Gabriel Emmanuel, Attwood Kristopher, Du William, Tuttle Rebecca, Alnaji Raed M, Nurkin Steven, Malhotra Usha, Hochwald Steven N, Kukar Moshim
Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York.
Department of Biostatistics, New Center for Excellence, Buffalo, New York.
JAMA Surg. 2016 Mar;151(3):234-45. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.4068.
While neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer improves oncologic outcomes for a broad group of patients with locally advanced and/or node-positive tumors, it is less clear which specific subset of patients derives most benefit in terms of overall survival (OS).
To determine whether neoadjuvant chemoradiation based on esophageal adenocarcinoma histology has similar oncologic outcomes for patients treated with surgery alone when stratified by clinical nodal status.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database from 1998 to 2006. Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma histology and clinical stage T1bN1-N3 or T2-T4aN-/+M0 were divided into 2 treatment groups: (1) neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and (2) surgery alone. Subset analysis within each treatment group was performed for clinically node-negative patients (cN-) vs node-positive patients (cN+) in conjunction with pathological nodal status. A propensity score-adjusted analysis, which included patient demographics, comorbidity status, and clinical T stage, was also performed.
The primary outcome was 3-year OS. Secondary outcomes included margin status, postoperative length of stay, unplanned readmission rate, and 30-day mortality.
A total of 1309 patients were identified, of whom 539 received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and 770 received surgery alone. Of the 1309 patients, 41.2% (n = 539) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 47.2% (n = 618) were cN+. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 73.3 months (interquartile range, 64.1-93.5 months). The 3-year OS was better for neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with surgery alone (49% vs 38%, respectively; P < .001). Stratifying based on clinical nodal status, the propensity score-adjusted OS was significantly better for cN+ patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66; P < .001). In contrast, there was no difference in OS for cN- patients based on treatment (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.10; P = .22).
Patients with cN+ esophageal adenocarcinoma benefit significantly from neoadjuvant chemoradiation. However, patients with cN- tumors treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation plus surgery do not derive a significant OS benefit compared with surgery alone. This finding may have significant implications on the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with cN- disease.
虽然食管癌新辅助放化疗可改善广大局部晚期和/或淋巴结阳性肿瘤患者的肿瘤学结局,但尚不清楚哪一特定亚组患者在总生存期(OS)方面获益最大。
确定根据食管腺癌组织学进行的新辅助放化疗,在按临床淋巴结状态分层时,对单纯接受手术治疗的患者是否具有相似的肿瘤学结局。
设计、设置和参与者:一项使用1998年至2006年美国外科医师学会国家癌症数据库的回顾性分析。食管腺癌组织学且临床分期为T1bN1 - N3或T2 - T4aN - / + M0的患者分为2个治疗组:(1)新辅助放化疗后手术;(2)单纯手术。结合病理淋巴结状态,对每个治疗组中的临床淋巴结阴性患者(cN - )与淋巴结阳性患者(cN + )进行亚组分析。还进行了倾向评分调整分析,其中包括患者人口统计学、合并症状态和临床T分期。
主要结局为3年总生存期。次要结局包括切缘状态、术后住院时间、计划外再入院率和30天死亡率。
共确定1309例患者,其中539例接受新辅助放化疗后手术,770例单纯接受手术。在这1309例患者中,41.2%(n = 539)接受了新辅助放化疗,47.2%(n = 618)为cN + 。整个队列的中位随访时间为73.3个月(四分位间距,64.1 - 93.5个月)。新辅助放化疗后手术的3年总生存期优于单纯手术(分别为49%和38%;P <.001)。根据临床淋巴结状态分层,接受新辅助放化疗的cN + 患者的倾向评分调整总生存期显著更好(风险比,0.52;95% CI,0.42 - 0.66;P <.001)。相比之下,基于治疗的cN - 患者的总生存期无差异(风险比,0.84;95% CI,0.65 - 1.10;P =.22)。
cN + 食管腺癌患者从新辅助放化疗中显著获益。然而,与单纯手术相比,接受新辅助放化疗加手术治疗的cN - 肿瘤患者未获得显著的总生存期益处。这一发现可能对cN - 疾病患者新辅助放化疗的使用具有重要意义。