Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Department of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (IKNL), Utrecht, Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Feb;113(2):482-490. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.01.061. Epub 2021 Feb 18.
In esophageal cancer patients, distant metastases develop between the start of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and planned surgery, so-called interval metastases. The primary aim of this study was to assess management, overall survival (OS), and prognostic factors for OS in these patients. A secondary aim was to compare OS with synchronous metastatic patients.
Esophageal cancer patients with interval distant metastases were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (2010 to 2017). Management was categorized into metastasis-directed therapy (MDT), primary tumor resection, or best supportive care (BSC). The OS was calculated from the diagnosis of the primary tumor. Prognostic factors affecting OS were studied using Cox proportional hazard models. Propensity score-matching (1:3) generated matched cases with synchronous distant metastases.
In all, 208 patients with interval metastases were identified: in 87 patients (42%) MDT was initiated; in 10%, primary tumor resection only; in 7%, primary tumor resection plus MDT; and in 41%, BSC. Median OS was 10 months (interquartile range, 8.6 to 11.1). Compared with BSC, superior OS was independently associated with MDT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.49), primary tumor resection (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.94), and primary tumor resection plus MDT (HR 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.38). Worse OS was independently associated with signet ring cell carcinoma (HR 1.92; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.28) and poor differentiation grade (HR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.83). The OS was comparable between matched patients with interval and synchronous distant metastases (10.2 versus 9.4 months, P = .760).
In esophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with interval distant metastases, the OS was poor and comparable to that of synchronous metastatic patients.
在接受新辅助放化疗的食管癌患者中,在计划的手术前会出现远处转移,即所谓的间隔转移。本研究的主要目的是评估这些患者的治疗方法、总生存期(OS)和影响 OS 的预后因素。次要目的是比较间隔转移和同步转移患者的 OS。
从荷兰癌症登记处(2010 年至 2017 年)中确定了患有间隔性远处转移的食管癌患者。将治疗方法分为转移导向治疗(MDT)、原发肿瘤切除术或最佳支持治疗(BSC)。从原发性肿瘤的诊断开始计算 OS。使用 Cox 比例风险模型研究影响 OS 的预后因素。采用倾向评分匹配(1:3)生成了具有同步远处转移的匹配病例。
共确定了 208 例间隔性转移患者:87 例(42%)患者接受了 MDT;10%患者仅接受了原发肿瘤切除术;7%患者接受了原发肿瘤切除术加 MDT;41%患者接受了 BSC。中位 OS 为 10 个月(四分位距,8.6 至 11.1)。与 BSC 相比,MDT(风险比[HR]0.36;95%置信区间[CI]0.26 至 0.49)、原发肿瘤切除术(HR 0.55;95%CI 0.33 至 0.94)和原发肿瘤切除术加 MDT(HR 0.20;95%CI 0.10 至 0.38)独立与较好的 OS 相关。较差的 OS 与印戒细胞癌(HR 1.92;95%CI 1.12 至 3.28)和低分化分级(HR 1.96;95%CI 1.35 至 2.83)独立相关。间隔性和同步性远处转移患者的 OS 相当(10.2 与 9.4 个月,P=0.760)。
在接受新辅助放化疗的食管癌患者中,出现间隔性远处转移的患者 OS 较差,与同步转移患者的 OS 相当。