Lachlan J McDowell1, Shao Hui Huang1, Wei Xu2, Jiahua Che2, Rebecca K S Wong1, James Brierley1, John Kim1, Bernard Cummings1, John Waldron1, Andrew Bayley1, Aaron Hansen3, Ian Witterick4, Jolie Ringash5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: jolie.ringash@rmp.uhn.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of consecutive protocols on overall survival (OS) for cervical esophageal carcinoma (CEC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: All CEC cases that received definitive radiation therapy (RT) with or without chemotherapy from 1997 to 2013 in 3 consecutive protocols were reviewed. Protocol 1 (P1) consisted of 2-dimensional RT of 54 Gy in 20 fractions with 5-fluorouracil plus either mitomycin C or cisplatin. Protocol 2 (P2) consisted of 3-dimensional conformal RT (3DRT) of ≥60 Gy in 30 fractions plus elective nodal irradiation plus cisplatin. Protocol 3 (P3) consisted of intensity modulated RT (IMRT) of ≥60 Gy in 30 fractions plus elective nodal irradiation plus cisplatin. Multivariable analyses were used to assess the effect of the treatment protocol, RT technique, and RT dose on OS, separately. RESULTS: Of 81 cases (P1, 21; P2, 23; and P3, 37), 34 local (P1, 11 [52%]; P2, 12 [52%]; and P3, 11 [30%]), 16 regional (P1, 6 [29%]); P2, 3 [13%]; and P3, 7 [19%]), and 34 distant (P1, 10 [48%]; P2, 9 [39%]; and P3, 15 [41%]) failures were identified. After adjusting for age (P=.49) and chemotherapy (any vs none; hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.9; P=.023), multivariable analysis showed P3 had improved OS compared with P1 (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8; P=.005), with a trend shown for benefit compared with P2 (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.0; P=.061). OS between P1 and P2 did not differ (P=.29). Analyzed as a continuous variable, higher RT doses were associated with a borderline improved OS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.0; P=.075). IMRT showed improved OS compared with non-IMRT (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.3-0.8; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: The present retrospective consecutive cohort study showed improved OS with our current protocol (P3; high-dose IMRT with concurrent high-dose cisplatin) compared with historical protocols. The outcomes for patients with CEC remain poor, and novel approaches to improve the therapeutic ratio are warranted.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the effect of consecutive protocols on overall survival (OS) for cervical esophageal carcinoma (CEC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: All CEC cases that received definitive radiation therapy (RT) with or without chemotherapy from 1997 to 2013 in 3 consecutive protocols were reviewed. Protocol 1 (P1) consisted of 2-dimensional RT of 54 Gy in 20 fractions with 5-fluorouracil plus either mitomycin C or cisplatin. Protocol 2 (P2) consisted of 3-dimensional conformal RT (3DRT) of ≥60 Gy in 30 fractions plus elective nodal irradiation plus cisplatin. Protocol 3 (P3) consisted of intensity modulated RT (IMRT) of ≥60 Gy in 30 fractions plus elective nodal irradiation plus cisplatin. Multivariable analyses were used to assess the effect of the treatment protocol, RT technique, and RT dose on OS, separately. RESULTS: Of 81 cases (P1, 21; P2, 23; and P3, 37), 34 local (P1, 11 [52%]; P2, 12 [52%]; and P3, 11 [30%]), 16 regional (P1, 6 [29%]); P2, 3 [13%]; and P3, 7 [19%]), and 34 distant (P1, 10 [48%]; P2, 9 [39%]; and P3, 15 [41%]) failures were identified. After adjusting for age (P=.49) and chemotherapy (any vs none; hazard ratio [HR] 0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.9; P=.023), multivariable analysis showed P3 had improved OS compared with P1 (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8; P=.005), with a trend shown for benefit compared with P2 (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.0; P=.061). OS between P1 and P2 did not differ (P=.29). Analyzed as a continuous variable, higher RT doses were associated with a borderline improved OS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.0; P=.075). IMRT showed improved OS compared with non-IMRT (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.3-0.8; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: The present retrospective consecutive cohort study showed improved OS with our current protocol (P3; high-dose IMRT with concurrent high-dose cisplatin) compared with historical protocols. The outcomes for patients with CEC remain poor, and novel approaches to improve the therapeutic ratio are warranted.
Authors: Armando De Virgilio; Andrea Costantino; Carlo Castoro; Giuseppe Spriano; Bianca Maria Festa; Giuseppe Mercante; Davide Franceschini; Ciro Franzese; Marta Scorsetti; Andrea Marrari; Raffaele Cavina; Salvatore Marano Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Armando De Virgilio; Andrea Costantino; Carlo Castoro; Giuseppe Spriano; Bianca Maria Festa; Giuseppe Mercante; Davide Franceschini; Ciro Franzese; Marta Scorsetti; Andrea Marrari; Raffaele Cavina; Salvatore Marano Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 3.236