoyue Zhang  1 , Xinchen Sun  2 , Xiaolin Ge  1
Affiliations

Long-Term Survival in Nonsurgical Esophageal Cancer Patients Who Received Consolidation Chemotherapy Compared With Patients Who Received Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Alone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xiaojie Xia et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for nonsurgical esophageal cancer (EC). However, esophageal cancer patients receiving CCRT alone are still unsatisfactory in terms of local control and overall survival (OS) benefit. Clinicians generally add consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) after CCRT. It remains controversial whether CCT following CCRT is beneficial for esophageal cancer. We, therefore, undertook a meta-analysis to assess the need for CCT in inoperable esophageal cancer.

Materials and methods: We combed PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI for relevant published articles up to July 2020 that compared CCRT plus CCT to CCRT alone for patients with nonsurgical EC. Our primary endpoint was OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoint was treatment toxicity. We analyzed the hazard ratio (HR) to estimate the time-to-event data and the odds ratio (OR) to compare the treatment-related effect. To assess heterogeneity, we performed the I2 test and examined publication bias using funnel plots analysis.

Results: The 11 retrospective studies involved 2008 patients. Of these 2008 patients, 1018 received CCRT plus CCT, and 990 received CCRT. Compared to CCRT alone, CCT after CCRT did not improve disease control rate (DCR) (OR 1.66; 95% CI 0.53-5.15, p=0.384) and objective response rate (ORR) (OR 1.44; 95% CI 0.62-3.35, p=0.393). However, OS (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.86, p < 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.84, p=0.003) did increase. Our results show that CCT plus CCRT had a clear survival advantage over CCRT alone. The risk of treatment toxicity did not increase for EC patients who received CCT.

Conclusion: CCT after CCRT significantly increases OS and PFS in patients with nonsurgical EC and could provide them remarkable survival benefits. The results provide an evidence-based framework for the use of CCT after CCRT.

Keywords: chemoradiotherapy; consolidation chemotherapy; esophageal cancer; meta-analysis; toxicity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Meta-analysis of the associated HRs of OS for CCRT–CCT compared with CCRT alone. (B) Subgroup analysis of the associated HRs of OS for CCRT–CCT compared with CCRT alone. HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; CCRT–CCT, consolidation chemotherapy following concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CCRT alone, only concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta-analysis of the associated HRs of PFS for CCRT–CCT compared with CCRT alone. HR, hazard ratio; PFS, progression-free survival; CCRT–CCT, consolidation chemotherapy following concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CCRT alone only concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A) Meta-analysis of the associated ORs of DCR for CCRT–CCT compared with CCRT alone. (B) Meta-analysis of the associated ORs of ORR for CCRT–CCT compared with CCRT alone. OR, odds ratio; DCR, disease control rate; ORR, objective response rate; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; CCRT–CCT, consolidation chemotherapy following concurrent chemoradiotherapy; CCRT alone, only concurrent chemoradiotherapy.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Sensitivity analysis of HRs of OS. HR, hazard ratio.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Funnel plot of publication bias for OS.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin (2018) 68(6):394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Short MW, Burgers KG, Fry VT. Esophageal Cancer. Am Fam Physician (2017) 95(1):22–8. - PubMed
    1. Sasaki Y, Kato K. Chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol (2016) 46(9):805–10. 10.1093/jjco/hyw082 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Davies L, Lewis WG, Arnold DT, Escofet X, Blackshaw G, Gwynne S, et al. Prognostic significance of age in the radical treatment of oesophageal cancer with surgery or chemoradiotherapy: a prospective observational cohort study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) (2010) 22(7):578–85. 10.1016/j.clon.2010.05.023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gwynne S, Hurt C, Evans M, Holden C, Vout L, Crosby T. Definitive chemoradiation for oesophageal cancer–a standard of care in patients with non-metastatic oesophageal cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) (2011) 23(3):182–8. 10.1016/j.clon.2010.12.001 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources