Expense and benefit of neoadjuvant treatment in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of neoadjuvant treatment (NT) prior to resection of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE) in terms of prolonged survival has not been proven by randomized trials. Facing considerable financial expenses and with concerns regarding the consumption of the patient's remaining survival time, this study aims to provide rationales for pretreating resection candidates. METHODS: From March 1986 to March 1999, patients undergoing resection for SCCE were documented prospectively. Since 1989, NT was offered to patients with mainly upper and middle third T3 or T4 tumors or T2 N1 stage who were fit for esophagectomy. Until 1993, NT consisted of chemotherapy. Since that time chemoradiation has also been applied. The parameters for expense and benefit of NT are costs, pretreatment time required, postoperative morbidity and mortality, clinical and histopathological response, and actuarial survival. RESULTS: Two hundred and three patients were treated, 170 by surgery alone and 33 by NT + surgery. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were 52% to 30% and 12% to 6%, respectively (p = n.s.). The response to NT was detected in 23 patients (70%). In 11 instances (33%), the primary tumor lesion was histopathologically eradicated. Survival following NT + surgery was significantly prolonged in node-positive patients with a median survival of 12 months to 19 months (p = 0.0193). The average pretreatment time was 113 ± 43 days, and reimbursement for NT to the hospital amounted to Euro 9.834. CONCLUSIONS: NT did not increase morbidity and mortality. Expenses for pretreatment, particularly time and costs, are considerable. However, taking into account that the results are derived from a non-randomized study, patients with regionally advanced tumor stages seem to benefit, as seen by their prolonged survival

Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone for patients with oesophageal cancer. The OE05 trial assessed whether increasing the duration and intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy further improved survival compared with the current standard regimen. METHODS: OE05 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Patients with surgically resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma classified as stage cT1N1, cT2N1, cT3N0/N1, or cT4N0/N1 were recruited from 72 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0 or 1, adequate respiratory, cardiac, and liver function, white blood cell count at least 3 × 10(9) cells per L, platelet count at least 100 × 10(9) platelets per L, and a glomerular filtration rate at least 60 mL/min. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) using a computerised minimisation program with a random element and stratified by centre and tumour stage, to receive two cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; two 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin [80 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1] and fluorouracil [1 g/m(2) per day intravenously on days 1-4]) or four cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX; four 3-weekly cycles of epirubicin [50 mg/m(2)] and cisplatin [60 mg/m(2)] intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine [1250 mg/m(2)] daily throughout the four cycles) before surgery, stratified according to centre and clinical disease stage. Neither patients nor study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field (abdomen and thorax) lymphadenectomy was done within 4-6 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, and primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (number 01852072) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00041262), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2005, and Oct 31, 2011, 897 patients were recruited and 451 were assigned to the CF group and 446 to the ECX group. By Nov 14, 2016, 327 (73%) of 451 patients in the CF group and 302 (68%) of 446 in the ECX group had died. Median survival was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-26·3) with CF and 26·1 months (22·5-29·7) with ECX (hazard ratio 0·90 (95% CI 0·77-1·05, p=0·19). No unexpected chemotherapy toxicity was seen, and neutropenia was the most commonly reported event (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia: 74 [17%] of 446 patients in the CF group vs 101 [23%] of 441 people in the ECX group). The proportions of patients with postoperative complications (224 [56%] of 398 people for whom data were available in the CF group and 233 [62%] of 374 in the ECX group; p=0·089) were similar between the two groups. One patient in the ECX group died of suspected treatment-related neutropenic sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Four cycles of neoadjuvant ECX compared with two cycles of CF did not increase survival, and cannot be considered standard of care. Our study involved a large number of centres and detailed protocol with comprehensive prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert types 1 and 2). Alternative chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcomes for patients with oesophageal carcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: A Review of Meta-Analyses

Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery with surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer have shown no difference in survival between the two treatments. Meta-analyses on neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer, however, are discordant. Methods: For the present study, published meta-analyses on neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer were identified from the PubMed database and critically appraised in order to make a judgment on the applicability of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in clinical practice and decision making. Results: Two of the six meta-analyses examined did not show a significant survival benefit in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Differences in the studies included and statistical methods applied might account for this. Moreover, there was heterogeneity between the RCTs included in the meta-analyses with regard to the patients included, tumor histology, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy regimes. Also, surgical technique was not uniform. No data on individual patients were available for most meta-analyses. The RCTs included in the meta-analyses were of inadequate sample size. All were started in the nineties, and hence methods for diagnosis, staging, treatment delivery, and outcome measurement reflect clinical practice during that decade. Conclusions: The current data on neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer strongly indicate the need for designing future high-quality trials that will contribute to a better understanding of the role of neoadjuvant treatment for resectable cancer of the esophagus and help to identify patient subgroups that would benefit most

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin for patients with oesophageal cancer: a phase II study

This study was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of preoperative chemoradiation consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel and concurrent radiotherapy for patients with resectable (T2-3N0-1M0) oesophageal cancer. Treatment consisted of paclitaxel 50 mg m−2 and carboplatin AUC=2 on days 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29 and concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week), followed by oesophagectomy. All 54 entered patients completed the chemoradiation without delay or dose-reduction. Grade 3–4 toxicities were: neutropaenia 15%, thrombocytopaenia 2%, and oesophagitis 7.5%. After completion of the chemoradiotherapy 63% had a major endoscopical response. Fifty-two patients (96%) underwent a resection. The postoperative mortality rate was 7.7%. All patients had an R0-resection. The pathological complete response rate was 25%, and an additional 36.5% had less than 10% vital residual tumour cells. At a median follow-up of 23.2 months, the median survival time has not yet been reached. The probability of disease-free survival after 30 months was 60%. In conclusion, weekly neoadjuvant paclitaxel and carboplatin with concurrent radiotherapy is a very tolerable regimen and can be given on an outpatient basis. It achieves considerable down staging and a subsequent 100% radical resection rate in this series. A phase III trial with this regimen is now ongoing

A multicenter phase II study of induction chemotherapy with FOLFOX-4 and cetuximab followed by radiation and cetuximab in locally advanced oesophageal cancer

"Background: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves the survival of patients with oesophageal cancer when compared with surgery alone.. . Methods: We conducted a phase II, multicenter trial of FOLFOX-4 and cetuximab in patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer (LAEC) followed by daily radiotherapy (180 cGy fractions to 5040 cGy) with concurrent weekly cetuximab. Cytokines levels potentially related to cetuximab efficacy were assessed using multiplex-bead assays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at baseline, at week 8 and at week 17. Primary end point was complete pathological response rate (pCR).. . Results: In all, 41 patients were enroled. Among 30 patients who underwent surgery, a pCR was observed in 8 patients corresponding to a rate of 27%. The most frequent grade 3\/4 toxicity was skin (30%) and neutropenia (30%). The 36-month survival rates were 85 and 52% in patients with pathological CR or PR vs 38 and 33% in patients with SD or PD.. . Conclusions: Incorporating cetuximab into a preoperative regimen for LAEC is feasible; no correlation between cytokines changes and patient outcome was observed. Positron emission tomography\/computed tomography study even if influenced by the small number of patients appears to be able to predict patients outcome both as early and late metabolic response.. . "Background: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) improves the survival of patients with oesophageal cancer when compared with surgery alone. Methods: We conducted a phase II, multicenter trial of FOLFOX-4 and cetuximab in patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer (LAEC) followed by daily radiotherapy (180 cGy fractions to 5040 cGy) with concurrent weekly cetuximab. Cytokines levels potentially related to cetuximab efficacy were assessed using multiplex-bead assays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at baseline, at week 8 and at week 17. Primary end point was complete pathological response rate (pCR). Results: In all, 41 patients were enroled. Among 30 patients who underwent surgery, a pCR was observed in 8 patients corresponding to a rate of 27%. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicity was skin (30%) and neutropenia (30%). The 36-month survival rates were 85 and 52% in patients with pathological CR or PR vs 38 and 33% in patients with SD or PD. Conclusions: Incorporating cetuximab into a preoperative regimen for LAEC is feasible; no correlation between cytokines changes and patient outcome was observed. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography study even if influenced by the small number of patients appears to be able to predict patients outcome both as early and late metabolic response. © 2011 Cancer Research UK All rights reserved

AGuIX® from bench to bedside-Transfer of an ultrasmall theranostic gadolinium-based nanoparticle to clinical medicine

International audienceAGuIX® are sub-5 nm nanoparticles made of a polysiloxane matrix and gadolinium chelates. This nanoparticle has been recently accepted in clinical trials in association with radiotherapy. This review will summarize the principal preclinical results that have led to first in man administration. No evidence of toxicity has been observed during regulatory toxicity tests on two animal species (rodents and monkeys). Biodistributions on different animal models have shown passive uptake in tumours due to enhanced permeability and retention effect combined with renal elimination of the nanoparticles after intravenous administration. High radiosensitizing effect has been observed with different types of irradiations in vitro and in vivo on a large number of cancer types (brain, lung, melanoma, head and neck…). The review concludes with the second generation of AGuIX nanoparticles and the first preliminary results on human

Global gene expression analyses of bystander and alpha particle irradiated normal human lung fibroblasts: Synchronous and differential responses

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The existence of a radiation bystander effect, in which non-irradiated cells respond to signals from irradiated cells, is now well established. It raises concerns for the interpretation of risks arising from exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. However, the regulatory mechanisms involved in the bystander response have not been well elucidated. To provide insight into the signaling pathways responding in bystanders, we have measured global gene expression four hours after bystander and direct alpha particle exposure of primary human lung fibroblasts.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Although common p53-regulated radiation response genes like <it>CDKN1A </it>were expressed at elevated levels in the directly exposed cultures, they showed little or no change in the bystanders. In contrast, genes regulated by NFκB, such as <it>PTGS2 </it>(cyclooxygenase-2), <it>IL8 </it>and <it>BCL2A1</it>, responded nearly identically in bystander and irradiated cells. This trend was substantiated by gene ontology and pathway analyses of the microarray data, which suggest that bystander cells mount a full NFκB response, but a muted or partial p53 response. In time-course analyses, quantitative real-time PCR measurements of <it>CDKN1A </it>showed the expected 4-hour peak of expression in irradiated but not bystander cells. In contrast, <it>PTGS2, IL8 </it>and <it>BCL2A1 </it>responded with two waves of expression in both bystander and directly irradiated cells, one peaking at half an hour and the other between four and six hours after irradiation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Two major transcriptional hubs that regulate the direct response to ionizing radiation are also implicated in regulation of the bystander response, but to dramatically different degrees. While activation of the p53 response pathway is minimal in bystander cells, the NFκB response is virtually identical in irradiated and bystander cells. This alteration in the balance of signaling is likely to lead to different outcomes in irradiated cells and their bystanders, perhaps leading to greater survival of bystanders and increased risk from any long-term damage they have sustained.</p

Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for resectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced. MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate. - Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. - Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials). - Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). - Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials). - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison: - Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons: - Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery. - Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice