Long-term survival in esophagectomy for early-stage esophageal cancer versus endoscopic resection plus additional chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is still advised as an additional treatment for patients with superficial esophageal cancer (EC, T1a-T1b) after endoscopic resection (ER). However, esophagectomy often deteriorates the general condition of EC patients. In recent years, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been recognized as a reliable, non-surgical treatment that can improve the prognosis. How to combine ER with adjuvant therapy to bring maximal benefits to patients has become a hot clinical research hot topic. However, the current studies have mostly been conducted retrospectively, in single centers, and with small clinical samples; there have been few prospective and large sample size randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of adjuvant CRT versus esophagectomy in the treatment of early EC, and to provide a reference for clinical research and practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive and extensive literature search was performed via the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science online and all randomized cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies were collected. The quality of research was evaluated according to Cochrane's quality standards, and statistical analysis was conducted with Stata 13.0 and RevMan 5.3 software and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

RESULTS

A total of 9 cohort studies, including 790 patients, were included for meta-analysis. The long term effects of the esophagectomy group were better than those of the CRT after ER group [odds ratio (OR) =6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96 to 18.84, P=0.002] in disease-free survival (DFS) [hazard ratio (HR) =0.24, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.85, P=0.03] and overall survival (OS) (HR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.82, P=0.94). Other survival indicators showed no significant difference (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 groups showed no significant results in OS. Although we found that CRT may be suitable for patients with high-risk of relapse or unable to tolerate surgery, it cannot totally replace surgical treatment; further randomized trials are required to verify this view.