Pre-Operative Chemoradiotherapy With or Without Induction Chemotherapy for Operable Locally-Advanced Esophageal Cancer.

Abstract

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)\nFollowing presentation of the CALGB 80803 trial, which demonstrated notably high pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with induction FOLFOX followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT), our institution more routinely incorporated induction chemotherapy (IC) into the management of LA-EC patients. However, improvements in progression-free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with this regimen compared to pre-operative CRT alone have not yet been shown. We hypothesized IC-CRT would lead to an improvement in OS and PFS when compared to CRT.\n\n\nMATERIALS/METHODS\nPatients with operable LA-EC were eligible for analysis if they received CRT between 2013-2019. The cohort was stratified into two groups, IC-CRT vs. CRT. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS. The cumulative incidences of local recurrence (LR), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) were reported. The impact of treatment group on pathologic response and surgical outcomes were assessed by Chi-square.\n\n\nRESULTS\n95 patients were included for analysis (IC-CRT n\u202f=\u202f58; CRT n\u202f=\u202f37). Baseline characteristics included median Karnofsky Performance Status 80, median weight loss 5% (IQR 0-9%), with the majority being adenocarcinoma histology (81%), T3-T4 (60%), N+ (79%), located in the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (89%). Patients receiving IC-CRT were more likely to have been treated after 2016 (64% vs 38%, P\u202f=\u202f0.021). IC was most commonly FOLFOX (74%) for a median of 3 (IQR 1-3) cycles. CRT was delivered to a median dose of 50 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Surgery was attempted in 60% and 68% of the IC-CRT and CRT cohorts, respectively. Median follow-up was 26 months. ICRT and CRT were associated with similar 2-year OS (66% [95% CI 51-78%] vs 70% [95% CI 52-83%]) and PFS (47% [95% CI 33-59%] vs 48% [95% CI 30-63%]). In the adenocarcinoma subset (n\u202f=\u202f77), 2-year OS was 69% (95% CI 52-81%) in the IC-CRT cohort vs 61% (95% CI 40-77%) with CRT. 2-year PFS was 46% (95% CI 31-60%) and 38% (95% CI 20-56%), respectively. IC-CRT was not associated with an OS or PFS benefit among any patient subgroup. Recurrence rates were similar between the cohorts (47%) and first recurrence was most commonly DM (61% IC-CRT vs 65% CRT). Patients receiving IC-CRT compared to CRT had numeric but not statistically significant improvement in pCR (45% vs 29%, P\u202f=\u202f0.24) and N-stage regression (72% vs 58%, P\u202f=\u202f0.28). There was no difference in the rate of R0 resection, hospitalization, surgical complications, or treatment-related death with use of IC-CRT.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nIC-CRT was not associated with improved OS or PFS in this small and perhaps underpowered cohort study. Further investigations are needed to explore the impact of IC-CRT on quality of life, symptom burden, and to see if meaningful trends develop with time.