Dong Jing, Li Cheng, Wang Bingxiang, Li Yang, Wang Suzhen, Cui Hongxia, Gao Min
Department of Oncology, Affiliated Tangshan Gongren Hospital, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan, China.
Quality Management Department, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
Front Immunol. 2025 Feb 21;16:1553086. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1553086. eCollection 2025.
Neoadjuvant therapy is widely used for esophageal cancer (EC), but optimal treatment regimens and predictive factors for outcomes remain unclear. This study retrospectively analyzed data from EC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy.
The or was utilized to examine differences in general clinicopathological data between treatment benefit groups. Survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox univariate and multivariate regression analyses were employed to identify independent risk factors affecting overall survival (OS) in EC patients receiving different treatment modalities.
The study included 175 EC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Analysis of clinical benefit differences revealed that patients aged < 65 years ( = 0.028) and those with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) ( = 0.027) were more likely to achieve a complete response, while N1 patients more frequently attained an objective response ( < 0.001). OS analysis indicated that patients who did not receive immunotherapy exhibited better survival outcomes compared to those who did ( = 0.002). Patients with pretreatment N3 status demonstrated poorer survival compared to those with N0 ( = 0.004), N1 ( = 0.003), and N2 ( = 0.003) status. Among post-neoadjuvant EC patients who did not receive immunotherapy, those with primary tumors located in the middle esophagus ( [], 0.181; () = 0.044-0.739; = 0.017) and lower esophagus (, 0.163; = 0.032-0.821; = 0.028) demonstrated a better prognosis compared to patients with tumors in the upper esophagus. Notably, EC patients who did not receive immunotherapy after neoadjuvant therapy and underwent 3-6 cycles of therapy exhibited a poorer prognosis compared to those who received 1-2 cycles (, 2.731; = 1.187-6.284; = 0.018).
In conclusion, this study found that immunotherapy did not play a decisive role in neoadjuvant EC therapy. Instead, 1-2 cycles of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy were associated with a more favorable prognosis for these patients.
新辅助治疗广泛应用于食管癌(EC),但最佳治疗方案及预后预测因素仍不明确。本研究回顾性分析了接受新辅助治疗的EC患者的数据。
采用 或 检验治疗获益组间一般临床病理数据的差异。采用Kaplan-Meier方法进行生存分析。采用Cox单因素和多因素回归分析确定影响接受不同治疗方式的EC患者总生存(OS)的独立危险因素。
本研究纳入了175例接受新辅助治疗的EC患者。临床获益差异分析显示,年龄<65岁的患者( = 0.028)和食管鳞状细胞癌(ESCC)患者( = 0.027)更有可能获得完全缓解,而N1期患者更常获得客观缓解(<0.001)。OS分析表明,未接受免疫治疗的患者比接受免疫治疗的患者生存结局更好( = 0.002)。治疗前N3期患者的生存率低于N0期( = 0.004)、N1期( = 0.003)和N2期( = 0.003)患者。在未接受免疫治疗的新辅助治疗后EC患者中,原发肿瘤位于食管中段( [], 0.181; () = 0.044 - 0.739; = 0.017)和下段(, 0.163; = 0.032 - 0.821; = 0.028)的患者比肿瘤位于食管上段患者的预后更好。值得注意的是,新辅助治疗后未接受免疫治疗且接受3 - 6周期治疗的EC患者比接受1 - 2周期治疗的患者预后更差(, 2.731; = 1.187 - 6.284; = 0.018)。
总之,本研究发现免疫治疗在新辅助EC治疗中未起决定性作用。相反,1 - 2周期的化疗或放化疗对这些患者的预后更有利。