4.6 Review

Addition of Induction or Consolidation Chemotherapy in Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Alone for Patients With Unresectable Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.665231

Keywords

concurrent chemoradiotherapy; induction chemotherapy; consolidation chemotherapy; meta-analysis; esophageal cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. Hebei Clinical Research Center for Radiation Oncology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Additional induction chemotherapy or consolidation chemotherapy compared to concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone provides short-term survival benefits for unresectable esophageal cancer patients, and CCRT followed by CCT significantly reduces the risk of distant metastases.
Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has become the standard of care in esophageal carcinoma patients who are not surgical candidates. The efficacy of induction chemotherapy (IC) or consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) for unresectable esophageal cancer (EC) treated with CCRT is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published papers to evaluate the potential benefit of IC or CCT for patients with EC. Methods Eligible studies of IC followed by CCRT (IC-CCRT) vs. CCRT alone or CCRT followed by CCT (CCRT-CCT) vs. CCRT alone were retrieved through extensive searches of the PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the establishment of the database to July 31, 2021. Data such as 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS), local recurrence rate (LRR), and distant metastasis rate (DMR) were collected for meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of IC/CCT. Results Four studies of IC-CCRT vs. CCRT including 836 EC patients and six studies of CCRT-CCT vs. CCRT including 1,339 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) were finally identified in our analysis. Both IC-CCRT group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.446, 95% CI 0.286-0.693; p < 0.001] and CCRT-CCT group (HR 0.542, 95% CI 0.410-0.716; p < 0.001) exhibited statistically significant improvement in 1-year OS rate compared to that of CCRT, while the 2-year OS rate of IC-CCRT (HR 0.803, 95% CI 0.589-1.095; p = 0.166) or CCRT-CCT (HR 0.783, 95% CI 0.600-1.022; p = 0.072) was similar with that of CCRT. And the 3-year OS rate between IC-CCRT and CCRT was similar (HR 1.065, 95% CI 0.789-1.439; p = 0.680). However, comparing with CCRT alone, the CCRT-CCT group had lower DMR [odds ratio (OR) 1.562, 95% CI 1.090-2.240; p = 0.015] and higher 3-year OS rate (HR 0.786, 95% CI 0.625-0.987; p = 0.039). Besides, no differences were observed between the CCRT-CCT and CCRT groups in 5-year OS rate (HR 0.923, 95% CI 0.706-1.205; p = 0.555) and LRR (OR 0.899, 95% CI 0.686-1.179; p = 0.441). Conclusion The study revealed the short-time survival benefit of additional IC or CCT compared to CCRT alone for patients with unresectable EC, and CCRT followed by CCT could significantly reduce the risk of distant metastases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available