IMPORTANCE: While neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer improves oncologic outcomes for a broad group of patients with locally advanced and/or node-positive tumors, it is less clear which specific subset of patients derives most benefit in terms of overall survival (OS). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neoadjuvant chemoradiation based on esophageal adenocarcinoma histology has similar oncologic outcomes for patients treated with surgery alone when stratified by clinical nodal status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database from 1998 to 2006. Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma histology and clinical stage T1bN1-N3 or T2-T4aN-/+M0 were divided into 2 treatment groups: (1) neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and (2) surgery alone. Subset analysis within each treatment group was performed for clinically node-negative patients (cN-) vs node-positive patients (cN+) in conjunction with pathological nodal status. A propensity score-adjusted analysis, which included patient demographics, comorbidity status, and clinical T stage, was also performed. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 3-year OS. Secondary outcomes included margin status, postoperative length of stay, unplanned readmission rate, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1309 patients were identified, of whom 539 received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and 770 received surgery alone. Of the 1309 patients, 41.2% (n = 539) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 47.2% (n = 618) were cN+. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 73.3 months (interquartile range, 64.1-93.5 months). The 3-year OS was better for neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with surgery alone (49% vs 38%, respectively; P < .001). Stratifying based on clinical nodal status, the propensity score-adjusted OS was significantly better for cN+ patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66; P < .001). In contrast, there was no difference in OS for cN- patients based on treatment (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.10; P = .22). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with cN+ esophageal adenocarcinoma benefit significantly from neoadjuvant chemoradiation. However, patients with cN- tumors treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation plus surgery do not derive a significant OS benefit compared with surgery alone. This finding may have significant implications on the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with cN- disease.
IMPORTANCE: While neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer improves oncologic outcomes for a broad group of patients with locally advanced and/or node-positive tumors, it is less clear which specific subset of patients derives most benefit in terms of overall survival (OS). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neoadjuvant chemoradiation based on esophageal adenocarcinoma histology has similar oncologic outcomes for patients treated with surgery alone when stratified by clinical nodal status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database from 1998 to 2006. Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma histology and clinical stage T1bN1-N3 or T2-T4aN-/+M0 were divided into 2 treatment groups: (1) neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and (2) surgery alone. Subset analysis within each treatment group was performed for clinically node-negative patients (cN-) vs node-positive patients (cN+) in conjunction with pathological nodal status. A propensity score-adjusted analysis, which included patient demographics, comorbidity status, and clinical T stage, was also performed. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 3-year OS. Secondary outcomes included margin status, postoperative length of stay, unplanned readmission rate, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1309 patients were identified, of whom 539 received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and 770 received surgery alone. Of the 1309 patients, 41.2% (n = 539) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 47.2% (n = 618) were cN+. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 73.3 months (interquartile range, 64.1-93.5 months). The 3-year OS was better for neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with surgery alone (49% vs 38%, respectively; P < .001). Stratifying based on clinical nodal status, the propensity score-adjusted OS was significantly better for cN+ patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66; P < .001). In contrast, there was no difference in OS for cN- patients based on treatment (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.10; P = .22). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with cN+ esophageal adenocarcinoma benefit significantly from neoadjuvant chemoradiation. However, patients with cN- tumors treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation plus surgery do not derive a significant OS benefit compared with surgery alone. This finding may have significant implications on the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with cN- disease.
Authors: Jennifer J Knox; Rebecca Wong; Antonio L Visbal; Anne M Horgan; Maha Guindi; Jennifer Hornby; Wei Xu; Jolie Ringash; Shaf Keshavjee; Eric Chen; Masoom Haider; Gail Darling Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paul J Speicher; Asvin M Ganapathi; Brian R Englum; Matthew G Hartwig; Mark W Onaitis; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark F Berry Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Ulrich Ronellenfitsch; Matthias Schwarzbach; Ralf Hofheinz; Peter Kienle; Meinhard Kieser; Tracy E Slanger; Bryan Burmeister; David Kelsen; Donna Niedzwiecki; Christoph Schuhmacher; Susan Urba; Cornelis van de Velde; Thomas N Walsh; Marc Ychou; Katrin Jensen Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-06-22 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jennifer Q Zhang; Craig M Hooker; Malcolm V Brock; James Shin; Sue Lee; Remealle How; Noreli Franco; Helen Prevas; Alicia Hulbert; Stephen C Yang Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Katrin M Sjoquist; Bryan H Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; John R Zalcberg; R John Simes; Andrew Barbour; Val Gebski Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: P J Speicher; X Wang; B R Englum; A M Ganapathi; B Yerokun; M G Hartwig; T A D'Amico; M F Berry Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 3.429