4.3 Article

No Difference in Survival between Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Neo-Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy in Gastric Cardia Cancer Patients: A Contemporary View from the National Cancer Database

Journal

DIGESTIVE SURGERY
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 249-257

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000501678

Keywords

Gastric cardia cancer; Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy; Neo-adjuvant chemoradiation therapy; Siewert II cancer; Esophagogastric junction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Both neo-adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NACRT) and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), in addition to surgical resection of gastric cardia cancer, improves survival outcomes. We assessed whether NACRT or NAC had superior overall survival (OS) and relative survival (RS) outcomes using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods: The NCDB from 2006 to 2014 was reviewed to identify non-metastatic adult gastric cardia cancer patients who underwent surgical resection and received NACRT or NAC. Advanced statistical models were applied to assess survival outcomes. Results: Of the 5,371 patients included, 4,520 (84.2%) were male, the mean age was 61.2 years (SD 10.0), 4,229 (78.7%) underwent NACRT, and 1,142 (21.3%) underwent NAC. NACRT patients more often had an R0 resection compared to NAC (91.4 vs. 86.6%, p < 0.001, respectively). Univariate 5-year OS rates were 40.0% (95% CI 38.2-41.8) for NACRT and 40.1% (37.0-43.6) for NAC (p = 0.302). No differences in OS for NAC vs. NACRT were found after multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.05, p = 0.290). There were no survival differences after stepwise, propensity score, RS analyses, nor after near-far-matching (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.07, p = 0.332). Conclusions: NAC or NACRT yield the same survival outcome for patients with resectable gastric cardia cancer. These data support the need for randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 regimens head-to-head.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available