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
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jan 19;103(3):e36785.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036785.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer: An updated meta-analysis

Zhanpeng Liang  1 , Ting Chen, Wenxia Li, Huiqin Lai, Luzhen Li, Jiaming Wu, Huatang Zhang, Cantu Fang
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer: An updated meta-analysis

Zhanpeng Liang et al. Medicine (Baltimore). .

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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).

Results: 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).

Conclusions: 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Assessment of Overall survival. Abbreviations: The diamond indicates best estimate of the true (pooled) outcome (with width indicating 95% CI); experimental stands for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; control stands for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Since there is no heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model is used.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Assessment of Progression-free survival. Abbreviations: The diamond indicates best estimate of the true (pooled) outcome (with width indicating 95% CI); experimental stands for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; control stands for neoadjuvant chemothrapy. Since there is no heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model is used.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Assessment of Pathological complete response. Abbreviations: The diamond indicates best estimate of the true (pooled) outcome (with width indicating 95% CI); experimental stands for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; control stands for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Since there is moderate heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model is used.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Assessment of R0 resection rate. Abbreviations: The diamond indicates best estimate of the true (pooled) outcome (with width indicating 95% CI); experimental stands for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; control stands for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Since there is low heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model is used.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Assessment of Postoperative complications. Abbreviations: The diamond indicates best estimate of the true (pooled) outcome (with width indicating 95% CI); experimental stands for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; control stands for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Since there is moderate heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model is used.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Assessment of Postoperative mortality. Abbreviations: The diamond indicates best estimate of the true (pooled) outcome (with width indicating 95% CI); experimental stands for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; control stands for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Since there is no heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model is used.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. - PubMed
    1. Chen SB, Weng HR, Wang G, et al. Prognostic factors and outcome for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma underwent surgical resection alone: evaluation of the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Thoracic Oncol. 2013;8:495–501. - PubMed
    1. Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, et al. Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet (London, England). 2013;381:400–12. - PubMed
    1. Allum WH, Stenning SP, Bancewicz J, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial of surgery with or without preoperative chemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5062–7. - PubMed
    1. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84. - PubMed

MeSH terms