4.4 Article

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Journal

THORACIC CANCER
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 173-181

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.12299

Keywords

Esophageal cancer; induction chemoradiotherapy; induction chemotherapy; overall survival

Funding

  1. Beijing Academic Leaders Program [2009-2-17]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7102029]
  3. Capital Medical Developed Research Fund [2007-1023]
  4. Ministry of Education
  5. National Basic Research Program of China [2011CB504300]
  6. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20130001110108]
  7. National Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars [81301748]
  8. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [IRT13003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe efficacy of surgery alone for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (EC) is still unsatisfactory. Presently, induction therapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment. Preoperative chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiation (CRT) are proven effective induction therapies; however, few sample studies have addressed these treatments, thus, their superiority remains uncertain. We performed a systemic review and meta analysis to test the hypothesis that induction CRT prior to surgery could improve survival compared with induction CT alone. MethodsA comprehensive search of PubMed and the Ovid database for relevant studies comparing EC patients undergoing resection after treatment with induction CT alone or induction CRT was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were extracted from these studies to provide pooled estimates of the effect of induction therapy on overall survival. ResultsFive studies met the criteria for analysis. Statistical analysis demonstrated a survival benefit of induction CRT compared with induction CT alone (HR0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = 0.002). Further analysis showed that induction CRT perioperative mortality and complication rates were higher than for induction CT alone (HR 2.96, 95% CI 1.38-6.37; HR1.6, 95% CI 1.30-1.98; P = 0.01, respectively). ConclusionsPublished evidence comparing the different efficacies of induction CT and induction CRT is sparse, with few samples of adenocarcinoma. This analysis supports the view that, compared with induction CT, induction CRT could achieve a long-term survival benefit in EC patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available