Keven S Y Ji1, Samantha M Thomas2,3, Sanziana A Roman4, Brian Czito5, Kevin L Anderson1, Jessica Frakes6, Mohamed A Adam7, Julie A Sosa4, Timothy J Robinson8. 1. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27703, USA. 2. Duke Cancer Institute, 20 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of California at San Francisco-UCSF, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa Bay, FL, 33612, USA. 7. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa Bay, FL, 33612, USA. Timothy.robinson@moffitt.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of neoadjuvant radiation for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer remains controversial in the absence of randomized clinical trials, with conventional practice favoring the use of 50.4 vs. 41.4 Gy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of adults with non-metastatic esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing 41.4, 45, or 50.4 Gy. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included T and N downstaging and perioperative mortality adjusted for demographics, clinicopathologic factors, and facility volume. RESULTS: Eight thousand eight hundred eighty-one patients were included: 439 (4.9%) received low-dose (41.4 Gy), 2194 (24.7%) received moderate-dose (45 Gy), and 6248 (70.4%) received high-dose (50.4 Gy) neoadjuvant radiation. Compared to high-dose, low-dose radiation was associated with superior median overall survival (52.6 vs. 40.7 months) and 5-year survival (48.3% vs. 40.2%), and lower unadjusted 90-day mortality (2.3% vs. 6.5%, all p ≤ 0.01). Multivariable proportional hazards models confirmed an increased hazard of death associated with high-dose radiation therapy (HR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in T and/or N downstaging between low-dose vs. high-dose therapy (p > 0.1 for both). Patients receiving 45 Gy exhibited the lowest median overall survival (37.2 months) and 5-year survival (38.7%, log-rank p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 50.4 Gy, 41.4 Gy is associated with reduced perioperative mortality and superior overall survival with similar downstaging in locally advanced esophageal cancer. In the absence of randomized clinical data, our findings support the use of 41.4 Gy in patients with chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy. Prospective trials are warranted to further validate these results.
BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of neoadjuvant radiation for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer remains controversial in the absence of randomized clinical trials, with conventional practice favoring the use of 50.4 vs. 41.4 Gy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of adults with non-metastatic esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing 41.4, 45, or 50.4 Gy. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included T and N downstaging and perioperative mortality adjusted for demographics, clinicopathologic factors, and facility volume. RESULTS: Eight thousand eight hundred eighty-one patients were included: 439 (4.9%) received low-dose (41.4 Gy), 2194 (24.7%) received moderate-dose (45 Gy), and 6248 (70.4%) received high-dose (50.4 Gy) neoadjuvant radiation. Compared to high-dose, low-dose radiation was associated with superior median overall survival (52.6 vs. 40.7 months) and 5-year survival (48.3% vs. 40.2%), and lower unadjusted 90-day mortality (2.3% vs. 6.5%, all p ≤ 0.01). Multivariable proportional hazards models confirmed an increased hazard of death associated with high-dose radiation therapy (HR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in T and/or N downstaging between low-dose vs. high-dose therapy (p > 0.1 for both). Patients receiving 45 Gy exhibited the lowest median overall survival (37.2 months) and 5-year survival (38.7%, log-rank p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 50.4 Gy, 41.4 Gy is associated with reduced perioperative mortality and superior overall survival with similar downstaging in locally advanced esophageal cancer. In the absence of randomized clinical data, our findings support the use of 41.4 Gy in patients with chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy. Prospective trials are warranted to further validate these results.
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N Nabavizadeh; R Shukla; D A Elliott; T Mitin; G M Vaccaro; J P Dolan; R J Maggiore; P H Schipper; J G Hunter; C R Thomas; J M Holland Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Bryan H Burmeister; B Mark Smithers; Val Gebski; Lara Fitzgerald; R John Simes; Peter Devitt; Stephen Ackland; David C Gotley; David Joseph; Jeremy Millar; John North; Euan T Walpole; James W Denham Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: S L Kwa; J V Lebesque; J C Theuws; L B Marks; M T Munley; G Bentel; D Oetzel; U Spahn; M V Graham; R E Drzymala; J A Purdy; A S Lichter; M K Martel; R K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stefan Münch; Steffi U Pigorsch; Marcus Feith; Julia Slotta-Huspenina; Wilko Weichert; Helmut Friess; Stephanie E Combs; Daniel Habermehl Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 3.481