Zixian Jin1,2, Dong Chen1,2, Meng Chen1,3, Chunguo Wang1,2, Bo Zhang1,2, Jian Zhang1,2, Chengchu Zhu4,5, Jianfei Shen6,7. 1. Key Laboratory of Minimally Invasive Techniques and Rapid Rehabilitation of Digestive System Tumor of Zhejiang Province, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, 317000, China. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, 317000, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Shaoxing University, Linhai, 317000, China. 4. Key Laboratory of Minimally Invasive Techniques and Rapid Rehabilitation of Digestive System Tumor of Zhejiang Province, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, 317000, China. zhucc@enzemed.com. 5. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, 317000, China. zhucc@enzemed.com. 6. Key Laboratory of Minimally Invasive Techniques and Rapid Rehabilitation of Digestive System Tumor of Zhejiang Province, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, 317000, China. jianfei051@163.com. 7. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province Affiliated to Wenzhou Medical University, Linhai, 317000, China. jianfei051@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the most effective and safest treatment mode for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through a network meta-analysis. METHOD: A Bayesian model was used for a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Thirty clinical studies, including thirty-one articles, 4866 patients, were analyzed. Overall survival rate: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were significantly advantageous over surgery alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.93; HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.65-0.86]. There was no statistically significant difference between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.75-1.28]. Disease-free survival rate: Compared with surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had significant benefits [HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.78]; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had similar, but not significant benefits [HR 0.7, 0.95%CI 0.45-1.06]. The difference between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was also not statistically significant [HR 0.94, 0.95%CI 0.61-1.43]. Surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: The R0 resection rate was significantly improved [relative risk (RR) 0.25, 95%CI 0.07-0.86], but the overall postoperative morbidity rate and 30-day postoperative mortality rate tended to increase [RR 1.27, 95%CI 0.8-2.01; RR 1.59, 95%CI 0.7-3.22]. Neither neoadjuvant chemotherapy nor neoadjuvant radiotherapy significantly altered the surgical safety or R0 resection rate. CONCLUSION: Both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy appear to be the best supplements to surgery for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
PURPOSE: To determine the most effective and safest treatment mode for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma through a network meta-analysis. METHOD: A Bayesian model was used for a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: Thirty clinical studies, including thirty-one articles, 4866 patients, were analyzed. Overall survival rate: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were significantly advantageous over surgery alone [hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.93; HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.65-0.86]. There was no statistically significant difference between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [HR 0.97, 95%CI 0.75-1.28]. Disease-free survival rate: Compared with surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had significant benefits [HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.78]; adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had similar, but not significant benefits [HR 0.7, 0.95%CI 0.45-1.06]. The difference between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was also not statistically significant [HR 0.94, 0.95%CI 0.61-1.43]. Surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: The R0 resection rate was significantly improved [relative risk (RR) 0.25, 95%CI 0.07-0.86], but the overall postoperative morbidity rate and 30-day postoperative mortality rate tended to increase [RR 1.27, 95%CI 0.8-2.01; RR 1.59, 95%CI 0.7-3.22]. Neither neoadjuvant chemotherapy nor neoadjuvant radiotherapy significantly altered the surgical safety or R0 resection rate. CONCLUSION: Both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy appear to be the best supplements to surgery for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Authors: N Ando; T Iizuka; T Kakegawa; K Isono; H Watanabe; H Ide; O Tanaka; M Shinoda; W Takiyama; M Arimori; K Ishida; S Tsugane Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray; Melissa M Center; Jacques Ferlay; Elizabeth Ward; David Forman Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Joel Shapiro; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R C Busch; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Herman van Dekken; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Katharina Biermann; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ben M Eyck; J Jan B van Lanschot; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Berend J van der Wilk; Joel Shapiro; Pieter van Hagen; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Geke A P Hospers; Johannes J Bonenkamp; Miguel A Cuesta; Reinoud J B Blaisse; Olivier R Busch; Geert-Jan M Creemers; Cornelis J A Punt; John Th M Plukker; Henk M W Verheul; Ernst J Spillenaar Bilgen; Maurice J C van der Sangen; Tom Rozema; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Jannet C Beukema; Anna H M Piet; Caroline M van Rij; Janny G Reinders; Hugo W Tilanus; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 44.544