Song T, Du D, Zhang X, Fang M, Wu S
Department of Radiation Oncology, Hangzhou Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Lishui's Central Hospital, Lishui.
Dis Esophagus. 2017 Sep 1;30(9):1-10. doi: 10.1093/dote/dox060.
This study compared the efficiency and safety of radiotherapy plus erlotinib with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) based on paclitaxel plus cisplatin in elderly esophageal cancer patients. The eligible patients were retrospectively enrolled at Wenzhou Medical University cancer center from January 2005 to December 2011. Propensity score matching generated a matched cohort (1:1) composed from radiotherapy plus erlotinib and CCRT groups. The efficiency and safety were compared between two groups. Multivariable analysis was used to identify significant prognostic factors. Thirty-four patients treated with radiotherapy plus erlotinib were matched with patients who received CCRT. Radiotherapy plus erlotinib group showed better treatment compliance compared with the CCRT group (91.2% vs. 67.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.202, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.051-0.809; P = .016). No significant overall response rate differences were found between the two groups (88.2% vs. 79.4%, HR 0.514, 95% CI 0.135-1.952; P = .323). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 23.5% vs. 19.2% for patients treated with CCRT or radiotherapy plus erlotinib (HR 1.008, 95% CI 0.574-1.768; P = .979). The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 16.8% versus 17.1% for patients treated with CCRT or radiotherapy plus erlotinib, respectively (HR 0.978, 95% CI 0.576-1.662; P = .934). The rate of severe hematologic toxicities in the CCRT group was significantly higher than that in the radiotherapy plus erlotinib group (HR 4.306, 95% CI 1.066-17.389; P = .031). Late toxicities were similar between radiotherapy plus erlotinib group and the CCRT group. Multivariate analysis showed that T stage (HR 1.730, 95% CI 1.062-2.816; P = .028), M stage (HR 2.859, 95% CI 1.407-5.811; P = .004), and complete response (HR 2.154, 95% CI 1.190-3.901; P = .011) were independent prognostic factors associated with OS. In conclusion, the present study suggested radiotherapy plus erlotinib should be a preferable modality compared with CCRT, with similar survival outcomes but better treatment compliance and less toxicities.
本研究比较了老年食管癌患者中,放疗联合厄洛替尼与基于紫杉醇加顺铂的同步放化疗(CCRT)的疗效和安全性。符合条件的患者于2005年1月至2011年12月在温州医科大学癌症中心进行回顾性入组。倾向评分匹配产生了一个由放疗联合厄洛替尼组和CCRT组组成的匹配队列(1:1)。比较了两组之间的疗效和安全性。采用多变量分析来确定显著的预后因素。34例接受放疗联合厄洛替尼治疗的患者与接受CCRT的患者进行了匹配。与CCRT组相比,放疗联合厄洛替尼组显示出更好的治疗依从性(91.2%对67.6%,风险比[HR]0.202,95%置信区间[CI]0.051 - 0.809;P = 0.016)。两组之间未发现显著的总缓解率差异(88.2%对79.4%,HR 0.514,95% CI 0.135 - 1.952;P = 0.323)。接受CCRT或放疗联合厄洛替尼治疗的患者5年总生存率(OS)分别为23.5%和19.2%(HR 1.008,95% CI 0.574 - 1.768;P = 0.979)。接受CCRT或放疗联合厄洛替尼治疗的患者5年无进展生存率(PFS)分别为16.8%和17.1%(HR 0.978,95% CI 0.576 - 1.662;P = 0.934)。CCRT组严重血液学毒性发生率显著高于放疗联合厄洛替尼组(HR 4.306,95% CI 1.066 - 17.389;P = 0.031)。放疗联合厄洛替尼组和CCRT组之间的晚期毒性相似。多变量分析显示,T分期(HR 1.730,95% CI 1.062 - 2.816;P = 0.028)、M分期(HR 2.859,95% CI 1.407 - 5.811;P = 0.004)和完全缓解(HR 2.154,95% CI 1.190 - 3.901;P = 0.011)是与OS相关的独立预后因素。总之,本研究表明,与CCRT相比,放疗联合厄洛替尼应是一种更可取的治疗方式,具有相似的生存结果,但治疗依从性更好且毒性更小。