Strahlentherapie und Onkologie

, Volume 194, Issue 2, pp 116–124 | Cite as

Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer

Outcomes and patterns of failure
  • Matthias Felix Haefner
  • Kristin Lang
  • Vivek Verma
  • Stefan Alexander Koerber
  • Lorenz Uhlmann
  • Juergen Debus
  • Florian Sterzing
Original Article



Randomized trials examining neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection (nCRT-S) and definitive CRT (dCRT) for esophageal cancer (EC) patients are hampered by use of nonstandard treatment paradigms. Outcomes of nCRT-S versus dCRT in a more common patient population are lacking. We investigated local control and survival, evaluated clinical factors associated with endpoints, and assessed patterns of failure between these cohorts.


We retrospectively analyzed 130 patients with locally advanced EC receiving either dCRT or nCRT-S at our institution from 2000–2012. Inclusion criteria were curatively treated nonmetastatic EC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and receipt of concomitant CRT. Patients were excluded if receiving <41 Gy neoadjuvantly or <50 Gy definitively. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to evaluate local recurrence (LR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling addressed factors associated with outcomes. Patterns of failure were enumerated as local, regional, or distant.


Mean follow-up was 34.2 months. The 3‑year LR was 10.8% in the nCRT-S group and 21.5% in the dCRT group (p = 0.266). Median PFS were 15.6 and 14.9 months, respectively (p = 0.549). Median OS were 20.6 and 25.9 months, respectively (p = 0.81). On univariate and multivariate analysis, none of the investigated factors was associated with outcomes, although node-positive disease showed a trend for worse OS and PFS. Most common failures in both groups were distant (dCRT 31.2% vs. nCRT-S 21.6%) followed by local in-field recurrences (dCRT 26.9% vs. nCRT-S 10.8%).


In this institutional analysis, no significant differences regarding outcomes and patterns of failure were observed between nCRT-S and dCRT.


Neoplasm recurrence, local Esophagectomy Toxicity Survival Treatment failure 

Neoadjuvante vs. definitive Radiochemotherapie bei lokal fortgeschrittenem Ösophaguskarzinom

Outcome und Rezidivmuster



Randomisierte Studien, welche die neoadjuvante Radiochemotherapie (CRT) einschließlich konsekutiver Operation (nCRT-S) mit der definitiven Radiochemotherapie (dCRT) für Ösophaguskarzinom(EC)-Patienten vergleichen, sind aufgrund nicht standardgerechter Behandlungskonzepte nur eingeschränkt in die Praxis übertragbar. Zum Vergleich nCRT-S vs. dCRT mit aktueller Standardtherapie liegen kaum Erkenntnisse vor. Verglichen wurden lokale Kontrolle/Überleben, klinische Einflussfaktoren auf das Outcome und Rezidivmuster dieser beiden Gruppen.


Wir untersuchten retrospektiv 130 Patienten mit lokal fortgeschrittenem EC, die im Zeitraum 2000–2012 in unserer Klinik mit dCRT oder nCRT-S behandelt worden waren. Einschlusskriterien waren ein kuratives Behandlungskonzept bei nichtmetastasiertem EC, ein Karnofsky-Index ≥70 % und die simultane CRT. Patienten mit einer Gesamtdosis von <41 Gy (neoadjuvant) bzw. <50 Gy (definitiv) wurden ausgeschlossen. Eine Kaplan-Meier-Analyse wurde zur Beurteilung von Lokalrezidiven (LR), progressionsfreiem Überleben (PFS) und Gesamtüberleben (OS) durchgeführt, eine univariate/multivariate Cox-Regression zur Analyse klinischer Einflussfaktoren auf das Outcome. Rezidive wurden als lokal, regional oder distant klassifiziert.


Das mittlere Follow-Up betrug 34,2 Monate. Die 3‑Jahres-LR-Raten lagen bei 10,8 % für nCRT-S und 21,5 % für dCRT (p = 0,266). Das mediane PFS betrug 15,6 bzw. 14,9 Monate (p = 0,549), das mediane OS 20,6 bzw. 25,9 Monate (p = 0,81). Univariate und multivariate Analysen zeigten keine klinischen Faktoren mit signifikantem Einfluss auf das Outcome, wenngleich nodal-positive Patienten im Trend ein schlechteres OS und PFS aufwiesen. Rezidive traten in beiden Gruppen meist als Fernmetastasen (dCRT 31,2 % vs. nCRT-S 21,6 %) auf oder als In-field-Lokalrezidive (dCRT 26,9 % vs. nCRT-S 10,8 %).


Im untersuchten Patientenkollektiv waren im Hinblick auf Outcome und Rezidivmuster keine signifikanten Unterschiede festzustellen nach neoadjuvanter Radiochemotherapie plus Operation bzw. nach definitiver Radiochemotherapie.


Lokalrezidiv einer Neoplasie Ösophagektomie Toxizität Überleben Therapieversagen 


Conflict of interest

M.F. Haefner, K. Lang, V. Verma, S.A. Koerber, L. Uhlmann, J. Debus and F. Sterzing declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2016) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology—esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers. Accessed 20 Sept 2016Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Hagen P, Hulshof MCCM, van Lanschot JJB et al (2012) Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 366(20):2074–2084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM et al (2011) Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 12(7):681–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stahl M, Stuschke M, Lehmann N et al (2005) Chemoradiation with and without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol 23(10):2310–2317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bedenne L, Michel P, Bouché O et al (2007) Chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with chemoradiation alone in squamous cancer of the esophagus: FFCD 9102. J Clin Oncol 25(10):1160–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kranzfelder M, Schuster T, Geinitz H et al (2011) Meta-analysis of neoadjuvant treatment modalities and definitive non-surgical therapy for oesophageal squamous cell cancer. Br J Surg 98(6):768–783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lloyd S, Chang BW (2014) Current strategies in chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Dig Syst 5(3):156–165Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Urba S (2004) Esophageal cancer: preoperative or definitive chemoradiation. Ann Oncol 15(Suppl 4):iv93–iv96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Minsky BD, Pajak TF, Ginsberg RJ et al (2002) INT 0123 (radiation therapy oncology group 94-05) phase III trial of combined-modality therapy for esophageal cancer: high-dose versus standard-dose radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 20(5):1167–1174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chiu PWY, Chan ACW, Leung SF et al (2005) Multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing standard esophagectomy with chemoradiotherapy for treatment of squamous esophageal cancer: early results from the Chinese University research group for esophageal cancer (CURE). J Gastrointest Surg 9(6):794–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shiozaki H, Sudo K, Xiao L et al (2014) Distribution and timing of distant metastasis after local therapy in a large cohort of patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancer. Oncology 86(5-6):336–339CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang P, Xi M, Zhao L et al (2015) Clinical efficacy and failure pattern in patients with cervical esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 116(2):257–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robb WB, Messager M, Dahan L et al (2016) Patterns of recurrence in early-stage oesophageal cancer after chemoradiotherapy and surgery compared with surgery alone. Br J Surg 103(1):117–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suh Y‑G, Lee IJ, Koom WS et al (2014) High-dose versus standard-dose radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy in stages II–III esophageal cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 44(6):534–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Münch S, Aichmeier S, Hapfelmeier A et al (2016) Comparison of dosimetric parameters and toxicity in esophageal cancer patients undergoing 3D conformal radiotherapy or VMAT. Strahlenther Onkol 192(10):722–729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chuong MD, Hallemeier CL, Jabbour SK et al (2016) Improving outcomes for esophageal cancer using proton beam therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 95(1):488–497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zeng YC, Vyas C, Dang Q et al (2016) Proton therapy posterior beam approach with pencil beam scanning for esophageal cancer: Clinical outcome, dosimetry, and feasibility. Strahlenther Onkol 192(12):913–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verma V, Lin SH, Simone CB II et al (2016) Clinical outcomes and toxicities of proton radiotherapy for gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Oncol 7(4):644–664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gharzai L, Verma V, Denniston KA et al (2016) Radiation therapy and cardiac death in long-term survivors of esophageal cancer: an analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end result database. PLOS ONE 11(7):e158916CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang J, Wei C, Tucker SL et al (2013) Predictors of postoperative complications after trimodality therapy for esophageal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 86(5):885–891CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin SH, Zhang N, Godby J et al (2016) Radiation modality use and cardiopulmonary mortality risk in elderly patients with esophageal cancer. Cancer 122(6):917–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Makino T, Doki Y (2011) Treatment of T4 esophageal cancer. Definitive chemo-radiotherapy vs chemo-radiotherapy followed by surgery. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 17(3):221–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vincent J, Mariette C, Pezet D et al (2015) Early surgery for failure after chemoradiation in operable thoracic oesophageal cancer. Analysis of the non-randomised patients in FFCD 9102 phase III trial: Chemoradiation followed by surgery versus chemoradiation alone. Eur J Cancer 51(13):1683–1693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Markar S, Gronnier C, Duhamel A et al (2015) Salvage surgery after chemoradiotherapy in the management of esophageal cancer: is it a viable therapeutic option? J Clin Oncol 33(33):3866–3873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pennathur A, Luketich JD (2008) Resection for esophageal cancer: strategies for optimal management. Ann Thorac Surg 85(2):S751–S756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Courrech Staal EFW, Aleman BMP, Boot H et al (2010) Systematic review of the benefits and risks of neoadjuvant chemoradiation for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 97(10):1482–1496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Beukema JC, van Luijk P, Widder J et al (2015) Is cardiac toxicity a relevant issue in the radiation treatment of esophageal cancer? Radiother Oncol 114(1):85–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schröder C, Engenhart-Cabillic R, Vorwerk H et al (2017) Changes in pulmonary function and influencing factors after high-dose intrathoracic radio(chemo)therapy. Strahlenther Onkol 193(2):125–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rees J, Hurt CN, Gollins S et al (2015) Patient-reported outcomes during and after definitive chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer. Br J Cancer 113(4):603–610CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mariette C, Dahan L, Mornex F et al (2014) Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for stage I and II esophageal cancer: final analysis of randomized controlled phase III trial FFCD 9901. J Clin Oncol 32(23):2416–2422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin SH, Wang J, Allen PK et al (2014) A nomogram that predicts pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation also predicts survival outcomes after definitive chemoradiation for esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol 6(1):45–52. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity Hospital of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO)National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO)HeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA
  4. 4.Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI)University of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  5. 5.Department of Radiation OncologyHospital KemptenKemptenGermany

Personalised recommendations