Literature DB >> 26163097

Early surgery for failure after chemoradiation in operable thoracic oesophageal cancer. Analysis of the non-randomised patients in FFCD 9102 phase III trial: Chemoradiation followed by surgery versus chemoradiation alone.

Julie Vincent1, Christophe Mariette2, Denis Pezet3, Emmanuel Huet4, Franck Bonnetain5, Olivier Bouché6, Thierry Conroy7, Bernard Roullet8, Jean-François Seitz9, Jean-Philippe Herr10, Frédéric Di Fiore4, Jean-Louis Jouve1, Laurent Bedenne11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two randomised trials concerning thoracic oesophageal cancer concluded that for squamous cell carcinoma, chemoradiation alone leads to the same overall survival (OS) as chemoradiation followed by surgery. One of these trials, FFCD 9102, randomised only fit, compliant and operable responders to induction chemoradiation between continuation of chemoradiation and surgery. In the present analysis, the outcome in the patients not eligible for randomisation was calculated to determine if attempt of surgery should be recommended.
METHODS: Eligible patients had operable T3-N0/N1-M0 thoracic oesophageal cancer. After initial chemoradiation, patients with no clinical response, or with contraindication to follow any attributed treatment, were not randomised. OS was studied first in the whole population of not randomised patients, and then specifically in clinical non-responders. The impact of surgery on OS was studied in these two populations.
FINDINGS: Of the 451 registered patients in the trial, 192 were not randomised. Among them, 111 were clinical non-responders. Median OS was significantly shorter for non-randomised patients (11.5 months) than for randomised patients (18.9 months; p=0.0024). However, for the 112 non-randomised patients who underwent surgery, median OS was not different from that in randomised patients: 17.3 versus 18.9 months (p=0.58). Concerning clinical non-responders, median OS was longer for those who underwent surgery compared to non-operated patients: 17.0 versus 5.5 months (hazard ratio (HR)=0.39 [0.25-0.61]; p<0.0001), and again was not different from that in responding, randomised patients (p=0.40).
INTERPRETATION: In patients with locally advanced thoracic oesophageal cancer, overall survival did not differ between responders to induction chemoradiation and patients having surgery after clinical failure of chemoradiation. Surgery should therefore be considered in those patients who are still operable.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chemoradiation; Oesophageal neoplasms; Randomised controlled trial; Salvage surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26163097     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  17 in total

1.  What is the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiation, and adjuvant treatment in resectable esophageal cancer?

Authors:  Nasser Altorki; Sebron Harrison
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-03

2.  Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer : Outcomes and patterns of failure.

Authors:  Matthias Felix Haefner; Kristin Lang; Vivek Verma; Stefan Alexander Koerber; Lorenz Uhlmann; Juergen Debus; Florian Sterzing
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 3.  Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Balamurugan A Vellayappan; Yu Yang Soon; Geoffrey Y Ku; Cheng Nang Leong; Jiade J Lu; Jeremy Cs Tey
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-22

4.  Is it still time for meta-analyses in operable esophageal cancers, or rather for a change of paradigm?

Authors:  Laurent Bedenne; Karine Le Malicot; Antoine Drouillard
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer : Surgery improves locoregional control while response based on FDG-PET/CT predicts survival.

Authors:  Nina-Sophie Hegemann; Rebecca Koepple; Franziska Walter; David Boeckle; Wolfgang P Fendler; Martin Kurt Angele; Stefan Boeck; Claus Belka; Falk Roeder
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Optimal postoperative surveillance strategy in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Kotaro Sugawara; Hiroharu Yamashita; Yasuyuki Seto
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  It's not always too late: a case for minimally invasive salvage esophagectomy.

Authors:  Ryan C Broderick; Arielle M Lee; Rachel R Blitzer; Beiqun Zhao; Jenny Lam; Joslin N Cheverie; Bryan J Sandler; Garth R Jacobsen; Mark W Onaitis; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Michael Bouvet; Santiago Horgan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Surveillance versus esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients with a clinical complete response after induction chemoradiation.

Authors:  Tara R Semenkovich; Bryan F Meyers
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-02

9.  Outcomes for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with Curative Intent in a Western Cohort: Should Multimodal Therapy Be the Gold Standard?

Authors:  Fiachra Sheil; Claire L Donohoe; Sinéad King; Dermot O'Toole; Moya Cunningham; Sinéad Cuffe; Narayanasamy Ravi; John V Reynolds
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 10.  Towards an Organ-Sparing Approach for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Berend Jan van der Wilk; Ben M Eyck; Manon C W Spaander; Roelf Valkema; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Bas P L Wijnhoven; J Jan B van Lanschot
Journal:  Dig Surg       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.588

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.