Adjuvant Therapy After Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Who Needs It?
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2023
01 08 2023
Historique:
medline:
12
7
2023
pubmed:
24
8
2022
entrez:
23
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We hypothesized that, on average, patients do not benefit from additional adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer, although subsets of patients might. Therefore, we sought to identify profiles of patients predicted to receive the most survival benefit or greatest detriment from adding adjuvant therapy. Although neoadjuvant therapy has become the treatment of choice for locally advanced esophageal cancer, the value of adding adjuvant therapy is unknown. From 1970 to 2014, 22,123 patients were treated for esophageal cancer at 33 centers on 6 continents (Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration), of whom 7731 with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma received neoadjuvant therapy; 1348 received additional adjuvant therapy. Random forests for survival and virtual-twin analyses were performed for all-cause mortality. Patients received a small survival benefit from adjuvant therapy (3.2±10 months over the subsequent 10 years for adenocarcinoma, 1.8±11 for squamous cell carcinoma). Consistent benefit occurred in ypT3-4 patients without nodal involvement and those with ypN2-3 disease. The small subset of patients receiving most benefit had high nodal burden, ypT4, and positive margins. Patients with ypT1-2N0 cancers had either no benefit or a detriment in survival. Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy has value primarily for patients with more advanced esophageal cancer. Because the benefit is often small, patients considering adjuvant therapy should be counseled on benefits versus morbidity. In addition, given that the overall benefit was meaningful in a small number of patients, emerging modalities such as immunotherapy may hold more promise in the adjuvant setting.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
We hypothesized that, on average, patients do not benefit from additional adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer, although subsets of patients might. Therefore, we sought to identify profiles of patients predicted to receive the most survival benefit or greatest detriment from adding adjuvant therapy.
BACKGROUND
Although neoadjuvant therapy has become the treatment of choice for locally advanced esophageal cancer, the value of adding adjuvant therapy is unknown.
METHODS
From 1970 to 2014, 22,123 patients were treated for esophageal cancer at 33 centers on 6 continents (Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration), of whom 7731 with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma received neoadjuvant therapy; 1348 received additional adjuvant therapy. Random forests for survival and virtual-twin analyses were performed for all-cause mortality.
RESULTS
Patients received a small survival benefit from adjuvant therapy (3.2±10 months over the subsequent 10 years for adenocarcinoma, 1.8±11 for squamous cell carcinoma). Consistent benefit occurred in ypT3-4 patients without nodal involvement and those with ypN2-3 disease. The small subset of patients receiving most benefit had high nodal burden, ypT4, and positive margins. Patients with ypT1-2N0 cancers had either no benefit or a detriment in survival.
CONCLUSIONS
Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy has value primarily for patients with more advanced esophageal cancer. Because the benefit is often small, patients considering adjuvant therapy should be counseled on benefits versus morbidity. In addition, given that the overall benefit was meaningful in a small number of patients, emerging modalities such as immunotherapy may hold more promise in the adjuvant setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35997269
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005679
pii: 00000658-202308000-00029
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e240-e249Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000439
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM125072
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJ, Hulshof MC, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1090–1098.
van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–2084.
Klevebro F, Alexandersson von Dobeln G, Wang N, et al. A randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:660–667.
Von Dobeln GA, Klevebro F, Jacobsen AB, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Dis Esoph. 2019;32:doy078.
Burmeister BH, Thomas JM, Burmeister EA, et al. Is concurrent radiation therapy required in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus? A randomised phase II trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:354–360.
Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1948–1957.
Burt BM, Groth SS, Sada YH, et al. Utility of adjuvant chemotherapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. 2017;266:297–304.
Samson P, Puri V, Lockhart AC, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with pathologic node-positive esophageal cancer after induction chemotherapy is associated with improved survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;156:1725–1735.
Semenkovich TR, Subramanian M, Yan Y, et al. Adjuvant therapy for node-positive esophageal cancer after induction and surgery: a multisite study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108:828–836.
Rice TW, Apperson-Hansen C, DiPaola LM, et al. Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: clinical staging data. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:707–714.
Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed. New York, NY: Springer, 2017.
Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 8th ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 2016.
Foster JC, Taylor JM, Ruberg SJ. Subgroup identification from randomized clinical trial data. Stat Med. 2011;30:2867–2880.
Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med. 2007;26:20–36.
Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Blackstone EH, et al. For the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration Investigators. Recommendations for clinical staging (cTNM) of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:913–919.
Rice TW, Chen LQ, Hofstetter WL, et al. Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: pathologic staging data. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:724–733.
Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Hofstetter WL, et al. For the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration Investigators. Recommendations for pathologic staging (pTNM) of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:897–905.
Rice TW, Lerut TE, Orringer MB, et al. Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration: neoadjuvant pathologic staging data. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:715–723.
Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Kelsen DP, et al. For the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration Investigators. Recommendations for neoadjuvant pathologic staging (ypTNM) of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:906–912.
Tang F, Ishwaran H. Random forest missing data algorithms. Stat Anal Data Min. 2017;10:363–377.
Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB. Random forests for survival, regression and classification (RF-SRC), R package, version 2.9.3; 2020. Accessed February 26, 2020. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/randomForestSRC/index.html .
Korn EL. Censoring distributions as a measure of follow-up in survival analysis. Stat Med. 1986;5:255–260.
Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:343–346.
O’Brien R, Ishwaran H. A random forests quantile classifier for class imbalanced data. Pattern Recognit. 2019;90:232–249.
Lu M, Sadiq S, Feaster DJ, et al. Estimating individual treatment effect in observational data using random forest methods. J Comput Graph Stat. 2018;27:209–219.
Pak K, Uno H, Kim DH, et al. Interpretability of cancer clinical trial results using restricted mean survival time as an alternative to the hazard ratio. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1692–1696.
Huang B, Kuan PF. Comparison of the restricted mean survival time with the hazard ratio in superiority trials with a time-to-event end point. Pharm Stat. 2018;17:202–213.
Raufi AG, Almhanna K. Immune checkpoint inhibitors for esophageal cancer: are we moving in the right direction? Ann Transl Med. 2019;7:S102.
Smyth EC, Gambardella V, Cervantes A, et al. Checkpoint inhibitors for gastroesophageal cancers: dissecting heterogeneity to better understand their role in first-line and adjuvant therapy. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:590–599.
Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:27–40.
Kelly RJ, Ajani JA, Kuzdzal J, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1191–1203.
Rice TW, Lu M, Ishwaran H, et al. Precision surgical therapy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14:2164–2175.
Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:93–99.
Rice TW, Zuccaro G Jr, Adelstein DJ, et al. Esophageal carcinoma: depth of tumor invasion is predictive of regional lymph node status. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:787–792.
Riquet M, Saab M, Le Pimpec Barthes F, et al. Lymphatic drainage of the esophagus in the adult. Surg Radiol Anat. 1993;15:209–211.
Murakami G, Sato I, Shimada K, et al. Direct lymphatic drainage from the esophagus into the thoracic duct. Surg Radiol Anat. 1994;16:399–407.
Kuge K, Murakami G, Mizobuchi S, et al. Submucosal territory of the direct lymphatic drainage system to the thoracic duct in the human esophagus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:1343–1349.
van Leeuwen PJ, Kranse R, Hakulinen T, et al. Disease-specific mortality may underestimate the total effect of prostate cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2010;17:204–210.
Black WC, Haggstrom DA, Welch HG. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:167–173.
Goense L, Visser E, Haj Mohammad N, et al. Role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in clinical T2N0M0 esophageal cancer: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:620–625.
Markar SR, Gronnier C, Pasquer A, et al. Role of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical T2N0M0 oesophageal cancer: results from a retrospective multi-center European study. Eur J Cancer. 2016;56:59–68.