Log in
Oncology

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD Clinical Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer (2021)

SEOM/GEMCAD/TTD2022Full text
Full text · CC BYFernández-Montes A, Alcaide J, Alsina M, Custodio AB, Franco LF, Gallego Plazas J et al.. SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD Clinical Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer (2021). Clin Transl Oncol, 2022. Licensed under CC BY. Changes: reformatted for the web. Original: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-022-02801-2

Summary

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive tumor, and is the sixth-leading cause of death from cancer. Incidence is rising in Spain, particularly among men. Two main pathological different subtypes have been described: squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Growing evidence of their epidemiology and molecular differences explains their different response to novel treatments, and they are therefore likely to be treated as two separate entities in the near future. The best results are obtained with a multidisciplinary therapeutic strategy, and the introduction of immunotherapy is a promising new approach that will improve prognosis. In these guidelines, we review the evidence for the different methods of diagnosis and therapeutic strategies that form the basis of our standard of care.

Introduction, epidemiology, localization, histology and molecular biology

Esophageal cancer (EC) is a major public health problem. It is the seventh most common cancer worldwide, and the sixth-leading cause of death from cancer, with a 5-year survival rate of only 15–20%. In Spain, incidence is expected to increase from an estimated 2368 new cases in 2021 [1] to more than 2900 new cases in 2040 [2]; 70% of all cases occur in men. The survival rate in Spain varies depending on gender: rates increased by 35% in men and decreased by 9% in women between the 2002–2007 and 2008–2013 periods [1].

There are two main histological subtypes: squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (84% of new cases) located predominantly in the upper and mid-esophagus, and adenocarcinoma (ADC) (15%), predominantly in the lower esophagus. Although the squamous subtype is the most prevalent, especially in Asia and Eastern Africa, its worldwide incidence has decreased in recent decades [3]. The incidence of adenocarcinoma, however, continues to rise sharply in developed countries, and now exceeds squamous cell rates in North America, Europe and Australia. These differences in incidence, trend, and geographical distribution reflect the particular etiology attributed to each subtype: alcohol and tobacco are mainly related to squamous cell carcinoma, meanwhile gastro-esophageal reflux and central obesity are important risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus (a precursor lesion) and adenocarcinoma.

Squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus has molecular features that are similar to those of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, while esophageal adenocarcinoma is more similar to gastric adenocarcinoma in terms of its chromosomally unstable subtype. In squamous cell carcinoma, alterations in cell cycle regulators with inactivation of CDKN2A and amplification of CCND1 are frequent [4]. Three molecular subtypes of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) have been described: ESCC1, with mutations of NRF2, associated with a poor prognosis and resistance to chemo-radiotherapy; ESCC2, in which NOTCH1 or ZNF750 are frequently mutated; and ESCC3, characterized by alterations that activate the PI3K pathway. Expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is higher in squamous cell carcinoma than in adenocarcinoma [5]. In contrast, E-cadherin expression and upregulation of ARF6, FOX A and MAPK pathways are characteristic of adenocarcinoma, in which overexpression and amplification of ERBB2 are common features.

Diagnosis and staging

Confirmatory diagnosis of esophageal cancer relies on endoscopic biopsy, and histology must be performed according to the WHO criteria.

Once the histological diagnosis is established, the clinical stage must be determined to establish the prognosis and define the therapeutic strategy.

To complete the study, the ECOG scale must be determined and a complete physical examination, with a comprehensive geriatric assessment in the case of elderly patients, must be performed. A nutritional assessment is also necessary, and patients must be given nutritional advice. It is essential to collect samples for blood analysis, including hemogram and renal panel, and imaging tests (CTScan of chest and abdomen) are also a requirement. In patients who are candidates for surgery or radical treatment, consider expanding the study with:

  • Echoendoscopy [6] (II,A).
  • PET-CT or PET may detect metastases not evidenced on CT in 10–20% of patients [7] (III,A).
  • Bronchoscopy: if the tumor is located above or in the tracheal bifurcation (II A).
  • In locally advanced tumors (T3/4) in the distal esophagus or esophago-gastric junction (EGJ) with adenocarcinoma histology, an exploratory laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology must be performed, given that 15% of patients present hidden peritoneal metastases (IV,B) [8].

The disease should be staged according to the 2017 UICC-AJCC classification (8th edition) (Table 1) and categorized according to histology (Table 2) [9].

Table 1

TNM staging for esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer (AJCC/UICC 8th edition)

T- primary tumor
 TxPrimary tumor cannot be assessed
 T0No evidence of primary tumor
 TisCarcinoma in situ/high-grade dysplasia
 T1Tumor invades lamina propia, muscularis mucosae, or submucosa
 T1aTumor invades lamina propia or muscularis mucosae
 T1bTumor invades submucosa
 T2Tumor invades muscularis propia
 T3Tumor invades adventitia
 T4Tumor invades adjacent structures
 T4aTumor invades pleura, pericardium, azygos vein, diaphragm, or peritoneum
 T4bTumor invades other adjacent structures such us aorta, vertebral body, or trachea
N- regional lymph nodes
 NxRegional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
 N0No regional lymph node metastasis
 N1Metastasis in 1 to 2 regional lymph nodes
 N2Metastasis in 3 to 6 regional lymph nodes
 N3Metastasis in 7 or more regional lymph nodes
M- distant metastasis
 M0No distant metastasis
 M1Distant metastasis
G- histology grade
 GxUnknown grade
 G1Well differentiated
 G2Moderately differentiated
 G3Poorly differentiated o undifferentiated
Table 2

Stage grouping according to histology

Squamous cell carcinomaAdenocarcinoma
GroupTNMGradeLocationGroupTNMGrade
0 TisN0M0N/AAny0 TisN0M0Any
IA T1aN0M01,XAnyIAT1aN0M01, X
IBT1a N0M02–3AnyIBT1aN0 M02
T1b N0M0AnyAnyT1bN0M0 1, 2
T2N0M01Any
ICT1a,bN0M03
T2N0M01,2
IIAT2 N0M02,3,XAnyIIAT2 N0M03,X
T3 N0M0AnyLower
T3N0M01Upper, middle
IIB T3N0M02,3Upper, middleIIBT1N1M0Any
T3 N0M0AnyXT3N0M0Any
T3N0M0XAny
T1 N1M0AnyAny
IIIA T1N2M0AnyAnyIIIAT1N2M0Any
T2 N1M0AnyAnyT2N1 M0Any
IIIB T2N2M0AnyAnyIIIBT2N2M0Any
T3 N1,2 M0 AnyAnyT3 N1,2 M0Any
T4a N0M0AnyAnyT4a N0M0Any
IVAT4a N2M0AnyAnyIVA T4aN2M0Any
T4b Any NM0AnyAnyT4b Any NM0Any
IVBAny T Any NM1AnyAnyIVBAny T Any NM1Any
(8)

Treatment

Initial treatment approaches for esophageal cancer and EGJ depend on several factors, and each case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team (Table 3).

Table 3

Diagnosis and treatment

GeneralDetailsQuality of evidenceStrength of recommendation
Diagnosis and staging

Gastroscopy

CT scan

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS + – fine needle aspiration (FNA)

18F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET) or PET-CT (preferred)

Bronchoscopy

Staging laparoscopy and peritoneal cytology

In tumors at or above the tracheal bifurcation

In locally advanced (T3/T4) distal esophageal or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinomas

IIA
IIIB
IIA
IVB
Treatment
Early stage
T1a N0 (< 2 cm, well or mod. differentiated)Endoscopic resectionIIIA
SurgeryIVA
T1b-2N0SurgeryIA
Locally advanced disease (T3-4 N0; T1b-T4a, N +)
Cervical spine tumorsCisplatin- Fu + RDTIIA
T1–2 N + Preop Paclitaxel-carbo + RDT and surgeryIA
T3–4 aN0– 2SCC
Preop (Paclitaxel -carbo) or (Cisplatin- FU) + RDT and surgeryIA
Definitive CT + RDT + – salvage surgeryIIB
Neoadjuvant CT and surgeryIIB
ADC
Preop (Taxol-carbo) or (Cisplatin-FU) + RDT and surgeryIA
Neoadjuvant CT and surgery (distal tumors)IA
Adjuvant treatment if no pRC
NivolumabIA
T4bN0–2Fit patients
Definitive Cisplatin-FU + RDTIA
Unfit patients
Oxaliplatin-Fu + RDTIIB
Paclitaxel–Carboplatin + RDTIIIB
Metastatic carcinoma1st-Line CT
SCC
Platinum-FluoropyrimidineIIA
CT-Pembrolizumab if CPS ≥ 10IA
ADC
Platinum-FluoropyrimidineIA
CT-Nivolumab if CPS 5IA
CT-Pembrolizumab if CPS ≥ 10IIA
CT and trastuzumab (Her 2 +)IIA
2nd-line and beyond CT
Doublet CT or monotherapy (irinotecan or taxane)IIB
Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, camrelizumab, tislelizumabIA
Paclitaxel and Ramucirumab only ADCIIA
Trifluridine and tipiracil only ADCIIA

Evidence and recommendations

SCC Scamous cell carcinoma, ADC Adenocarcinoma, pRC patologic complete response

Early disease (cT1-T2 cN0M0)

Depending on their depth of infiltration, mucosal carcinomas (T1a) are subdivided into m1, m2 and m3, and submucosal carcinomas (T1b) are classified as sm1, sm2 and sm3. While lymph node metastases are very rare in mucosal carcinomas, in submucosal cancers, their incidence increases as infiltration reaches deeper layers [10].

Endoscopic resection (ER) may be performed in early-stage cancers, provided it is indicated: high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or mucosal carcinoma (adenocarcinoma: m1–m3, squamous cell carcinoma: m1–m2), no lymph or vascular invasion (L0/V0 status), no ulcerations and well or moderately differentiated (G1/G2) (III, A). ER is also possible in superficial (< 500 µm) adenocarcinoma infiltration in submucosal carcinomas (sm1) measuring less than 20 mm that do not meet the aforementioned risk criteria, but outcomes are poorer than in mucosal carcinoma (IV, B). After curative ER, the surrounding Barret´s mucosa should be ablated to prevent metachronous lesions (III, A). Unlike adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma with deep mucosal (m3) and submucosal infiltration is an indication for surgery [11] (V, A). Although no randomized controlled trials have compared ER with surgery in early disease, retrospective series have shown that endoscopic procedures were an alternative that was associated with shorter hospital stays, fewer readmissions, and lower 90-day mortality, but survival data in these studies were inconsistent. A recent meta-analysis concluded that ER is safe in early-stage esophageal cancer, but esophagectomy may be associated with better long-term survival. ER, therefore, cannot completely replace radical surgery; however, outcomes are favorable in suitable indications when accurate clinical staging is carried out.

Surgery remains the gold standard for T1b-T2 tumors and for mucosal carcinomas with high risk factors after ER (extensive carcinoma in situ, high-grade, lymphovascular invasion or positive deep margins). Subtotal transthoracic esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy) with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the procedure of choice [12] (I, A). If the carcinoma is located in the upper thorax, total esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis (McKeown esophagectomy) may be needed. Minimally invasive procedures are becoming more widespread in clinical practice, and are expected to reduce postoperative morbidity.

The value of preoperative treatment in limited disease is unclear, since only small randomized trials have been performed to date. Several studies found that neoadjuvant therapy compared to surgery alone had no significant effect on survival or recurrence, despite significant downstaging and a higher rate of pathological complete response (pCR) [13, 14]. These results suggest that surgery should be recommended as the primary treatment (I,A). However, there is evidence that a subset of these patients are under-staged and would benefit from neoadjuvant therapy. At this point, an open discussion with the patient should guide the shared decision process.

Locally advanced disease

Cervical esophageal cancer

Most cervical esophageal cancers cannot be treated with surgery, as this would involve mutilating resections, such as pharyngo-laryngo-esophagectomy. Therefore, definitive chemoradiation therapy with curative intent is the standard treatment modality [14] (II, A). Persistent or locally recurrent cancer can be treated with salvage surgery, which has a higher risk of morbidity but is the only option for relatively long-term survival [15] (IV, B).

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) is less clinically developed than chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Earlier studies give it priority over adjuvant therapy in squamous cell carcinoma (I A), and it could be recommended before surgery (I,B).

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed statistically significant better overall survival results than adjuvant chemotherapy in the JCOG9907 phase III clinical trial in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (five-year overall survival rate 55% vs 43 %; HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.54–0.99) [16] (I, A).

Preoperative chemotherapy may improve survival compared to surgery alone. Although the INT 113 study, the largest carried out so far by the UK Medical Research Council with 802 patients (66% adenocarcinoma, 31% squamous cell carcinoma), did not show OS improvement with CT, it did show increased five-year overall survival with this strategy (14% in the surgery only group vs 19% in the preoperative chemotherapy group; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.98), and no differences in postoperative complications or mortality [17] (I, B).

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not demonstrated inferiority in overall survival compared to preoperative chemoradiotherapy, although complete pathologic response was higher in the chemoradiotherapy group (23% of patients with adenocarcinoma, 42% with squamous cell carcinoma) in the NeoResl trial and in the Burmeister et al. phase II trial (only adenocarcinoma, including gastroesophageal junction; rate favoring chemoradiotherapy; no difference in OS in toxicity and surgical complications) [18] (II, B).

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Preoperative CRT is the standard treatment in operable patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, since a survival benefit as well as an increase in R0 resections from preoperative CRT over surgery alone has been confirmed in several randomized trials and at least 1 network meta-analysis (I, A) [19–21].

The optimal radiation dose for preoperative CRT regimens is not well defined, although a total dose of 41.4–50.4 Gy administered in daily 1.8 Gy fractions, 5 days per week gives reasonable results with acceptable toxicity (II, A).

Squamous cell carcinoma

Various meta-analyses and 2 well-designed phase III randomized trials support CRT as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (I, A).

In the European CROSS trial, which included 363 patients with resectable esophageal or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer (86 SCC, 273 adenocarcinoma), preoperative CRT using weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 plus carboplatin (area under the curve of concentration × time [AUC] of 2) plus concurrent RT (41.4 Gy over 5 weeks) results in a significant increase in the R0 resection rate with a 29% of pCR. Median overall survival was significantly better with preoperative CRT (HR for death 0.657, 95% CI 0.495–0.87), and this benefit persisted after a 10-year follow-up period (38% vs. 25% in the surgery only arm, HR for death 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89 [21].

Similarly, the Chinese NEOCRTEC5010 trial randomly assigned 451 patients with potentially resectable thoracic ESCC to neoadjuvant CRT, (vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 iv on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 IV day 1, or 25 mg/m2 IV on days 1 to 4 every 3 weeks for 2 cycles, with a total concurrent radiation dose of 40.0 Gy administered in 20 fractions of 2.0 Gy on 5 days per week), or surgery alone. In the CRT arm, the pCR rate (43%) as well as the R0 resection rate was higher than in the surgery only approach, and neoadjuvant therapy was associated with better five-year overall and disease-free survival [22].

In the CROSS or NEOCRTEC5010 trials, postoperative morbidity or mortality did not differ between CRT and surgery only arms.

Several meta-analyses have explored trimodality therapy over surgery alone for esophageal cancer [19, 23], and have found the benefit in terms of survival to be similar across histologic subtypes (SCC, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68–0.93; adenocarcinomas, HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.95).

Adenocarcinoma

Preoperative CRT (41.4–50.5 Gy in fractions of 1.8–2.0 Gy/day combined with cisplatin/5-F, or carboplatin/paclitaxel) should be considered standard treatment in locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (I,A). In some studies, peri-operative chemotherapy with a platinum/ fluoropyrimidine regimen for 2–3 cycles pre- and post-surgical resection of the primary tumor were included.

The benefits of CRT followed by surgery are based on results from meta-analyses and some large randomized trials [20, 23]. However, direct comparisons of chemotherapy versus CRT as neoadjuvant therapy are limited to small randomized trials [24], and there are no studies specifically comparing trimodality versus bimodality (CRT alone without surgery) in adenocarcinomas. Neoadjuvant CRT gives a higher rate of complete pathologic response as well as increased R0 rates without significant impact on survival when compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Despite complete tumor response to neoadjuvant treatment, the need for surgical resection is controversial, and data from retrospective analyses suggest inferior outcomes in patients with adenocarcinoma treated without surgery after CT or CRT. A survival benefit for surgery in SCC has also been suggested in large retrospective analyses (IV, B) and in non-responders [25].

Perioperative treatment

Adenocarcinomas

Based on the results of several randomized Phase III trials and metanalysis, preoperative CT could be considered an alternative to standard CRT in locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus (I,A) [26–28].

Perioperative chemotherapy compared to surgery alone demonstrated improvements in disease free survival (HR 0.65; 95 CI, 0.48–0.889), in progression-free survival (HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53–0.81) and in overall survival (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61–0.88) in two studies and a meta-analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus, gastroesophageal junction and stomach [26, 27] (I, A). Better overall survival results have been more recently achieved with the FLOT regimen, but only in resectable gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63–0.94) [28] (lack of evidence for esophageal cancer).

Perioperative chemotherapy demonstrated non-inferiority versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in a recent phase III trial in patients with stage I-III esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma [29] (I, A).

Squamous cell carcinoma

There is less evidence for perioperative CT evidence in this setting (II,A)[30].

Perioperative chemotherapy has shown better relapse-free survival (HR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49–0.73) and overall survival (HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59–0.95) without increasing toxicity in phase III clinical trial results compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus [30]. However, the lack of stratification by stages and surgical reports detracts from the conclusions reached (II,A).

Adjuvant treatment

Adjuvant nivolumab, if available, should be recommended as standard treatment in patients with residual disease in the esophagectomy specimen after neoadjuvant CRT (I,A).

The benefit of adjuvant nivolumab is derived from the Checkmate 577 trial [31], where 794 patients with residual esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were randomized, irrespective of histology or PD-L1 status. Median disease-free survival was twice as long with nivolumab vs placebo, and the benefits were seen across all patient subgroups. The potential benefit of this adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing perioperative chemotherapy instead of CRT remains unclear.

In patients with or without residual nodal disease following CRT and esophagectomy, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of survival is doubtful, and is based on two retrospective analyses (IV,C). The potential gain in survival should be balanced against poor tolerability of further cytotoxic chemotherapy.

The best approach in patients who have not received neoadjuvant therapy remains unclear. Evidence from uncontrolled trials and retrospective series suggests a potential benefit for adjuvant CRT, but there are no randomized trials proving benefit compared with surgery alone (V,B). Similarly, postoperative CRT (cisplatin/paclitaxel plus RT 50 Gy) improved overall survival and recurrence compared with RT alone in a retrospective review of patients with thoracic SCC who had undergone upfront esophagectomy.

Survival benefit from postoperative chemotherapy alone in patients not receiving preoperative chemotherapy or CRT is unclear. In the only randomized trial comparing surgery versus surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin/5 FU), improvement in disease-free survival did not correlate with an overall survival gain [32] (II,C).

Locally advanced: inoperable, unresectable or surgery not planned

Definitive concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum and fluorouracil-based regimens without surgery have been shown to be superior to radiotherapy alone, and achieve long-term survival of around 30% (I,A) [33].

This is the only therapeutic option in tumors that, though localized, are in surgically inaccessible regions, such as the cervical esophagus, and in patients with comorbidities that rule out surgery even if their tumors were initially resectable.

The most commonly used regimen in this context is cisplatin combined with 5-FU (CF) [33]. Alternative approaches are FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5FU and oxaliplatin) [34] (II, B) or carboplatin and paclitaxel (III,B). The standard radiotherapy dose is 45–50.4 Gy, and higher doses of RT are no more effective and are more toxic [35, 36] (II,B).

Inoperable due to comorbidities

Patients that are inoperable due to their comorbidities, their general condition, or their age are not usually included in clinical trials, and therapeutic toxicity is usually more important, particularly in the more aggressive options. The best approach in these patients is probably a less toxic drug or even radiotherapy alone (V, B).

Unresectable

Special mention should be made of unresectable T4b tumors. When there is infiltration of large vessels (aorta, pulmonary arteries) or the trachea, the administration of radiotherapy is associated with a high risk of massive bleeding or tracheal esophageal fistulae, so its use is discouraged. In this situation, the administration of chemotherapy alone is the best option, and surgery can be evaluated when response is positive enough to reconsider resection. (V, B).

Surgery not planned

Another special mention refers to resecable and operable locally advanced disease. Definitive chemo-radiotherapy without planned surgery (with clinical response) can be considered. Surgery can be avoided in initially resectable and operable locally advancedsquamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus if a clinical response is achieved after chemo-radiotherapy, mainly in patients with comorbidities [37] (IIB). In adenocarcinomas of the esophagus, however, if the tumor is resectable and the patient is operable, surgery should always be considered as part of the therapeutic plan. (IV, B).

If definitive chemo-radiotherapy is attempted, surgical rescue should be evaluated in the case of only local persistence or recurrence [38] (III,B).

Advanced/ metastatic disease

First-line chemotherapy

Patients with metastatic or inoperable locally advanced esophageal cancer have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of less than 1 year when treated only with chemotherapy. Despite differences in biology [4, 39], SCC and esophageal ADC have traditionally been treated with similar chemotherapy combinations, based on a platinum salt and a fluoropyrimidine [38, 40]. The recent introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy has improved outcomes in these patients [41–44].

First-line treatment for esophageal squamous cell cancer

The standard first-line chemotherapy treatment is based on a platinum salt (cisplatin or oxaliplatin) and a fluoropyrimidine [5-fluorouracil or capecitabine] (II A). This recommendation is mainly based on extrapolation of clinical trials conducted in esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma [40, 45, 46], and is routinely used.

In patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10, the addition of pembrolizumab to a cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine regimen should be recommended (I,A).

The phase III KEYNOTE-590 trial included 749 esophageal and Siewert type 1 gastro-esophageal cancer patients, mostly ESCC (73%), randomized to receive pembrolizumab or placebo plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin [41]. Greatest OS improvement was observed in ESCC CPS ≥ 10 (13.9 vs 8.8 months; HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.43–0.75]; p < 0.0001). Although a significant benefit was demonstrated in ESCC regardless of the CPS status (OS of 12.6 vs 9.8 months; HR 0.72 [95% CI 0.60–0.88]; p = 0.0006), it disappeared in patients with CPS < 10. The CheckMate 648 trial (presented in abstract form) randomized 970 ESCC patients to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus cisplatin and fluorouracil, or chemotherapy alone [42]. Patients treated with nivolumab and chemotherapy presented improved OS compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone; this effect was greater in patients with tumor cells PD-L1 (TPS) ≥ 1%. Patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab also presented an OS benefit compared with chemotherapy alone; this gain was mostly restricted to those with TPS ≥ 1% tumors. Finally, the Chinese ESCORT-1 trial (presented in abstract form) also demonstrated an OS benefit in ESCC patients with the addition of camrelizumab to a first-line carboplatin and paclitaxel therapy [43].

Despite this evidence, immunotherapy is still awaiting financial approval from the health authorities in Spain.

First-line treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma

The standard first-line chemotherapy treatment is based on a platinum salt (cisplatin or oxaliplatin) and a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine) (I,A). This recommendation is based on clinical trials conducted in gastric cancer and EAC patients. Oxaliplatin can replace cisplatin, and is generally less toxic. Capecitabine can replace 5-fluorouracil, and is a more comfortable option in the absence of dysphagia [40, 45, 46]. In patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10, the addition of pembrolizumab to a cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine regimen should be recommended (II,A). In patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 5, the addition of nivolumab to an oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine regimen should be recommended (I,A).

Two phase III studies, one mentioned above, showed an improvement in OS with the addition of anti-PD1 to upfront chemotherapy. In the phase III KEYNOTE-590, 13% of patients (201) had CPS ≥ 10 adenocarcinoma, and the results demonstrated the benefit of adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy (II,A). The phase III CheckMate 649 trial randomized 1581 non-HER2-positive gastric, gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) and esophageal adenocarcinoma patients (13% with EAC and 8% with GEJ) to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus oxaliplatin and fluorouracil (XELOX or FOLFOX), or chemotherapy alone. Patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 tumors benefited from the combination of nivolumab and chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone (OS of 14.4 vs. 11.1 months; HR 0.71 [98.4% CI 0.59–0.86]; p < 0.0001). This benefit was not demonstrated in patients with PD-L1 CPS < 5 tumors (unstratified HR for OS of 0.94 [0.78–1.13]).

Immunotherapy is still awaiting financial approval from the health authorities in Spain.

Considering the molecular similarities between gastric cancer and EAC and the results of the phase III TOGA trial (which included only HER2-positive gastric and gastro-esophageal junction cancer patients [47], the addition of trastuzumab to a cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine regimen could be considered in HER2-positive EAC patients. However, this approach is not authorized.

No other molecular targeted therapy has demonstrated sufficient efficacy in the first-line setting. This failure may be due in part to the molecular heterogeneity of these tumors and poorly designed clinical trials.

Second-line chemotherapy and new targeted drugs

Treatment selection depends on performance status, histologic type, symptom burden, first-line therapy and biomarker analysis. CT is the standard of care; however, this will probably change after the introduction of immunotherapy (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, camrelizumab). Single or combination CT not used in first line should be considered as part of second line therapy (II,B).

Patients with squamous cell carcinoma are routinely treated with second-line chemotherapy. Single-agent therapy containing agents not used in the first-line setting (weekly paclitaxel, docetaxel or irinotecan) are generally preferred over polychemotherapy [48]. Combination regimens (FOLFIRI, taxane-based therapy) are usually reserved for patients with a high symptom burden or a need for a higher response rate (II,B). Four phase III clinical trials in anti-PD-1 antibodies in eligible patients who have not received immunotherapy for advanced disease reported encouraging efficacy in patients with esophageal carcinoma who progressed on or were intolerant to 1 previous platinum-based CT (Table 4). In the KEYNOTE-181, the only study including a predominantly non-Asian population with both SCC and adenocarcinoma histologies, pembrolizumab showed a significantly longer duration of response and median overall survival than CT in patients with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10, but not in patients with SCC or in the entire intent-to-treat population. In a subset analysis of patients with CPS ≥ 10, the survival benefit was significant for SCC but not for adenocarcinoma [49]. The other 3 studies provided evidence of the superiority of nivolumab (ATTRACTION-3)[50], camrelizumab (ESCORT)[51] and tislelizumab (RATIONALE 302) [52] over CT in exclusively or predominantly Asian patients with SCC histology. Subgroup analyses in this 3 trials showed that clinical benefits of anti-PD-1 therapy were observed in all PD-L1 expression subgroups, but patients with higher PD-L1 expression appear to derive more benefit than those with low PD-L1 expression. Based on these data, pembrolizumab is approved by the FDA for advanced esophageal SCC patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 after failing 1 regimen [49] (I, A). Nivolumab [50] (and camrelizumab [51], or tislelizumab where available, should be considered as second-line therapy in SCC regardless of PD-L1 expression (I, A).However, these treatments are not yet approved by the Spanish healthcare authorities.

Table 4

Phase III clinical trials of second-line anti-PD1 therapies in esophageal cancer

StudyStudy populationTreatment armsORR (%)Median PFS
(months)		Median OS
(months)

KEYNOTE-181

Kojima T [49]

SCC (63.1%)/AC (36.9%) of esophagus/Siewert 1 GEJ

38.5% Asian, 61% ROW

Pembrolizumab (n = 314)

vs

Chemotherapy (n = 314)

PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10: 21.5% vs. 6.1%

SCC: 16.7% vs. 7.4%

All patients: 13.1% vs. 9.5%

PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10: 2.6 vs. 3 (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54–0.97)

SCC: 2.2 vs. 3.1 (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75–1.13)

All patients: 2.1 vs. 3.4 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31)

PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10: 9.3 vs. 6.7 (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52–0.93; p = 0.0074)

SCC: 8.2 vs. 7.1 (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63–0.96; p = 0.095)

All patients: 7.1 vs. 7.1 (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75–1.05; p = 0.0560)

ATTRACTION-3

Kato K [50]

SCC of esophagus/GEJ

96% Asian patients

Nivolumab (n = 210)

vs

Chemotherapy (n = 209)

ORR: 19% vs. 22%

Median DoR: 6.9 vs. 3.9 months

1.7 vs. 3.4 (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87–1.34)10.9 vs. 8.4 (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62–0.96; p = 0.019)

ESCORT

Huang J [51]

ESCC

100% Chinese patients

Camrelizumab (n = 228)

vs

Chemotherapy (n = 220)

ORR: 20.2% vs. 6.4%

Median DoR: 7.4 vs. 3.4 months (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14–0.92; p = 0.017)

1.9 vs. 1.9 (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56–0.86; p = 0.00063)8.3 vs. 6.2 (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57–0.87; p = 0.0010)

RATIONAL 302

Shen L [52]

ESCC

79% Asian patients, 21% Europe/North American patients

Tislelizumab (n = 256)

vs

Chemotherapy (n = 256)

ORR: 20.3% vs. 9.8%

Median DoR: 7.1 vs. 4 months (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23–0.75)

Not reported

All patients: 8.6 vs. 6.3 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.85; p = 0.0001)

PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10: 10.3 vs. 6.8 (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36–0.79; p = 0.0006)

AC adenocarcinoma, CI confidence interval, CPS combined positive score, DoR duration of response, ESCC esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, GEJ gastroesophageal junction, HR hazard ratio, ORR overall response rate, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival, ROW rest of the world, SCC squamous cell carcinoma

Despite scarce evidence, patients with adenocarcinoma of either the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) are usually managed according to the recommendations for gastric cancer, as described in previous guidelines [53]. For most HER2-negative patients, the RAINBOW study recommended the combination of paclitaxel and ramucirumab [54] (II, A). Trifluridine/tipiracil appears to be a reasonable third-line option, when available, based on the survival benefit shown in the TAGS study [55] (II,A).

In the case of HER2-overexpressing tumors with confirmed persistency of HER2 positivity after progression on a trastuzumab-containing regimen, trastuzumab deruxtecan can be considered the most promising second-line option on the basis of significant improvements in response and survival compared with standard CT, as shown in the DESTINY-Gastric01 and DESTINY-Gastric02 phase II clinical trials. The results of the phase III DESTINY-Gastric04 study are still pending. Finally, pembrolizumab is becoming an increasingly accepted approach for defective mismatch repair (dMMR) tumors and for those with high tumor mutational burden (≥ 10 mutations per megabase) [56] after progression on standard therapies. This recommendation is based on robust, lasting tumor response reported in multicohort, phase II studies. However, pembrolizumab has not yet been approved for this indication in Spain.

MSI seems to be a clear predictive factor of response to immunotherapy in EAC (based on phase II trials and post hoc analysis of the population analyzed in pivotal phase III clinical trials) [57] (III, A).

References

  1. OncologíaMédica Sed (2021) Las cifras del cáncer en España. https://seom.org/images/cifras del Cácner en espanha 20212021.
  2. Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Laversanne M Soerjomataram I Jemal A Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 2021 71 3 209 249 33538338 10.3322/caac.21660 PubMed DOI
  3. Arnold M Ferlay J van Berge Henegouwen MI Soerjomataram I Global burden of oesophageal and gastric cancer by histology and subsite in 2018 Gut 2020 69 9 1564 1571 32606208 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321600 PubMed DOI
  4. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Analysis Working Group: Asan U, Agency BCC, Brigham, Women's H, Broad I, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of oesophageal carcinoma. Nature. 2017;541(7636):169–75. 10.1038/nature20805 PMC5651175 28052061 DOI PubMed
  5. Salem ME Puccini A Xiu J Raghavan D Lenz HJ Korn WM Comparative molecular analyses of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, esophageal adenocarcinoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma Oncologist 2018 23 11 1319 1327 29866946 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0143 PMC6291329 PubMed DOI
  6. Puli SR Reddy JB Bechtold ML Antillon D Ibdah JA Antillon MR Staging accuracy of esophageal cancer by endoscopic ultrasound: a meta-analysis and systematic review WJG 2008 14 10 1479 1490 18330935 10.3748/wjg.14.1479 PMC2693739 PubMed DOI
  7. Chatterton BE Ho Shon I Baldey A Lenzo N Patrikeos A Kelley B Positron emission tomography changes management and prognostic stratification in patients with oesophageal cancer: results of a multicentre prospective study Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009 36 3 354 361 18931839 10.1007/s00259-008-0959-y PubMed DOI
  8. Convie L Thompson RJ Kennedy R Clements WD Carey PD Kennedy JA The current role of staging laparoscopy in oesophagogastric cancer Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2015 97 2 146 150 25723693 10.1308/003588414X14055925061270 PMC4473393 PubMed DOI
  9. Amin MB Greene FL Edge SB Compton CC Gershenwald JE Brookland RK The eighth edition AJCC cancer staging manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging CA Cancer J Clin 2017 67 2 93 99 28094848 10.3322/caac.21388 PubMed DOI
  10. Holscher AH Bollschweiler E Schroder W Metzger R Gutschow C Drebber U Prognostic impact of upper, middle, and lower third mucosal or submucosal infiltration in early esophageal cancer Ann Surg 2011 254 5 802 807 22042472 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182369128 PubMed DOI
  11. Monig S Chevallay M Niclauss N Zilli T Fang W Bansal A Early esophageal cancer: the significance of surgery, endoscopy, and chemoradiation Ann N Y Acad Sci 2018 1434 1 115 123 30138532 10.1111/nyas.13955 PubMed DOI
  12. Hulscher JB van Sandick JW de Boer AG Wijnhoven BP Tijssen JG Fockens P Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus N Engl J Med 2002 347 21 1662 1669 12444180 10.1056/NEJMoa022343 PubMed DOI
  13. Mariette C Dahan L Mornex F Maillard E Thomas PA Meunier B 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 2014 32 23 2416 2422 24982463 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.6532 PubMed DOI
  14. Hoeben A Polak J Van De Voorde L Hoebers F Grabsch HI de Vos-Geelen J Cervical esophageal cancer: a gap in cancer knowledge Ann Oncol 2016 27 9 1664 1674 27117535 10.1093/annonc/mdw183 PubMed DOI
  15. Schieman C Wigle DA Deschamps C Nichols FC 3rd Cassivi SD Shen KR Salvage resections for recurrent or persistent cancer of the proximal esophagus after chemoradiotherapy Ann Thorac Surg 2013 95 2 459 463 23245442 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.10.028 PubMed DOI
  16. Ando N Kato H Igaki H Shinoda M Ozawa S Shimizu H A randomized trial comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus preoperative chemotherapy for localized advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG9907) Ann Surg Oncol 2012 19 1 68 74 21879261 10.1245/s10434-011-2049-9 PubMed DOI
  17. Medical Research Council Oesophageal Cancer Working G Surgical resection with or without preoperative chemotherapy in oesophageal cancer: a randomised controlled trial Lancet 2002 359 919 1727 1733 12049861 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08651-8 PubMed DOI
  18. Burmeister BH Thomas JM Burmeister EA Walpole ET Harvey JA Thomson DB Is concurrent radiation therapy required in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus? A randomised phase II trial Eur J Cancer 2011 47 3 354 360 21084184 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.009 PubMed DOI
  19. Sjoquist KM Burmeister BH Smithers BM Zalcberg JR Simes RJ Barbour A Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis Lancet Oncol 2011 12 7 681 692 21684205 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70142-5 PubMed DOI
  20. Ronellenfitsch U Schwarzbach M Hofheinz R Kienle P Kieser M Slanger TE Preoperative chemo(radio)therapy versus primary surgery for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: systematic review with meta-analysis combining individual patient and aggregate data Eur J Cancer 2013 49 15 3149 3158 23800671 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.05.029 PubMed DOI
  21. Eyck BM van Lanschot JJB Hulshof M van der Wilk BJ Shapiro J van Hagen P Ten-year outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer: the randomized controlled CROSS trial J Clin Oncol 2021 39 18 1995 2004 33891478 10.1200/JCO.20.03614 PubMed DOI
  22. Yang H Liu H Chen Y Zhu C Fang W Yu Z Long-term efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the NEOCRTEC5010 randomized clinical trial JAMA Surg 2021 156 8 721 729 34160577 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.2373 PMC8223138 PubMed DOI
  23. Pasquali S Yim G Vohra RS Mocellin S Nyanhongo D Marriott P Survival after neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments compared to surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma: a network meta-analysis Ann Surg 2017 265 3 481 491 27429017 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001905 PubMed DOI
  24. Klevebro F Alexandersson von Dobeln G Wang N Johnsen G Jacobsen AB Friesland S A randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction Ann Oncol 2016 27 4 660 667 26782957 10.1093/annonc/mdw010 PubMed DOI
  25. Stahl M Stuschke M Lehmann N Meyer HJ Walz MK Seeber S Chemoradiation with and without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus J Clin Oncol 2005 23 10 2310 2317 15800321 10.1200/JCO.2005.00.034 PubMed DOI
  26. Cunningham D Allum WH Stenning SP Thompson JN Van de Velde CJ Nicolson M Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer N Engl J Med 2006 355 1 11 20 16822992 10.1056/NEJMoa055531 PubMed DOI
  27. Ychou M Boige V Pignon JP Conroy T Bouche O Lebreton G Perioperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: an FNCLCC and FFCD multicenter phase III trial J Clin Oncol 2011 29 13 1715 1721 21444866 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.0597 PubMed DOI
  28. Al-Batran SE Homann N Pauligk C Goetze TO Meiler J Kasper S Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial Lancet 2019 393 10184 1948 1957 30982686 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1 PubMed DOI
  29. Reynolds J, Preston SR; o´Neill b, et al, editor Neoa AEGIS ( Neoadjuvant trial in Adenocarcinoma of teh Esophagus ans Esophago-Gastric Junction Interantional Study) : Preliminary results of phase III RCT of CROSS versus perioperative chemotherapy( modified MAGIC or FLOT protocol). JCO; 2019.
  30. Zhao Y Dai Z Min W Sui X Kang H Zhang Y Perioperative versus preoperative chemotherapy with surgery in patients with resectable squamous cell carcinoma of esophagus: a phase III randomized trial J Thorac Oncol 2015 10 9 1349 1356 26287319 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000612 PubMed DOI
  31. Kelly RJ Ajani JA Kuzdzal J Zander T Van Cutsem E Piessen G Adjuvant nivolumab in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer N Engl J Med 2021 384 13 1191 1203 33789008 10.1056/NEJMoa2032125 PubMed DOI
  32. Ando N Iizuka T Ide H Ishida K Shinoda M Nishimaki T Surgery plus chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for localized squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus: a Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study–JCOG9204 J Clin Oncol 2003 21 24 4592 4596 14673047 10.1200/JCO.2003.12.095 PubMed DOI
  33. Cooper JS Guo MD Herskovic A Macdonald JS Martenson JA Jr Al-Sarraf M Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial (RTOG 85–01) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group JAMA 1999 281 17 1623 1627 10235156 10.1001/jama.281.17.1623 PubMed DOI
  34. Conroy T Galais MP Raoul JL Bouche O Gourgou-Bourgade S Douillard JY Definitive chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX versus fluorouracil and cisplatin in patients with oesophageal cancer (PRODIGE5/ACCORD17): final results of a randomised, phase 2/3 trial Lancet Oncol 2014 15 3 305 314 24556041 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70028-2 PubMed DOI
  35. Minsky BD Pajak TF Ginsberg RJ Pisansky TM Martenson J Komaki R 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 2002 20 5 1167 1174 11870157 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.5.1167 PubMed DOI
  36. Hulshof M Geijsen ED Rozema T Oppedijk V Buijsen J Neelis KJ Randomized Study on Dose Escalation in Definitive Chemoradiation for Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer (ARTDECO Study) J Clin Oncol 2021 39 25 2816 2824 34101496 10.1200/JCO.20.03697 PubMed DOI
  37. Vellayappan BA, Soon YY, Ku GY, Leong CN, Lu JJ, Tey JC. Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8:CD010511. 10.1002/14651858.CD010511.pub2 PMC6483706 28829911 DOI PubMed
  38. Markar S Gronnier C Duhamel A Pasquer A Thereaux J du Rieu MC Salvage Surgery After Chemoradiotherapy in the Management of Esophageal Cancer: Is It a Viable Therapeutic Option? J Clin Oncol 2015 33 33 3866 3873 26195702 10.1200/JCO.2014.59.9092 PubMed DOI
  39. Network CGAR Integrated genomic characterization of oesophageal carcinoma Nature 2017 541 7636 169 28052061 10.1038/nature20805 PMC5651175 PubMed DOI
  40. Cunningham D Starling N Rao S Iveson T Nicolson M Coxon F Capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced esophagogastric cancer N Engl J Med 2008 358 1 36 46 18172173 10.1056/NEJMoa073149 PubMed DOI
  41. Sun JMSL Manish AS Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced oesophageal cancer (KEYNOTE-590): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study The Lancet 2021 398 10302 759 771 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01234-4 34454674 DOI PubMed
  42. Doki Y, Ajani JA, Kato K, Xu J, Wyrwicz L, Motoyama S et al. Nivolumab Combination Therapy in Advanced Esophageal Squamous-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2022 Feb 3;386(5):449-462. 10.1056/NEJMoa2111380. 10.1056/NEJMoa2111380 35108470 DOI PubMed
  43. Xu R-h, Luo H, Lu J, Bai Y, Mao T, Wang J, et al. ESCORT-1st: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with untreated advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Wolters Kluwer Health; 2021.
  44. Janjigian YY, Shitara K, Moehler M, Garrido M, Salman P, Shen L, et al. First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (CheckMate 649): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2021. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00797-2 PMC8436782 34102137 DOI PubMed
  45. Kang YK Kang WK Shin DB Chen J Xiong J Wang J Capecitabine/cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer: a randomised phase III noninferiority trial Ann Oncol 2009 20 4 666 673 19153121 10.1093/annonc/mdn717 PubMed DOI
  46. Al-Batran S-E Hartmann JT Probst S Schmalenberg H Hollerbach S Hofheinz R Phase III trial in metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma with fluorouracil, leucovorin plus either oxaliplatin or cisplatin: a study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie J Clin Oncol 2008 26 9 1435 1442 18349393 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.9378 PubMed DOI
  47. Bang YJ Van Cutsem E Feyereislova A Chung HC Shen L Sawaki A Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial Lancet 2010 376 9742 687 697 20728210 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61121-X PubMed DOI
  48. Yamamoto S Kawakami H Kii T Hara H Kawabata R Kawada J Randomized phase II study of docetaxel versus paclitaxel in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma refractory to fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy: OGSG1201 Eur J Cancer 2021 154 307 315 34311300 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.035 PubMed DOI
  49. Kojima T Shah MA Muro K Francois E Adenis A Hsu CH Randomized Phase III KEYNOTE-181 Study of Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer J Clin Oncol 2020 38 35 4138 4148 33026938 10.1200/JCO.20.01888 PubMed DOI
  50. Kato K Cho BC Takahashi M Okada M Lin CY Chin K Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma refractory or intolerant to previous chemotherapy (ATTRACTION-3): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2019 20 11 1506 1517 31582355 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30626-6 PubMed DOI
  51. Huang J Xu J Chen Y Zhuang W Zhang Y Chen Z Camrelizumab versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCORT): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study Lancet Oncol 2020 21 6 832 842 32416073 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30110-8 PubMed DOI
  52. Shen L KK, Kim SB, Ajania JA, Zhao K. . RATIONALE 302: Randomized, phase 3 study of tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced unresectable/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39 15 suppl : abstr 4012.
  53. Martin-Richard M Carmona-Bayonas A Custodio AB Gallego J Jimenez-Fonseca P Reina JJ SEOM clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJA) (2019) Clin Transl Oncol 2020 22 2 236 244 31989475 10.1007/s12094-019-02259-9 PubMed DOI
  54. Wilke H Muro K Van Cutsem E Oh SC Bodoky G Shimada Y Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 2014 15 11 1224 1235 25240821 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70420-6 PubMed DOI
  55. Shitara K, Doi T, Dvorkin M, Mansoor W, Arkenau HT, Prokharau A, et al. Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(11):1437–48. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30739-3 30355453 DOI PubMed
  56. Marabelle A Fakih M Lopez J Shah M Shapira-Frommer R Nakagawa K Association of tumour mutational burden with outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with pembrolizumab: prospective biomarker analysis of the multicohort, open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study Lancet Oncol 2020 21 10 1353 1365 32919526 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30445-9 PubMed DOI
  57. Chao J Fuchs CS Shitara K Tabernero J Muro K Van Cutsem E Assessment of Pembrolizumab therapy for the treatment of microsatellite instability-high gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer among patients in the KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 Clinical Trials JAMA Oncol 2021 7 6 895 902 33792646 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0275 PMC8017478 PubMed DOI

Conditions covered

Esophageal cancerSquamous cell carcinoma of esophagusEsophageal adenocarcinoma

Other guidelines on this topic

Reproduced for free educational use under the licence shown above. WhiteCoat Pro is not affiliated with or endorsed by the authors, the publisher or the issuing organisation. Always check the original document for the current version.