Kristen E Rhodin1, Vignesh Raman2, Oliver K Jawitz2, Soraya L Voigt3, Norma E Farrow2, David H Harpole3, Betty C Tong3, Thomas A D'Amico3. 1. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: kristen.rhodin@duke.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Division of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Induction therapy for patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer is controversial. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the National Cancer Database to examine the patterns of use of induction therapy for this population. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy (2004-2015). Patients were stratified by upfront surgery or induction therapy. Overall survival was analyzed and a multivariable logistic regression performed to identify factors associated with receipt of induction therapy. RESULTS: Overall 2540 patients met study criteria: 1177 (46%) received upfront esophagectomy and 1363 (53%) received induction therapy. Patients receiving induction therapy were more likely to be younger, male, without comorbidities, privately insured, and treated at a nonacademic center. These patients were also less likely to be treated in highest volume surgery centers. In multivariable regression, factors independently associated with receipt of induction therapy included later year of diagnosis, increasing tumor size, and increasing tumor grade. Factors associated with upfront esophagectomy included advancing age, comorbidities, lack of insurance, geographic location, and highest volume centers. The receipt of induction chemotherapy was not associated with a survival benefit compared with no induction therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Several patient-, treatment center-, and tumor-related factors are associated with receipt of induction therapy for cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer, although induction therapy is not associated with a survival benefit. Further inquiry into these differences and the potential benefit or lack thereof of induction therapy should be conducted to provide more equitable and appropriate care for patients with esophageal cancer.
BACKGROUND: Induction therapy for patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer is controversial. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the National Cancer Database to examine the patterns of use of induction therapy for this population. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy (2004-2015). Patients were stratified by upfront surgery or induction therapy. Overall survival was analyzed and a multivariable logistic regression performed to identify factors associated with receipt of induction therapy. RESULTS: Overall 2540 patients met study criteria: 1177 (46%) received upfront esophagectomy and 1363 (53%) received induction therapy. Patients receiving induction therapy were more likely to be younger, male, without comorbidities, privately insured, and treated at a nonacademic center. These patients were also less likely to be treated in highest volume surgery centers. In multivariable regression, factors independently associated with receipt of induction therapy included later year of diagnosis, increasing tumor size, and increasing tumor grade. Factors associated with upfront esophagectomy included advancing age, comorbidities, lack of insurance, geographic location, and highest volume centers. The receipt of induction chemotherapy was not associated with a survival benefit compared with no induction therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Several patient-, treatment center-, and tumor-related factors are associated with receipt of induction therapy for cT2N0M0 esophageal cancer, although induction therapy is not associated with a survival benefit. Further inquiry into these differences and the potential benefit or lack thereof of induction therapy should be conducted to provide more equitable and appropriate care for patients with esophageal cancer.
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: Tara R Semenkovich; Roheena Z Panni; Jessica L Hudson; Theodore Thomas; Leisha C Elmore; Su-Hsin Chang; Bryan F Meyers; Benjamin D Kozower; Varun Puri Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Megan C Turner; Norma E Farrow; Kristen E Rhodin; Zhifei Sun; Mohamed A Adam; Christopher R Mantyh; John Migaly Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Lucas Goense; Els Visser; Nadia Haj Mohammad; Stella Mook; Rob H A Verhoeven; Gert J Meijer; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Rolfy A Perez Holguin; Elizabeth J Olecki; Kelly A Stahl; William G Wong; Charles C Vining; Matthew E B Dixon; June S Peng Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 3.267