OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore nationwide trends in treatment and outcomes of T1N0 esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment has become an accepted option for early-stage esophageal cancer, but nationwide utilization rates and outcomes are unknown. METHODS: T1N0 esophageal cancers were identified in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2014. We assessed trends in treatment; compared endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, chemoradiation, and no treatment; and performed a subgroup analysis of T1a and T1b patients from 2010 to 2014 (AJCC 7). RESULTS: A total of 12,383 patients with clinical T1N0 esophageal cancer were analyzed. Over a decade, use of endoscopic therapy increased from 12.7% to 33.6%, whereas chemoradiation and esophagectomy decreased, P < 0.01. The rise in endoscopic treatment of T1a disease from 42.7% to 50.6% was accompanied by a decrease in esophagectomies from 21.7% to 12.8% (P < 0.01). For T1b disease, the rise in endoscopic treatment from 16.9% to 25.1% (P = 0.03) was accompanied by decreases in no treatment and chemoradiation, whereas the rate of esophagectomies remained approximately 50%. Unadjusted median survival was longer for patients undergoing resection: esophagectomy, 98.6 months; endoscopic therapy, 77.7 months; chemoradiation, 17.3 months; no treatment, 8.2 months; P < 0.01. Risk-adjusted Cox modeling showed esophagectomy was associated with improved survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85], and chemoradiation (HR: 1.79) and no treatment (HR: 3.57) with decreased survival, compared to endoscopic therapy (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Use of endoscopic therapy for T1 esophageal cancer has increased significantly: for T1a, as an alternative to esophagectomy; and for T1b, as an alternative to no treatment or chemoradiation. Despite upfront risks, long-term survival is highest for patients who can undergo esophagectomy.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore nationwide trends in treatment and outcomes of T1N0 esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment has become an accepted option for early-stage esophageal cancer, but nationwide utilization rates and outcomes are unknown. METHODS: T1N0 esophageal cancers were identified in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2014. We assessed trends in treatment; compared endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, chemoradiation, and no treatment; and performed a subgroup analysis of T1a and T1b patients from 2010 to 2014 (AJCC 7). RESULTS: A total of 12,383 patients with clinical T1N0 esophageal cancer were analyzed. Over a decade, use of endoscopic therapy increased from 12.7% to 33.6%, whereas chemoradiation and esophagectomy decreased, P < 0.01. The rise in endoscopic treatment of T1a disease from 42.7% to 50.6% was accompanied by a decrease in esophagectomies from 21.7% to 12.8% (P < 0.01). For T1b disease, the rise in endoscopic treatment from 16.9% to 25.1% (P = 0.03) was accompanied by decreases in no treatment and chemoradiation, whereas the rate of esophagectomies remained approximately 50%. Unadjusted median survival was longer for patients undergoing resection: esophagectomy, 98.6 months; endoscopic therapy, 77.7 months; chemoradiation, 17.3 months; no treatment, 8.2 months; P < 0.01. Risk-adjusted Cox modeling showed esophagectomy was associated with improved survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85], and chemoradiation (HR: 1.79) and no treatment (HR: 3.57) with decreased survival, compared to endoscopic therapy (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Use of endoscopic therapy for T1 esophageal cancer has increased significantly: for T1a, as an alternative to esophagectomy; and for T1b, as an alternative to no treatment or chemoradiation. Despite upfront risks, long-term survival is highest for patients who can undergo esophagectomy.
Authors: Thomas K Varghese; Wayne L Hofstetter; Nabil P Rizk; Donald E Low; Gail E Darling; Thomas J Watson; John D Mitchell; Mark J Krasna Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael J Bartel; Timothy M Wallace; Rene D Gomez-Esquivel; Massimo Raimondo; Herbert C Wolfsen; Timothy A Woodward; Michael B Wallace Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Prateek Sharma; Bergein F Overholt; Herbert C Wolfsen; Richard E Sampliner; Kenneth K Wang; Joseph A Galanko; Mary P Bronner; John R Goldblum; Ana E Bennett; Blair A Jobe; Glenn M Eisen; M Brian Fennerty; John G Hunter; David E Fleischer; Virender K Sharma; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Richard I Rothstein; Stuart R Gordon; Hiroshi Mashimo; Kenneth J Chang; V Raman Muthusamy; Steven A Edmundowicz; Stuart J Spechler; Ali A Siddiqui; Rhonda F Souza; Anthony Infantolino; Gary W Falk; Michael B Kimmey; Ryan D Madanick; Amitabh Chak; Charles J Lightdale Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lauren J Taylor; Caprice C Greenberg; Anne O Lidor; Glen E Leverson; James D Maloney; Ryan A Macke Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sachin Wani; Jennifer Drahos; Michael B Cook; Amit Rastogi; Ajay Bansal; Roy Yen; Prateek Sharma; Ananya Das Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Smita Sihag; Sergio De La Torre; Meier Hsu; Tamar Nobel; Kay See Tan; Hans Gerdes; Pari Shah; Manjit Bains; David R Jones; Daniela Molena Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 6.439