Open Access

Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment: which one is better for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Contributed equally
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201210:173

https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-10-173

Received: 1 April 2012

Accepted: 27 July 2012

Published: 25 August 2012

Abstract

Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer worldwide, and especially in some areas of China is the fourth most common cause of death and is of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) histology in >90% of cases. Surgery alone was the mainstay of therapeutic intervention in the past, but high rates of local and systemic failure have prompted investigation into multidisciplinary management. In this review, we discuss the key issues raised by the recent availability of esophageal SCC treatment with the addition of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy to the surgical management of resectable disease and discuss how clinical trials and meta-analysis inform current clinical practice. None of the randomized trials that compared neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy with surgery alone in esophageal SCC has demonstrated an increase in overall survival in those patients treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has been accepted recently for esophageal cancer because such a regimen offers great opportunity for margin negative resection, improved loco-regional control and increased survival. The majority of the available evidence currently reveals that only selected locally advanced esophageal SCC are more likely to benefit from the adjuvant therapy. The focus of future trials should be on identification of the optimum regimen and should aim to minimize treatment toxicities and effect on quality of life, as well as attempt to identify and select those patients most likely to benefit from specific treatment options.

Keywords

Esophageal cancerSquamous cell carcinomaNeoadjuvant therapyAdjuvant therapyChemotherapyRadiotherapyChemoradiotherapy

Review

Introduction

Esophageal cancer is the most rapidly increasing tumor type in the world [1, 2]. Globally, esophageal cancer is the eighth most common malignancy and sixth most fatal disease, with approximately 460,000 new diagnoses and > 380,000 deaths annually [3]. More than one-half of new cases in western countries have adenocarcinoma (AC) of the lower esophagus or gastroesophageal junction; and > 90% patients in eastern Asian countries have squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) [3, 4].

Despite improvements in surgical and radiotherapy (RT) techniques and refinements of chemotherapeutic regimens, long-term survival, even from localized esophageal cancer, remains poor. Surgery alone was the mainstay of therapeutic intervention in the past, but high rates of local and systemic failure have prompted investigation into the multidisciplinary management. Treatment paradigms differ between western and Asian countries, but the unifying theme that has emerged in the past decade implies that surgery alone can no longer be considered the standard of care. In attempts to improve the survival rate, the multidisciplinary management involved various combinations and sequences of all modalities including surgery, RT, chemotherapy (CT), and chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

The prognosis was different slightly between histological subtypes. Prior studies have shown that, in comparison with patients with AC, those with esophageal SCC have worse prognosis [57]. This difference is probably due to a different pattern of lymphatic spread and a greater tendency for the disease to spread locally [8, 9], but more importantly due to the location of the primary tumor. SCC is usually a proximal lesion, with 75% of these cancers found to have contact with the tracheobronchial tree, while 94% of AC are below the tracheal bifurcation [10].

Neoadjuvant CRT is currently the standard of care for esophageal AC in many western countries. However, the optimal treatment strategy for resectable esophageal SSC is still a controversial topic. In this review, we discuss the key issues raised by the recent availability for esophageal SCC treatment with the addition of RT, CT, and CRT to the surgical management of resectable disease, and discuss how clinical trials and meta-analysis inform current clinical practice.

Neoadjuvant treatments

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy

There have been five phase III randomized trials comparing neoadjuvant RT with surgery alone [1115] in esophageal SCC (Table 1) and none has demonstrated an increase in resectability or overall survival (OS) in those treated with neoadjuvant RT. Although Nygaard and colleagues reported a 3-year OS benefit, this was only after pooling patients who had received neoadjuvant RT with those who had also received neoadjuvant CRT, as there was no significant difference in survival found otherwise [14]. Meta-analysis of the five above mentioned randomized trials only proved a nonstatistically significant trend (hazard ratio (HR): 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.04) in favor of neoadjuvant RT [16].
Table 1

Randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant radiotherapy versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Study

Histology

SCC (%)

Treatment

n

MS (months)

5-year OS (%)

P value

Launois and colleagues [11]

SCC

100

NART 40 Gy

77

10

10

NS

   

Surgery

57

12

12

 

Gignoux and colleagues [12]

SCC

100

NART 33 Gy

106

11

11

NS

   

Surgery

102

11

10

 

Arnott and colleagues [13]

AC/SCC

36

NART 20 Gy

90

8

9

NS

   

Surgery

86

8

17

 

Nygaard and colleagues [14]

SCC

100

NART 35 Gy

48

 

21a

NS

   

Surgery

41

 

9a

 

Wang and colleagues [15]

SCC

100

NART 40 Gy

104

 

35

NS

   

Surgery

102

 

30

 

aThree-year overall survival (OS). AC adenocarcinoma, MS median survival, NART neoadjuvant radiotherapy, NS not significant, SCC squamous cell carcinoma.

A recent meta-analysis of trials including data from 1,033 patients, 33% of whom presented SCC, revealed significantly improved median OS (27 months vs. 18 months, P < 0.0001) and cause-specific survival (35 months vs. 21 months, P < 0.0001) with neoadjuvant RT. These results support the use of neoadjuvant RT for patients with esophageal cancer, but patients with SCC were not analyzed separately [17]. Given the lack of demonstrated significant benefits of neoadjuvant RT in SCC patients, a preoperative neoadjuvant radiation treatment strategy is currently not recommended in the SCC population.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

The theoretical advantages of adding CT to the treatment of esophageal cancer are potential tumor down-staging prior to surgery, as well as targeting micrometastatic disease and thus decreasing the risk of distant spread. Potential drawbacks include morbidity and mortality associated with CT toxicity, selection of drug-resistant clones, and delay in definitive surgical management.

Early randomized trials using cisplatin, fluorouracil (5-FU), bleomycin, vindesine and their combinations were conducted in patients with SCC of the esophagus [14, 1821] (Table 2). However, these trials were underpowered to detect any difference in outcome with the addition of CT to surgery. Three-year OS rates ranged from 3 to 43%, despite the use of very similar CT regimens. Two large randomized studies that evaluated neoadjuvant CT with cisplatin and 5-FU for operable esophageal AC or SCC had contrasting results. The smaller Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 8911 (US Inter group 113) study reported no survival benefit, with a median survival of 14.9 months in patients treated with CT compared with 16.1 months in those receiving surgery alone (P = 0.53) [22]. Only 31% of patients in the larger multi-institutional Medical Research Council OE02 study had SCC, reflecting the increasing relative incidence of esophageal AC in the UK. Five-year OS was increased by 6% from 17.1 to 23% (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.98; P = 0.03) with the addition of CT to surgery [23]. The discrepancy between the results of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 8911 [22] and OE02 [23] studies is due to the larger proportion of patients with SCC in the former trial who do not appear to significantly benefit from this strategy.
Table 2

Randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Study

Histology

SCC (%)

Treatment

n

MS (months)

3-year OS (%)

P value

Schlag [18]

SCC

100

CF

22

7

 

NS

   

Surgery

24

6

  

Nygaard and colleagues [14]

SCC

100

BC

44

7

3

NS

   

Surgery

41

7

9

 

Maipang and colleagues [19]

SCC

100

BVC

24

17

31

NS

   

Surgery

22

17

36

 

Law and colleagues [20]

SCC

100

CF

74

17

40

NS

   

Surgery

73

13

13

 

Ancona and colleagues [21]

SCC

100

CF

47

25

34a

NS

   

Surgery

47

24

22a

 

Kelsen and colleagues [22]

AC/SCC

54

CF

213

15

19a

NS

   

Surgery

227

16

20a

 

Allum and colleagues [23]

AC/SCC

31

CF

400

17

43

<0.01

   

Surgery

402

13

34

 

aFive-year overall survival (OS). AC adenocarcinoma, BC bleomycin + cisplatin, BVC bleomycin + vindesine + cisplatin, CF cisplatin + fluorouracil, MS median survival, NS not significant, SCC squamous cell carcinoma.

In 2008 a Japan Clinical Oncology Group study (JCOG 9907) comparing adjuvant and neoadjuvant CT was reported, and those results showed that neoadjuvant CT induced down-staging and R0 reduction and improved OS without additional serious adverse events [24]. However, the efficacy of neoadjuvant CT was not compared with surgery alone in this randomized trial. Prior to the JCOG 9907 study, the authors had compared adjuvant CT and surgery alone in the JCOG 9204 study. They found that the addition of adjuvant CT improved the disease-free survival rate (from 45 to 55%; P = 0.037) and the pN1 subgroup 5-year OS (52% vs. 38%, P = 0.041); however, there was no significant difference in the 5-year OS of the entire cohort (61% with CT vs. 52% with observation; P = 0.13) [25]. From these data, JCOG 9907 implied that neoadjuvant CT was more beneficial than surgery alone. Up to now, however, none of the randomized trials that compared neoadjuvant CT with surgery alone in esophageal SCC has demonstrated an increase in OS in those patients treated with neoadjuvant CT.

In an updated meta-analysis by Sjoquist and colleagues of nine randomized trials comparing neoadjuvant CT with surgery alone, in all histological subtypes an HR of 0.87 was reported (95% CI: 0.79 to 0.96; P = 0.05) [26]. There was no significant benefit for patients with SCC (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.04; P = 0.18).

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

CT combined with RT was initially evaluated as a definitive treatment for patients identified as unable to proceed with surgery [27]. In combination, CT not only complements but increases the effect of RT in a process known as radiation sensitization, as well as complementing synergistic DNA damage, cell cycle synchronization, and inhibition of repair pathways [28]. In addition to increasing the efficacy of RT and thus controlling local tumor growth, CT theoretically also offers the ability to eradicate micrometastatic disease and decrease the risk of distant recurrence [29].

Several trials have investigated neoadjuvant concurrent CRT in esophageal SCC compared with surgery alone [3036] (Table 3). The results of a phase III randomized controlled study (FFCD 9901) showed that neoadjuvant CRT with cisplatin and 5-FU did not improve OS but enhanced the postoperative mortality rate for patients with localized stage I or stage II esophageal cancer compared with surgery alone [31]. Another two studies reported no survival benefit with the addition of CRT with cisplatin and 5-FU regimens [32, 33]. A larger study that randomized 256 patients with either AC or SCC to receive concurrent CRT or surgery alone reported no difference in OS between the two arms. However, a subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.86), although not in OS for the smaller subgroup of patients with SCC [34]. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9781 trial of neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-FU in weeks 1 and 5 with RT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) compared with surgery alone closed to accrual prematurely having recruited only 56 of the planned 475 patients with resectable SCC or AC, owing to slow recruitment. Despite the limited sample size, 5-year OS was significantly improved from 16 to 39% in the trimodality arm and the pathological complete response rate was 40% [35]. Results from a recent multicenter phase III randomized trial (CROSS study) showed that neoadjuvant CRT with carboplatin and paclitaxel improved OS compared with surgery alone in patients with resectable (T2-3, N0-1, M0) esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancers. The reported rate of R0 resection was higher in the CRT arm compared with the surgery alone arm (92% vs. 65%). The OS was significantly better for patients treated with CRT. Median survival was 49 months in the CRT arm compared with 26 months in the surgery alone arm. The 1-year, 2-year and 3-year survival rates were 82%, 67% and 59% respectively in the CRT arm and 70%, 52% and 48% respectively in the surgery-alone arm [36].
Table 3

Randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Study

Histology

SCC (%)

Treatment

n

MS (months)

5-year OS (%)

P value

Bosset and colleagues [30]

SCC

100

C + 37 Gy

143

19

7

NS

   

Surgery

139

19

9

 

Lee and colleagues [32]

SCC

100

CF + 45 Gy

51

28

49a

NS

   

Surgery

50

27

41a

 

Burmeister and colleagues [34]

AC/SCC

35

CF + 35 Gy

128

22

17

NS

   

Surgery

128

19

13

 

Natsugoe and colleagues [33]

SCC

100

CF + 40 Gy

22

 

57

0.58

   

Surgery

23

 

41

 

Tepper and colleagues [35]

AC/SCC

25

CF + 50.4 Gy

30

54

39

<0.01

   

Surgery

26

21

16

 

Mariette and colleagues [31]

AC/SCC

66

CF + 45 Gy

97

32

49a

0.68

   

Surgery

98

44

55a

 

Gaast and colleagues [36]

AC/SCC

24

PC + 41.4 Gy

175

49

59a

0.011

   

Surgery

188

26

48a

 

aThree-year overall survival (OS). AC adenocarcinoma, C cisplatin, CF cisplatin + fluorouracil, MS median survival, NS not significant, PC paclitaxel + carboplatin, SCC squamous cell carcinoma.

The updated meta-analysis of 12 randomized compared neoadjuvant CRT with surgery alone. The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant CRT was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.88; P < 0.0001), the HR for SCC only was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.93; P = 0.004) and the HR for AC only was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.95; P = 0.02) [26]. Although this meta-analysis favors the neoadjuvant CRT approach for patients with SCC, this approach is also associated with significant treatment-related mortality and morbidity in this often malnourished population, who frequently have multiple smoking-related co-morbidities. The effectiveness of CRT with high pathological complete response rates prompted investigation of radical CRT as a definitive treatment modality to avoid surgical morbidity and mortality. The meta-analysis performed by Kranzfelder and colleagues, however, demonstrated that none of the randomized controlled trials was reporting an outcome of higher survival benefit after definitive CRT than neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery, but treatment-related mortality rates were lower (HR 7.60; P = 0.007) than with neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery or surgery alone [37]. On the other hand, Akutsu and colleagues investigated the clinical and pathologic results of neoadjuvant CRT in 78 patients that underwent an esophagectomy after neoadjuvant CRT. They found that the clinical evaluation for CRT does not reflect the pathologic effectiveness; even if clinical complete response was achieved, viable cancer cells were still present at the primary site in the majority of the population [38].

Adjuvant treatments

Adjuvant radiotherapy

Adjuvant RT has also been evaluated in five small studies [3943] (Table 4). A meta-analysis of these trials demonstrated no significant improvement in 5-year OS with the addition of RT to complete surgical resection [44].
Table 4

Randomized controlled trials of adjuvant radiotherapy versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Studies

Histology

SCC (%)

Treatment

n

MS (months)

5-year OS (%)

P value

Kunath and Fischer [39]

SCC

100

ART 50 to 55 Gy

23

9

 

NS

   

Surgery

21

6

  

Ténière and colleagues [40]

SCC

100

ART 45 to 55 Gy

102

18

19

NS

   

Surgery

119

18

19

 

Fok and colleagues [41]

SCC

100

ART 43 to 53 Gy

42

11

10

NS

   

Surgery

39

22

16

 

Zieren and colleagues [42]

SCC

100

ART 56 Gy

33

 

23a

NS

   

Surgery

35

 

22a

 

Xiao and colleagues [43]

SCC

100

ART 50 to 60 Gy

220

 

41

NS

   

Surgery

275

 

32

 

aThree-year overall survival (OS). ART adjuvant radiotherapy, MS median survival, NS, not significant, SCC squamous cell carcinoma.

Ténière and colleagues evaluated 221 patients with SCC of the middle to lower third of the esophagus who were randomized to adjuvant RT at a dose of 45 to 55 Gy versus observation [40]. They found that although local control improved from 15 to 30%, there was no survival benefit with the addition of adjuvant RT. Fok and colleagues also randomized 130 patients with esophageal carcinoma (SCC or AC) to observation versus adjuvant RT at a dose of 49.5 Gy in 3.5 Gy fractions [41]. They found that although local failure was reduced from 31 to 15% (P = 0.06), the median OS was actually worse in the adjuvant RT arm (8.7 months vs. 15.2 months, P = 0.02). This trial has been criticized, however, for the high dose per fraction that may have led to increased mortality in the radiation-containing arm. Zieren and colleagues randomized 68 patients with SCC to either adjuvant RT or surgery alone and found that adjuvant RT significantly increased the fibrotic stricture rate and did not improve OS or disease-free survival [42]. Malthaner and colleagues [44] performed a meta-analysis of 995 patients from five randomized trials of adjuvant RT versus observation. They found that there was no OS benefit with the addition of adjuvant RT, with a risk ratio for death at 1 year of 1.23 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.59, P = 0.11). Suggestions therefore indicate there are few data to suggest that adjuvant RT offers any survival benefit. However, both Ténière and colleagues [40] and Zieren and colleagues [42] included patients with positive celiac nodes (stage M1a). These patients represent a cohort at much higher risk for distant failure and therefore are less likely to benefit from adjuvant RT. Finally, the meta-analysis included the above flawed trials.

Xiao and colleagues [43] randomized 495 patients with esophageal SCC to radical resection alone versus adjuvant RT at a total dose of 50 to 60 Gy in 2 Gy fractions. Once again, there was no survival benefit for the entire cohort with the addition of adjuvant RT, with a 5-year OS of 31.7% for surgery alone versus 41.3% for adjuvant RT (P = 0.447). When stratifying based on stage, however, there was a significant survival benefit with adjuvant RT for stage III patients, with an improvement in 5-year OS from 13.1 to 35.1%, (P = 0.003) but not for stage II patients. Similar to the findings mentioned above, Chen and colleagues retrospectively evaluated patients with thoracic esophageal SCC [45]. They reported that adjuvant RT was associated with a statistically significant improvement in survival, but only in those patients with three or more involved lymph nodes; no such association was found in patients with one or two involved lymph nodes.

In summary, the majority of the available evidence currently reveals that only selected locally advanced esophageal SCC are likely to benefit from adjuvant RT.

Adjuvant chemotherapy

Adjuvant CT with cisplatin-based regimens compared with surgery alone has been examined in three separate phase III trials [25, 46, 47] (Table 5). None of these trials reported a statistically significant difference in OS, although Ando and colleagues reported a 5-year OS advantage (52% vs. 38%, P = 0.041) in the pN1 subgroup patients [25].
Table 5

Randomized controlled trials of adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Study

Histology

SCC (%)

Treatment

n

MS (months)

5-year OS (%)

P value

Pouliquen and colleagues [46]

SCC

100

CF

52

13

 

NS

   

Surgery

68

14

  

Ando and colleagues [47]

SCC

100

CV

100

 

45

NS

   

Surgery

105

 

48

 

Ando and colleagues [25]

SCC

100

CF

120

 

61

NS

   

Surgery

122

 

52

 

CF cisplatin + fluorouracil, CV cisplatin + vindesine, MS median survival, NS not significant, OS overall survival, SCC squamous cell carcinoma.

Two JCOG trials studied adjuvant CT for resected SCC of the esophagus. In the first study, 205 patients with resected SCC of the esophagus were randomized to receive two cycles of adjuvant CT with cisplatin 70 mg/m2 (day 1) and vindesine 3 mg/m2 (day 1) or observation only. No significant benefit in survival was detected from the addition of this adjuvant CT regimen (5-year OS: 48.1% vs. 44.9% with observation; P = 0.55) [47]. The follow-up JCOG 9402 study randomized 242 patients with resected SCC of the esophagus to two cycles of cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (day 1) and 5-FU 800 mg/m2 /day (days 1 to 5) or observation. The addition of this adjuvant CT regimen improved the disease-free survival rate (from 45 to 55%; P = 0.037) and the pN1 subgroup 5-year OS (52% vs. 38%, P = 0.041); however, there was no significant difference in the 5-year OS (61% with CT vs. 52% with observation; P = 0.13) [25].

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy

The efficacy of adjuvant CRT has not been compared with surgery alone in a randomized trial in patients with esophageal SSC. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network does recommend postoperative adjuvant CRT for stages II and III esophageal AC. This recommendation is based on a randomized phase III trial by Macdonald and colleagues that found adjuvant CRT improved 3-year OS from 41 to 50% in AC of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction [48]. A small randomized trial of 45 patients compared adjuvant CT using cisplatin 50 mg/m2 (days 1 and 15) and 5-FU 300 mg/m2 /day (for 5 weeks) with adjuvant CRT after R0 resection of esophageal SCC. No significant difference in 5-year OS was demonstrated (38% CT vs. 50% CRT; P = 0.97), but the study was limited by the small sample size [49].

Discussion

None of the randomized trials that compared neoadjuvant RT or CT with surgery alone in esophageal SCC has demonstrated an increase in OS in those patients treated with neoadjuvant RT or CT. Neoadjuvant CRT has been accepted recently for esophageal cancer because such a regimen increases the rates of R0 resection and local tumor control. The updated meta-analysis also favors the neoadjuvant CRT approach for patients with SCC [26]. Another recent meta-analysis demonstrated that the esophageal SCC in Europe and in the USA benefited from neoadjuvant CRT; however, patients in Asia did not benefit [50]. Ethnic difference makes it necessary to re-evaluate the role of neoadjuvant CRT in patients with SCC in Asia.

Phase III trials have compared adjuvant RT with surgery alone without demonstrating any OS benefit, except in stage III patients (35.1% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.003) [44]. The phase II nonrandomized trial for patients with node-positive (T3 or T4) tumors indicated that the outcomes of adjuvant CRT are better than the historical outcomes with surgery alone [49]. The retrospective study indicated that adjuvant RT was associated with a statistically significant improvement in survival, but only in those patients with three or more involved lymph nodes [45]. The addition of adjuvant CT only improved the pN1 subgroup 5-year OS [25]. The majority of the available evidence therefore currently reveals that only selected locally advanced esophageal SCC are more likely to benefit from the adjuvant therapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends upfront surgery only for select patients with clinical T1 disease. For all other disease stages, CRT, preoperative CRT, or preoperative CT is recommended [51]. The current evidence reveals that primary surgery followed by adjuvant therapy should be used cautiously in clinical practice until appropriately powered randomized trials confirm the adjuvant treatment results of this disease.

Although both neoadjuvant CRT and adjuvant CRT have emerged as more useful options for the treatment of resectable esophageal SCC, it is hard to identify which is better based on current knowledge in the lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials. Designing proper multidisciplinary studies that include use of novel systemic chemotherapies, optimizing radiation techniques, and identifying patient and tumor-specific markers predictive for response and/or toxicity remains an urgent need for the future. The approach is currently being explored in China by investigators of the ZTOG1201 trial, a multicenter phase II trial of neoadjuvant and adjuvant CRT in locally advanced esophageal cancer (NCT01463501).

Future trials should investigate further ways to improve upon current loco-regional control and survival. Opportunities for development include use of novel chemotherapies. Docetaxel was recently reported as a powerful anticancer agent for esophageal cancer in numerous trials. Cisplatin plus docetaxel, with or without 5-FU, has demonstrated activity in patients with locally advanced EGI or metastatic esophageal SCC [5254]. A small-sample retrospective study has also showed that preoperative combined CT with docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-FU followed by surgery provided a high response rate and a favorable survival benefit in patients with resectable esophageal SCC [55]. In the docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-FU group, the overall response rate was 92.3%; 30.8% patients had complete response, 61.5% partial response, 7.7% stable disease, and 0 progressive disease. To validate the clinical significance of this novel CT regimen, large-sample randomized trials are essential.

Conclusion

None of the randomized trials that compared neoadjuvant RT or CT with surgery alone in esophageal SCC has demonstrated an increase in OS in those patients treated with neoadjuvant RT or CT. Neoadjuvant CRT has been accepted recently for esophageal cancer because such a regimen offers great opportunity for margin negative resection, improved loco-regional control and increased survival, and should be an optional treatment paradigm. The majority of the available evidence currently reveals that only selected locally advanced esophageal SCC are more likely to benefit from the adjuvant therapy. The focus of future trials should be on identification of the optimum regimen and should aim to minimize treatment toxicities and effect on quality of life, as well as attempt to identify and select those patients most likely to benefit from specific treatment options.

Notes

Abbreviations

AC: 

adenocarcinoma

CI: 

confidence interval

CT: 

chemotherapy

CRT: 

chemoradiotherapy

5-FU: 

fluorouracil

HR: 

hazard ratio

JCOG: 

Japan Clinical Oncology Group

OS: 

overall survival

RT: 

radiotherapy

SCC: 

squamous cell carcinoma.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Feng-Ming (Spring) Kong for contribution.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital
(2)
Department of Medical Oncology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital
(3)
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital

References

  1. Bollschweiler E, Wolfgarten E, Gutschow C, Hölscher AH: Demographic variations in the rising incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in white males. Cancer. 2001, 92: 549-555. 10.1002/1097-0142(20010801)92:3<549::AID-CNCR1354>3.0.CO;2-L.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Pohl H, Welch HG: The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005, 97: 142-146. 10.1093/jnci/dji024.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF: Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24: 2137-2150. 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.2308.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012, 62: 10-29. 10.3322/caac.20138.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Mariette C, Finzi L, Piessen G, Van Seuningen I, Triboulet JP: Esophageal carcinoma: prognostic differences between squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2005, 29: 39-45. 10.1007/s00268-004-7542-x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hölscher AH, Bollschweiler E, Schneider PM, Siewert JR: Prognosis of early esophageal cancer. Comparison between adeno- and squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer. 1995, 76: 178-186. 10.1002/1097-0142(19950715)76:2<178::AID-CNCR2820760204>3.0.CO;2-D.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollschweiler E, Metzger R, Drebber U, Baldus S, Vallböhmer D, Kocher M, Hölscher AH: Histological type of esophageal cancer might affect response to neo-adjuvant radiochemotherapy and subsequent prognosis. Ann Oncol. 2009, 20: 231-238.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Stein HJ, Feith M, Bruecher BL, Naehrig J, Sarbia M, Siewert JR: Early esophageal cancer: pattern of lymphatic spread and prognostic factors for long-term survival after surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2005, 242: 566-573. discussion 573–575PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bollschweiler E, Schröder W, Hölscher AH, Siewert JR: Preoperative risk analysis in patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. Br J Surg. 2000, 87: 1106-1110. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01474.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Siewert JR, Ott K: Are squamous and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus the same disease?. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2007, 17: 38-44. 10.1016/j.semradonc.2006.09.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Launois B, Delarue D, Campion JP, Kerbaol M: Preoperative radiotherapy for carcinoma of the esophagus. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1981, 153: 690-692.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gignoux M, Roussel A, Paillot B, Gillet M, Schlag P, Favre JP, Dalesio O, Buyse M, Duez N: The value of preoperative radiotherapy in esophageal cancer: results of a study by the EORTC. World J Surg. 1987, 11: 426-432. 10.1007/BF01655805.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Arnott SJ, Duncan W, Kerr GR, Walbaum PR, Cameron E, Jack WJ, Mackillop WJ: Low dose preoperative radiotherapy for carcinoma of the oesophagus: results of a randomized clinical trial. Radiother Oncol. 1992, 24: 108-113. 10.1016/0167-8140(92)90287-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nygaard K, Hagen S, Hansen HS, Hatlevoll R, Hultborn R, Jakobsen A, Mäntyla M, Modig H, Munck-Wikland E, Rosengren B: Pre-operative radiotherapy prolongs survival in operable esophageal carcinoma: a randomized, multicenter study of pre-operative radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The second Scandinavian trial in esophageal cancer. World J Surg. 1992, 16: 1104-1109. 10.1007/BF02067069. discussion 1110View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang M, Gu XZ, Yin WB, Huang GJ, Wang LJ, Zhang DW: Randomized clinical trial on the combination of preoperative irradiation and surgery in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma: report on 206 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989, 16: 325-327. 10.1016/0360-3016(89)90323-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Arnott SJ, Duncan W, Gignoux M, Girling DJ, Hansen HS, Launois B, Nygaard K, Parmar MK, Rousell A, Spiliopoulos G, Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Wang M, Rhugang Z: Preoperative radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005, 4: CD001799-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwer AL, Ballonoff A, McCammon R, Rusthoven K, D’Agostino RB, Schefter TE: Survival effect of neoadjuvant radiotherapy before esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009, 73: 449-455. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schlag PM: Randomized trial of preoperative chemotherapy for squamous cell cancer of the esophagus. The Chirurgische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Fuer Onkologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft Fuer Chirurgie Study Group. Arch Surg. 1992, 127: 1446-1450. 10.1001/archsurg.1992.01420120080015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Maipang T, Vasinanukorn P, Petpichetchian C, Chamroonkul S, Geater A, Chansawwaang S, Kuapanich R, Panjapiyakul C, Watanaarepornchai S, Punperk S: Induction chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with carcinoma of the esophagus. J Surg Oncol. 1994, 56: 191-197. 10.1002/jso.2930560314.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Law S, Fok M, Chow S, Chu KM, Wong J: Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgical therapy alone for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a prospective randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997, 114: 210-217. 10.1016/S0022-5223(97)70147-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ancona E, Ruol A, Santi S, Merigliano S, Sileni VC, Koussis H, Zaninotto G, Bonavina L, Peracchia A: Only pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves significantly the long term survival of patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: final report of a randomized, controlled trial of preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone. Cancer. 2001, 91: 2165-2174. 10.1002/1097-0142(20010601)91:11<2165::AID-CNCR1245>3.0.CO;2-H.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelsen DP, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, Mortimer J, Estes NC, Haller DG, Ajani JA, Kocha W, Minsky BD, Roth JA, Willett CG: Long-term results of RTOG trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113): a random assignment trial comparison of chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 3719-3725. 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4760.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Allum WH, Stenning SP, Bancewicz J, Clark PI, Langley RE: Long-term results of a randomized trial of surgery with or without preoperative chemotherapy in esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 5062-5067. 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.2083.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sato M, Ando N: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery as standard treatment for stage II + III thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Japan. Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 2011, 112: 104-110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ando N, Iizuka T, Ide H, Ishida K, Shinoda M, Nishimaki T, Takiyama W, Watanabe H, Isono K, Aoyama N, Makuuchi H, Tanaka O, Yamana H, Ikeuchi S, Kabuto T, Nagai K, Shimada Y, Kinjo Y, Fukuda H: Surgery plus chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for localized squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus: a Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study – JCOG9204. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21: 4592-4596. 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.095.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, Zalcberg JR, Simes RJ, Barbour A, Gebski V: Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2011, 12: 681-692. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70142-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Herskovic A, Martz K, al-Sarraf M, Leichman L, Brindle J, Vaitkevicius V, Cooper J, Byhardt R, Davis L, Emami B: Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med. 1992, 326: 1593-1598. 10.1056/NEJM199206113262403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Overgaard J: Hypoxic radiosensitization: adored and ignored. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 4066-4074. 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.7878.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Albertsson M: Chemoradiotherapy of esophageal cancer. Acta Oncol. 2002, 41: 118-123. 10.1080/028418602753669472.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Bosset JF, Gignoux M, Triboulet JP, Tiret E, Mantion G, Elias D, Lozach P, Ollier JC, Pavy JJ, Mercier M, Sahmoud T: Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone in squamous-cell cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med. 1997, 337: 161-167. 10.1056/NEJM199707173370304.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mariette C, Seitz JF, Maillard E: Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in localized esophageal cancer: results of a randomized, controlled phase III trial. FFCD 9901 [abstract 8000]. Proceedings of the 35th ESMO Congress. 2010,  , MilanGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee JL, Park SI, Kim SB, Jung HY, Lee GH, Kim JH, Song HY, Cho KJ, Kim WK, Lee JS, Kim SH, Min YI: A single institutional phase III trial of preoperative chemotherapy with hyperfractionation radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2004, 15: 947-954. 10.1093/annonc/mdh219.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Natsugoe S, Okumura H, Matsumoto M, Uchikado Y, Setoyama T, Yokomakura N, Ishigami S, Owaki T, Aikou T: Randomized controlled study on preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for esophageal squamous cell cancer in a single institution. Dis Esophagus. 2006, 19: 468-472. 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2006.00615.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, Gebski V, Fitzgerald L, Simes RJ, Devitt P, Ackland S, Gotley DC, Joseph D, Millar J, North J, Walpole ET, Denham JW: Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for resectable cancer of the oesophagus: a randomised controlled phase III trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005, 6: 659-668. 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70288-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Tepper J, Krasna MJ, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D, Reed CE, Goldberg R, Kiel K, Willett C, Sugarbaker D, Mayer R: Phase III trial of trimodality therapy with cisplatin, fluorouracil, radiotherapy, and surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer: CALGB 9781. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: 1086-1092. 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9593.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Gaast AV, van Hagen P, Hulshof M, Richel D, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Plukker JT, Bonenkamp JJ, Steyerberg EW, Tilanus HW: Esophagogastric junction cancer: results from a multicenter randomized phase III study [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2010, 28: 4004-Google Scholar
  37. Kranzfelder M, Schuster T, Geinitz H, Friess H, Büchler P: Meta-analysis of neoadjuvant treatment modalities and definitive non-surgical therapy for oesophageal squamous cell cancer. Br J Surg. 2011, 98: 768-783. 10.1002/bjs.7455.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Akutsu Y, Matsubara H, Shuto K, Uesato M, Mori M, Hoshino I, Shiratori T, Miyazawa Y, Ito H, Uno T: Clinical and pathologic evaluation of the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in advanced esophageal cancer patients. World J Surg. 2009, 33: 1002-1009. 10.1007/s00268-008-9899-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kunath U, Fischer P: Radical nature and life expectancy in the surgical treatment of esophageal and cardial carcinoma. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1984, 109: 450-453. 10.1055/s-2008-1069212.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ténière P, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Fagniez PL: Postoperative radiation therapy does not increase survival after curative resection for squamous cell carcinoma of the middle and lower esophagus as shown by a multicenter controlled trial. French University Association for Surgical Research. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991, 173: 123-130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Fok M, Sham JS, Choy D, Cheng SW, Wong J: Postoperative radiotherapy for carcinoma of the esophagus: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Surgery. 1993, 113: 138-147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Zieren HU, Müller JM, Jacobi CA, Pichlmaier H, Müller RP, Staar S: Adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy after curative resection of squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus: a prospective randomized study. World J Surg. 1995, 19: 444-449. 10.1007/BF00299187.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Xiao ZF, Yang ZY, Liang J, Miao YJ, Wang M, Yin WB, Gu XZ, Zhang DC, Zhang RG, Wang LJ: Value of radiotherapy after radical surgery for esophageal carcinoma: a report of 495 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003, 75: 331-336. 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04401-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Malthaner RA, Wong RK, Rumble RB, Zuraw L: Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2004, 2: 35-52. 10.1186/1741-7015-2-35.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Chen J, Zhu J, Pan J, Zhu KS, Zheng XW, Chen MQ, Wang JZ, Liao ZX: Postoperative radiotherapy improved survival of poor prognostic squamous cell carcinoma esophagus. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010, 90: 435-442. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.04.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pouliquen X, Levard H, Hay JM, McGee K, Fingerhut A, Langlois-Zantin O: 5-Fluorouracil and cisplatin therapy after palliative surgical resection of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. A multicenter randomized trial. French Associations for Surgical Research. Ann Surg. 1996, 223: 127-133. 10.1097/00000658-199602000-00003.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Ando N, Iizuka T, Kakegawa T, Lsono K, Watanabe H, Lde H, Tanaka O, Shinoda M, Takiyama W, Arimori M, Lshida K, Tsugane S: A randomized trial of surgery with and without chemotherapy for localized squamous carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus: the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997, 114: 205-209. 10.1016/S0022-5223(97)70146-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, Hundahl SA, Estes NC, Stemmermann GN, Haller DG, Ajani JA, Gunderson LL, Jessup JM, Martenson JA: Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N Engl J Med. 2001, 345: 725-730. 10.1056/NEJMoa010187.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tachibana M, Yoshimura H, Kinugasa S, Shibakita M, Dhar DK, Ueda S, Fujii T, Nagasue N: Postoperative chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy for thoracic esophageal cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003, 29: 580-587. 10.1016/S0748-7983(03)00111-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Jin HL, Zhu H, Ling TS, Zhang HJ, Shi RH: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2009, 15: 5983-5991. 10.3748/wjg.15.5983.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. National Comprehensive Cancer Network practice guidelines in Oncology. Version 2 http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp
  52. Ajani JA, Fodor MB, Tjulandin SA, Moiseyenko VM, Chao Y, Cabral Filho S, Majlis A, Assadourian S, Van Cutsem E: Phase II multi-institutional randomized trial of docetaxel plus cisplatin with or without fluorouracil in patients with untreated, advanced gastric, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 5660-5667. 10.1200/JCO.2005.17.376.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Cutsem E, Moiseyenko VM, Tjulandin S, Majlis A, Constenla M, Boni C, Rodrigues A, Fodor M, Chao Y, Voznyi E, Risse ML, Ajani JA: Phase III study of docetaxel and cisplatin plus fluorouracil compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer: a report of the V325 Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24: 4991-4997. 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.8429.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Kim JY, Do YR, Park KU, Kim MK, Lee KH, Bae SH, Ryoo HM, Baek JH, Song HS: A multi-center phase II study of docetaxel plus cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic squamous cell esophageal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2010, 66: 31-36. 10.1007/s00280-009-1130-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Yoshida T, Seike J, Miyoshi T, Yamai H, Takechi H, Yuasa Y, Furukita Y, Yamamoto Y, Umemoto A, Tangoku A: Preoperative chemotherapy with weekly docetaxel plus low-dose cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil for stage II/III squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Esophagus. 2010, 7: 95-100. 10.1007/s10388-010-0234-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Xu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement