Wang Jianing, Xiao Linlin, Wang Shuai, Pang Qingsong, Wang Jun
Department of Radiation Oncology, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Radiation Oncology, Shijiazhuang, China.
Department of Radiation Oncology, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Front Oncol. 2021 Sep 13;11:665231. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.665231. eCollection 2021.
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has become the standard of care in esophageal carcinoma patients who are not surgical candidates. The efficacy of induction chemotherapy (IC) or consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) for unresectable esophageal cancer (EC) treated with CCRT is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published papers to evaluate the potential benefit of IC or CCT for patients with EC.
Eligible studies of IC followed by CCRT (IC-CCRT) . CCRT alone or CCRT followed by CCT (CCRT-CCT) . CCRT alone were retrieved through extensive searches of the PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment of the database to July 31, 2021. Data such as 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS), local recurrence rate (LRR), and distant metastasis rate (DMR) were collected for meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of IC/CCT.
Four studies of IC-CCRT . CCRT including 836 EC patients and six studies of CCRT-CCT . CCRT including 1,339 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were finally identified in our analysis. Both IC-CCRT group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.446, 95% CI 0.286-0.693; p < 0.001] and CCRT-CCT group (HR 0.542, 95% CI 0.410-0.716; p < 0.001) exhibited statistically significant improvement in 1-year OS rate compared to that of CCRT, while the 2-year OS rate of IC-CCRT (HR 0.803, 95% CI 0.589-1.095; p = 0.166) or CCRT-CCT (HR 0.783, 95% CI 0.600-1.022; p = 0.072) was similar with that of CCRT. And the 3-year OS rate between IC-CCRT and CCRT was similar (HR 1.065, 95% CI 0.789-1.439; p = 0.680). However, comparing with CCRT alone, the CCRT-CCT group had lower DMR [odds ratio (OR) 1.562, 95% CI 1.090-2.240; p = 0.015] and higher 3-year OS rate (HR 0.786, 95% CI 0.625-0.987; p = 0.039). Besides, no differences were observed between the CCRT-CCT and CCRT groups in 5-year OS rate (HR 0.923, 95% CI 0.706-1.205; p = 0.555) and LRR (OR 0.899, 95% CI 0.686-1.179; p = 0.441).
The study revealed the short-time survival benefit of additional IC or CCT compared to CCRT alone for patients with unresectable EC, and CCRT followed by CCT could significantly reduce the risk of distant metastases.
同步放化疗(CCRT)已成为无法进行手术的食管癌患者的标准治疗方案。诱导化疗(IC)或巩固化疗(CCT)用于接受CCRT治疗的不可切除食管癌(EC)的疗效尚不清楚。我们对已发表的论文进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估IC或CCT对EC患者的潜在益处。
通过广泛检索PubMed、Science Direct、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,从数据库建立至2021年7月31日,检索符合条件的关于IC后接CCRT(IC-CCRT)、单纯CCRT或CCRT后接CCT(CCRT-CCT)、单纯CCRT的研究。收集1年、2年、3年和5年总生存率(OS)、局部复发率(LRR)和远处转移率(DMR)等数据进行荟萃分析,以评估IC/CCT的疗效。
在我们的分析中,最终确定了4项关于IC-CCRT. CCRT的研究,包括836例EC患者,以及6项关于CCRT-CCT. CCRT的研究,包括1339例食管鳞状细胞癌(ESCC)患者。与CCRT相比,IC-CCRT组[风险比(HR)0.446,95%置信区间(CI)0.286-0.693;p<0.001]和CCRT-CCT组(HR 0.542,95%CI 0.410-0.716;p<0.001)的1年OS率均有统计学意义的改善,而IC-CCRT组(HR 0.803,95%CI 0.589-1.095;p=0.166)或CCRT-CCT组(HR 0.783,95%CI 0.600-1.022;p=0.072)的2年OS率与CCRT组相似。IC-CCRT组和CCRT组之间的3年OS率相似(HR 1.065,95%CI 0.789-1.439;p=0.680)。然而,与单纯CCRT相比,CCRT-CCT组的DMR较低[优势比(OR)1.562,95%CI 1.090-2.240;p=0.015],3年OS率较高(HR 0.786,95%CI 0.625-0.987;p=0.039)。此外,CCRT-CCT组和CCRT组在5年OS率(HR 0.923,95%CI 0.706-1.205;p=0.555)和LRR(OR 0.899,95%CI 0.686-1.179;p=0.441)方面未观察到差异。
该研究揭示了与单纯CCRT相比,额外的IC或CCT对不可切除EC患者的短期生存益处,且CCRT后接CCT可显著降低远处转移风险。