Assessing failure patterns of radical intent radiation strategies in patients with locally advanced carcinoma of the esophagus

• Published in: Cancer reports 2021-06, Vol.4 (3), p.e1332-n/a
• Main Authors: Mishra, Shagun, Ahmad, Farhan, Singh, Shalini, Singh, Rajneesh K., Das, Koilpillai J. Maria, Kumar, Shaleen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Barium; Biopsy; Cancer; carcinoma of the esophagus; chemoradiation; Chemoradiotherapy - statistics & numerical data; dose escalation; Dysphagia; Endoscopy; Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology; Esophageal Neoplasms - therapy; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - pathology; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - therapy; Esophagectomy - statistics & numerical data; Esophagus; Esophagus - pathology; Esophagus - surgery; Failure; failure patterns; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Histology; Humans; Incidence; Lymphatic system; Male; Medical prognosis; Middle Aged; Neoadjuvant Therapy - methods; Neoadjuvant Therapy - statistics & numerical data; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - epidemiology; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - prevention & control; Original; Patients; radiation fields; Radiation therapy; Regions; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Tomography; Treatment Failure
• ISSN: 2573-8348; 2573-8348
• DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1332

Background Patterns of failure following definitive CRT (dCRT) are different as compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) with increased locoregional failures documented with dCRT. Aim To document failure patterns in patients with esophageal carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant and definitive intent radiation strategies. Methods Subjects were 123 patients treated with two chemoradiotherapy strategies. Group 1 (n = 99) underwent dose escalated definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), Group 2 (n = 24) received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by surgery. Cumulative incidence of locoregional failure (LRF), local failure (LF), regional lymph node failure (RLNF), and distant metastasis (DM) were computed; differences between the groups was evaluated using log rank test. Univariable and multivariable predictors of failure were identified using Cox regression analysis. Results Cumulative LRF: 64% in Group 1 vs 35% in Group 2 (P = .050). Cumulative LF: 59% in Group 1 vs 12% in Group 2 (P = .000). Cumulative RLNF: 30% in Group 1 vs 24% in Group 2 (P = .592). Most common RLNF: mediastinum for both groups (6% vs 12.5%, respectively). Distant metastasis: 40.4% Group 1 vs 17% Group 2 (P = .129), predominantly lung (Group 1, 5%), and nonregional nodes (Group 2, 8.3%). Univariate analysis identified age ≤50, absence of concurrent chemotherapy, dose ≤50 Gy, and incomplete radiotherapy to predict higher odds of LRF and DM for Group 1; absence of comorbidities predicted for lower odds of LRF for Group 2. Age ≤50 predicted for higher odds of RNLR for Group 1, while absence of comorbidities predicted for lower odds of RNLR in Group 2. Multivariate analysis identified age ≤50, incomplete radiotherapy, and absence of concurrent chemotherapy to predict higher odds of LRF for Group 1. Age ≤50, absence of concurrent chemotherapy predicted higher odds of DM for Group 1. Absence of comorbidity predicted lower odds of LRF in Group 2. Conclusion LRF is common in both groups, with LF being predominant in dCRT as opposed to RNLF in NACRT. Age ≤50, absence of concurrent chemotherapy is a predictor of LRF and DM in dCRT.