Background: Esophageal adenocarcinoma with liver metastasis (EACLM) at the time of diagnosis has a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. The best treatment options and prognostic factors for EACLM patients are unclear. The present study sought to explore the optimal treatment modalities for and the prognosis of these patients. Methods: Patients diagnosed with EACLM at the time of diagnosis were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015. The last follow-up date was December 31, 2018. Treatment patterns were divided into four groups: local therapy (surgery/radiation), systemic therapy [chemotherapy (CT)], combination therapy (surgery/radiation + CT), and no treatment. The Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method and log-rank test were used for overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression were performed to identify the prognostic factors. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analyses were performed for sensitive analyses. Results: A total of 925 patients diagnosed with EACLM were included in the study. The median OS was 12, 10, 3, and 2 months for combination therapy, systemic therapy, local therapy, and no treatment, respectively (P<0.001). After PSM, the patients who received systemic treatment had a better OS (median 9 vs. 2 months; P<0.001) and DSS (median 9 vs. 3 months; P<0.001) than those who received no treatment. Compared to systemic therapy, combination therapy did not increase patients' OS (median 13 vs. 12 months, P=0.069) but did improve their DSS (median 19 vs. 13 months, P=0.048). Conclusions: EACLM patients might benefit the most from systemic therapy and combination therapy. For patients who are well-tolerated, combination therapy should be considered as a preferable option. 2022 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Background: Esophageal adenocarcinoma with liver metastasis (EACLM) at the time of diagnosis has a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. The best treatment options and prognostic factors for EACLM patients are unclear. The present study sought to explore the optimal treatment modalities for and the prognosis of these patients. Methods: Patients diagnosed with EACLM at the time of diagnosis were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015. The last follow-up date was December 31, 2018. Treatment patterns were divided into four groups: local therapy (surgery/radiation), systemic therapy [chemotherapy (CT)], combination therapy (surgery/radiation + CT), and no treatment. The Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method and log-rank test were used for overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression were performed to identify the prognostic factors. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analyses were performed for sensitive analyses. Results: A total of 925 patients diagnosed with EACLM were included in the study. The median OS was 12, 10, 3, and 2 months for combination therapy, systemic therapy, local therapy, and no treatment, respectively (P<0.001). After PSM, the patients who received systemic treatment had a better OS (median 9 vs. 2 months; P<0.001) and DSS (median 9 vs. 3 months; P<0.001) than those who received no treatment. Compared to systemic therapy, combination therapy did not increase patients' OS (median 13 vs. 12 months, P=0.069) but did improve their DSS (median 19 vs. 13 months, P=0.048). Conclusions: EACLM patients might benefit the most from systemic therapy and combination therapy. For patients who are well-tolerated, combination therapy should be considered as a preferable option. 2022 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Vincent T Janmaat; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ate van der Gaast; Ron Hj Mathijssen; Marco J Bruno; Maikel P Peppelenbosch; Ernst J Kuipers; Manon Cw Spaander Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-11-28
Authors: Peter C Thuss-Patience; Albrecht Kretzschmar; Dmitry Bichev; Tillman Deist; Axel Hinke; Kirstin Breithaupt; Yasemin Dogan; Bernhard Gebauer; Guido Schumacher; Peter Reichardt Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: T Tanaka; H Fujita; S Matono; T Nagano; K Nishimura; K Murata; K Shirouzu; G Suzuki; N Hayabuchi; H Yamana Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: Laila Gharzai; Vivek Verma; Kyle A Denniston; Abhijeet R Bhirud; Nathan R Bennion; Chi Lin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 3.240