File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Using Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil (PF) Versus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel (CROSS Regimen) for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC): A Propensity Score-Matched Study

TitleNeoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Using Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil (PF) Versus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel (CROSS Regimen) for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC): A Propensity Score-Matched Study
Authors
Keywordsesophageal cancer
squamous Cell Carcinoma
neoadjuvant therapy
chemoradiotherapy
esophagectomy
Issue Date2020
PublisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.annalsofsurgery.com
Citation
Annals of Surgery, 2020, v. 272 n. 5, p. 779-785 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: This study compared the efficacy of PF-based and CROSS-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for ESCC. Background: PF-based regimen has been a standard regimen for ESCC, but it has been replaced by the CROSS regimen in the past few years, despite no prospective head-to-head comparative study has been performed. Methods: This is a single center retrospective study. Records of all ESCC patients who have received neoadjuvant PF with 40 Gy radiotherapy in 20 daily fractions (PFRT Group) or CROSS with 41.4 Gy radiotherapy in 23 daily fractions (CROSS Group) during the period 2002 to 2019 were retrieved. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to minimize baseline differences. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival and clinicopathological response. Subgroup analysis (“CROSS Eligibility”) was performed based on tumor length, cT-stage, cM-stage, age, and performance status. Results: One hundred (out of 109) patients (CROSS group) and propensity score matched 100 (out of 210) patients (PFRT group) were included. Esophagectomy rates in CROSS and PFRT group were 69% and 76%, respectively (P = 0.268). R0 resection rates were 85.5% and 81.6% (P = 0.525) and the pathological complete remission rates were 24.6% and 35.5% (P = 0.154). By intention-to-treat, the median survival was 16.7 and 32.7 months (P = 0.083). For “CROSS Eligible subgroup,” the median survival of the CROSS and PFRT group was 21.6 versus 44.9 months (P = 0.093). Conclusions: There is no statistically difference in survival or clinicopathological outcome between both groups, but the trend favors PFRT. Prospective head-to-head comparison and novel strategies to improve the outcomes in resectable ESCC are warranted.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/288050
ISSN
2020 Impact Factor: 12.969
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 4.503
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, IYH-
dc.contributor.authorLam, KO-
dc.contributor.authorZhang, RQ-
dc.contributor.authorChan, WWL-
dc.contributor.authorWong, CLY-
dc.contributor.authorChan, F-
dc.contributor.authorKwong, DLW-
dc.contributor.authorLaw, SYK-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-05T12:07:07Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-05T12:07:07Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Surgery, 2020, v. 272 n. 5, p. 779-785-
dc.identifier.issn0003-4932-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/288050-
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study compared the efficacy of PF-based and CROSS-based neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for ESCC. Background: PF-based regimen has been a standard regimen for ESCC, but it has been replaced by the CROSS regimen in the past few years, despite no prospective head-to-head comparative study has been performed. Methods: This is a single center retrospective study. Records of all ESCC patients who have received neoadjuvant PF with 40 Gy radiotherapy in 20 daily fractions (PFRT Group) or CROSS with 41.4 Gy radiotherapy in 23 daily fractions (CROSS Group) during the period 2002 to 2019 were retrieved. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to minimize baseline differences. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival and clinicopathological response. Subgroup analysis (“CROSS Eligibility”) was performed based on tumor length, cT-stage, cM-stage, age, and performance status. Results: One hundred (out of 109) patients (CROSS group) and propensity score matched 100 (out of 210) patients (PFRT group) were included. Esophagectomy rates in CROSS and PFRT group were 69% and 76%, respectively (P = 0.268). R0 resection rates were 85.5% and 81.6% (P = 0.525) and the pathological complete remission rates were 24.6% and 35.5% (P = 0.154). By intention-to-treat, the median survival was 16.7 and 32.7 months (P = 0.083). For “CROSS Eligible subgroup,” the median survival of the CROSS and PFRT group was 21.6 versus 44.9 months (P = 0.093). Conclusions: There is no statistically difference in survival or clinicopathological outcome between both groups, but the trend favors PFRT. Prospective head-to-head comparison and novel strategies to improve the outcomes in resectable ESCC are warranted.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.annalsofsurgery.com-
dc.relation.ispartofAnnals of Surgery-
dc.rightsThis is a non-final version of an article published in final form in (provide complete journal citation)-
dc.subjectesophageal cancer-
dc.subjectsquamous Cell Carcinoma-
dc.subjectneoadjuvant therapy-
dc.subjectchemoradiotherapy-
dc.subjectesophagectomy-
dc.titleNeoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Using Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil (PF) Versus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel (CROSS Regimen) for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (ESCC): A Propensity Score-Matched Study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLam, KO: lamkaon@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailChan, WWL: winglok@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailKwong, DLW: dlwkwong@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLaw, SYK: slaw@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, KO=rp01501-
dc.identifier.authorityChan, WWL=rp02541-
dc.identifier.authorityKwong, DLW=rp00414-
dc.identifier.authorityLaw, SYK=rp00437-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SLA.0000000000004329-
dc.identifier.pmid32833766-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85092945583-
dc.identifier.hkuros314744-
dc.identifier.volume272-
dc.identifier.issue5-
dc.identifier.spage779-
dc.identifier.epage785-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000619410000017-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-
dc.identifier.issnl0003-4932-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats