Survival Comparison Among Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Esophagectomy, Definitive Chemoradiotherapy, and Esophagectomy Alone for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Background For patients with locoregional esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), survival outcomes among neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by operation (nCRT-OP), definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), and esophagectomy alone remain controversial. Patients and methods Information from the 200...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of surgical oncology 2022-06, Vol.29 (6), p.3617-3627
Main Authors: Chen, Hui-Shan, Lin, Ching-Hsiung, Wu, Shiao-Chi, Wang, Bing-Yen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cell survival
Chemoradiotherapy
Chemotherapy
Esophageal cancer
Medical prognosis
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Oncology
Patients
Radiation therapy
Squamous cell carcinoma
Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Thoracic Oncology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background For patients with locoregional esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), survival outcomes among neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by operation (nCRT-OP), definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), and esophagectomy alone remain controversial. Patients and methods Information from the 2008–2016 Taiwan Cancer Registry was used. A total of 7637 cT1b–4, N0/+, M0 ESCC patients receiving nCRT-OP ( n  = 1955), dCRT ( n  = 4122), or esophagectomy alone ( n  = 1560) were included. Propensity score matching was performed to balance clinical variables among the three groups. Stage-specific overall survival was compared before and after propensity score matching. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors. Results Propensity score matching resulted in 1407 cases for comparison. The 5-year overall survival rates for matched patients treated via dCRT, nCRT-OP, and esophagectomy alone were 19.77%, 31.23%, and 30.52%, respectively ( p 
ISSN:1068-9265
1534-4681
DOI:10.1245/s10434-021-11210-8