4.4 Article

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Could Improve Survival Outcomes for Esophageal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 57, Issue 12, Pages 3226-3233

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2263-8

Keywords

Esophageal carcinoma; Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; Randomized controlled trial; Meta-analysis; Subgroup analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on operable esophageal carcinoma. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science and identified all randomized controlled trials published up until July 2011 that directly compared chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery with surgery alone. The risk ratio (RR) with its corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) was the principal measure of effects. Twelve randomized controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria were identified. Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery was associated with significantly improved 1-year (RR = 0.86, 95 % CI = 0.74-0.98, P = 0.03), 3-year (RR = 0.82, 95 % CI = 0.73-0.92, P = 0.0007) and 5-year (RR = 0.83, 95 % CI = 0.72-0.96, P = 0.01) survival times compared with surgery alone. Subgroup analysis suggested that this benefit was associated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy but not sequential chemoradiotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy could improve 3- and 5-year survival outcomes for squamous cell carcinoma but not those for adenocarcinoma. Postoperative morbidity (RR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.86-1.09, P = 0.56) and mortality (RR = 1.56, 95 % CI = 0.97-2.50, P = 0.07) did not increase in patients treated by chemoradiotherapy. Our findings revealed that compared with surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was associated with improved 1-, 3- and 5-year survival times, but not associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with esophageal carcinoma.

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