The Role of Continuing Perioperative Chemotherapy Post Surgery in Patients with Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: a Multicenter Cohort Study.
Adenocarcinoma
/ drug therapy
Aged
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ therapeutic use
Capecitabine
/ administration & dosage
Chemotherapy, Adjuvant
Cisplatin
/ administration & dosage
Disease-Free Survival
Epirubicin
/ administration & dosage
Esophageal Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Esophagectomy
Esophagogastric Junction
/ surgery
Female
Humans
Male
Margins of Excision
Middle Aged
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ pathology
Neoplasm, Residual
Perioperative Period
Propensity Score
Retrospective Studies
Survival Rate
Adjuvant chemotherapy
Esophageal–gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma
Perioperative chemotherapy
Prognosis
Propensity score matching analysis
Journal
Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
ISSN: 1873-4626
Titre abrégé: J Gastrointest Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9706084
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
12
05
2018
accepted:
16
12
2018
pubmed:
24
1
2019
medline:
30
7
2020
entrez:
24
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this cohort study was to assess the benefit that patients with lower esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) adenocarcinoma receive by continuing perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery. Three hundred twelve patients underwent radical tumor surgical resection after preoperative chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was mainly ECX (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery vs. no postoperative treatment. Two hundred ten patients (67.3%) had GEJ and 102 (32.7%) lower esophageal adenocarcinoma. Microscopically clear surgical margins (R0), according to the Royal College of Pathologists, were achieved in 208 patients (66.7%). In total, 225 patients (72.1%) continued perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery. PSM was used to create two patient groups, well-balanced for basic epidemiological, clinical, and histopathological characteristics. The first included 148 patients who continued perioperative chemotherapy after surgery and the second 86, who did not receive postoperative treatment. The first group had non-significantly different median time-to-relapse (TTR 22.2 vs. 25.7 months, p = 0.627), overall survival (OS 46.1 vs. 36.7 months, p = 0.199), and post-relapse survival (15.3 vs. 8.7 months, p = 0.122). Subgroup analysis showed that only patients with microscopically residual disease after surgery (R1 resection) benefited from continuation of chemotherapy post-surgery for both TTR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.556, 95% CI 0.330-0.936, p = 0.027) and OS (HR 0.530, 95% CI 0.313-0.898, p = 0.018). Continuation of perioperative chemotherapy post-surgery was not associated with improved outcome in patients with E/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Patients with microscopically residual disease post-surgery might receive a potential benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30671799
doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-04087-8
pii: 10.1007/s11605-018-04087-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Epirubicin
3Z8479ZZ5X
Capecitabine
6804DJ8Z9U
Cisplatin
Q20Q21Q62J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1729-1741Références
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 6;355(1):11-20
pubmed: 16822992
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Oct 20;27(30):5062-7
pubmed: 19770374
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 20;29(33):4387-93
pubmed: 22010012
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 1;30(19):2327-33
pubmed: 22585691
N Engl J Med. 2012 May 31;366(22):2074-84
pubmed: 22646630
J Surg Oncol. 2013 Jun;107(7):762-6
pubmed: 23280705
Dig Surg. 2013;30(2):112-8
pubmed: 23867587
Ann Oncol. 2013 Oct;24 Suppl 6:vi51-6
pubmed: 24078662
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
Int J Surg Oncol. 2013;2013:781742
pubmed: 24163764
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;22(4):1243-51
pubmed: 25316491
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):1389-96
pubmed: 25439693
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Jan;10(1):181-8
pubmed: 25490005
Am J Surg. 2015 Jul;210(1):15-23
pubmed: 25957032
Ann Surg. 2016 Apr;263(4):712-8
pubmed: 26135681
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;41(10):1300-7
pubmed: 26253194
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Mar;101(3):1060-7
pubmed: 26576752
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Aug;23(8):2398-408
pubmed: 27006126
J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep;114(4):428-33
pubmed: 27333949
BMC Cancer. 2016 Jul 19;16:503
pubmed: 27435280
Ann Oncol. 2016 Sep;27(suppl 5):v38-v49
pubmed: 27664260
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Jan;12(1):36-42
pubmed: 27810391
Nature. 2017 Jan 12;541(7636):169-175
pubmed: 28052061
J Cancer. 2017 Jan 15;8(2):249-257
pubmed: 28243329
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;115(7):821-829
pubmed: 28257148
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Aug;24(8):2252-2258
pubmed: 28337660
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Aug 1;109(8):
pubmed: 28376195
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Aug;43(8):1550-1558
pubmed: 28551325
BMC Cancer. 2017 Jun 3;17(1):401
pubmed: 28578652
Lancet. 2017 Nov 25;390(10110):2383-2396
pubmed: 28648400
Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun 29;:null
pubmed: 28684226
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):1249-1260
pubmed: 28784312