1. Salvage Surgery After Chemoradiotherapy in the Management of Esophageal Cancer: Is It a Viable Therapeutic Option?
- Author
-
Markar S, Gronnier C, Duhamel A, Pasquer A, Théreaux J, du Rieu MC, Lefevre JH, Turner K, Luc G, and Mariette C
- Subjects
- Adenocarcinoma mortality, Adenocarcinoma pathology, Adenocarcinoma therapy, Adult, Aged, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell mortality, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell pathology, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell therapy, Chemoradiotherapy mortality, Databases, Factual, Disease-Free Survival, Esophageal Neoplasms mortality, Esophageal Neoplasms pathology, Esophagectomy mortality, Europe, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multivariate Analysis, Neoplasm Invasiveness pathology, Neoplasm Staging, Propensity Score, Retrospective Studies, Risk Assessment, Salvage Therapy mortality, Survival Analysis, Chemoradiotherapy methods, Esophageal Neoplasms therapy, Esophagectomy methods, Hospital Mortality trends, Salvage Therapy methods
- Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this large multicenter study was to assess the impact of salvage esophagectomy after definitive chemoradiotherapy (SALV) on clinical outcome., Patients and Methods: Data from consecutive adult patients undergoing resection for esophageal cancer in 30 European centers from 2000 to 2010 were collected. First, groups undergoing SALV (n = 308) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by planned esophagectomy (NCRS; n = 540) were compared. Second, patients who benefited from SALV for persistent (n = 234) versus recurrent disease (n = 74) were compared. Propensity score matching and multivariable analyses were used to compensate for differences in some baseline characteristics., Results: SALV versus NCRS groups: In-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (8.4% v 9.3%). The only significant differences in complications were seen for anastomotic leak (17.2% v 10.7%; P = .007) and surgical site infection, which were both more frequent in the SALV group. At 3 years, groups had similar overall (43.3% v 40.1%; P = .542) and disease-free survival (39.2% v 32.8%; P = .232) after matching, along with a similar recurrence pattern. Persistent versus recurrent disease groups: There were no significant differences between groups in incidence of in-hospital mortality or major complications. At 3 years, overall (40.9% v 56.2%; P = .046) and disease-free survival (36.6% v 51.6%; P = .095) were lower in the persistent disease group., Conclusion: The results of this large multicenter study from the modern era suggest that SALV can offer acceptable short- and long-term outcomes in selected patients at experienced centers. Persistent cancer after definitive chemoradiotherapy seems to be more biologically aggressive, with poorer survival compared with recurrent cancer., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF