Abstract
Background
There are few data evaluating the extent of downstaging in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and the difference in outcomes for a similar pathological stage in neoadjuvant-naive patients. The aim of this study was to characterize the prognostic value of downstaging extent in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy for oesophageal cancer.
Methods
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients receiving either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy between 2004 and 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database. The extent of downstaging was defined as the extent of migration between groups (for example stage IVa to IIIb = one stage). Cox multivariable regression was used to produce adjusted models for downstaging extent.
Results
Of 13 594 patients, 11 355 with oesophageal adenocarcinoma and 2239 with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma were included. In oesophageal adenocarcinoma, patients with downstaged disease by three or more stages (hazards ratio (HR) 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.44, P < 0.001), two stages (HR 0.43, 95 per cent c.i. 0.39 to 0.48, P < 0.001), or one stage (HR 0.57, 95 per cent c.i. 0.52 to 0.62, P < 0.001) had significantly longer survival than those with upstaged disease in adjusted analyses. In oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, patients with downstaged disease by three or more stages had significantly longer survival than those with less downstaged disease, no change, or upstaged disease. Patients with downstaged disease by three or more stages (HR 0.55, 95 per cent c.i. 0.43 to 0.71, P < 0.001), two stages (HR 0.58, 95 per cent c.i. 0.46 to 0.73, P < 0.001), or one stage (HR 0.69, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 0.86, P = 0.001) had significantly longer survival than those with upstaged disease in adjusted analyses.
Conclusion
The extent of downstaging is an important prognosticator, whereas the optimal neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial. Identifying biomarkers associated with response to neoadjuvant regimens may permit individualized treatment.
Extent of downstaging is an important prognosticator. The optimal neoadjuvant therapy remains controversial. Identifying biomarkers associated with response to neoadjuvant regimens may permit individualized treatment.
Introduction
Multimodality treatment with neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) followed by resection remains the best curative option for patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer1,2. Currently, clinicians are guided in their decision-making and the treatment offered by the clinical stage of disease. However, increasing evidence has suggested that pathological stage is a better guide to prognosis than the information obtained by pretreatment staging modalities. This has also been shown to be true in patients receiving NAT (that is neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT))1,3.
nCRT has been shown to have a relatively high rate of pathological complete regression in patients and, equally, the FLOT4 study showed pathological complete regression in 17.0 per cent of patients, although this included gastric adenocarcinoma1,4. It remains unclear how important this factor is in the final prognosis and indeed the impact of degree of downstaging on survival. More recently there has been some suggestion that tumour regression in lymph nodes is an important prognosticator5. Whilst clinical staging is necessary for initial treatment planning, pathological stage and the impact of any NAT could potentially influence the use of adjuvant modalities. It may also impact on patient decision-making through improved prognostication.
The aim of this study was to determine the impact of downstaging on overall survival in a large, unselected cohort of patients. In addition, stratified analyses by tumour histology (that is oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC)) and type of NAT (that is nCT and nCRT) were performed to evaluate extent of downstaging in these subgroups on long-term survival.
Methods
Data source
The National Cancer Database (NCDB) is a joint project of the Commission on Cancer (CoC) of the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society6,7. Data from over 1500 CoC-accredited hospitals are gathered by clinicians (that is surgeons and oncologists) involved in patient care, which captures up to more than 70 per cent8 of all newly diagnosed cancers across the USA. Details on demographics, facility type and location, clinicopathological characteristics, treatment, and outcomes are available.
Study population
NCDB was used to identify all patients older than 18 years diagnosed with non-metastatic OAC and OSCC undergoing oesophagectomy with curative intent between 2004 and 2016. The International Classification of Disease for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3) was used to select adenocarcinoma and to exclude other histologies (ICD-O-3 morphology codes 8240–8248). Patients with concomitant cancer diagnoses and those with missing data on receipt of perioperative chemotherapy were excluded.
The following patient-level characteristics were analysed: age (36–50, 51–65, 66–80, older than 80 years), race (white, black, other), Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI), year of diagnosis, insurance status (Medicaid/Medicare, private insurance, uninsured), zip code-level education status (less than 7.0, 7.0–12.9, 13.0–20.9, greater than or equal to 21.0 per cent (see below)), nodal status (N0, N1, N2), tumour grade/differentiation (well, moderate, poor, anaplastic), margin status (negative, positive), and lymphovascular invasion (absent, present). Education level was determined by matching each patient’s zip code at the time of diagnosis with data derived from the 2012 American Community Survey on the percentage of people aged 25 years and older who had not graduated high school (earned a high school diploma). Education categories were based on equally proportioned quartiles, defined as: 21 per cent or more had not graduated high school (lowest education level); 13–20.9 per cent had not graduated high school; 7–12.9 per cent had not graduated high school; and less than 7 per cent had not graduated high school (highest education level). The Eighth Edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system was used for both T and N classifications. Margin status was defined according to the guidelines of the College of American Pathologists9.
Definition of downstaging
Patients were regarded as having been downstaged if the stage derived from analysis of the pathology specimen was earlier than the clinical stage. Stage movement was regarded as having occurred between any group (for example stage IVa to IIIb = one stage, and stage IVa to IIIa = two stages), as previously described3.
Comparison with straight-to-surgery patients
In addition to investigating the impact of downstaging, a comparison on outcomes was carried out among patients who underwent surgery, but did not receive nCRT. This included a cohort of patients who were pT2 N0, as NAT is not routinely offered to these patients. Similar comparisons were made among patients who did not receive NAT and had a more advanced pathological stage (pT3 N0 versus ypT3 N0; pT3 N1 versus ypT3 N1; pT3/4 N2/3 versus ypT3/4 N2/3).
Statistical analysis
Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test. Non-normally distributed data were analysed using the Mann–Whitney U test. Comparisons were made for the main explanatory variable, namely the extent of downstaging (that is upstaged, no change, or downstaged by one stage, two stages, or three or more stages). Survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and compared using the log rank test. Multivariable analyses used Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for clinically relevant variables to produce adjusted HR and 95 per cent confidence intervals. P < 0.050 was considered to be statistically significant. Data analysis was performed using R Foundation Statistical Software (R 3.2.2) with the TableOne, ggplot2, Hmisc, Matchit, and survival packages (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) as previously described10,11. This study was exempt from Institutional Review Board approval.
Results
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma
Patient characteristics
This study included 11 355 patients with OAC who underwent oesophagectomy after NAT, of which 18 per cent (1982 patients) were downstaged by three or more stages, followed by 19 per cent (2133 patients) who were downstaged by two stages, and 30 per cent (3383 patients) who were downstaged by one stage. The baseline characteristics of patients by extent of downstaging are presented in Table 1. Rates of downstaging by three or more stages were significantly higher in the more recent time intervals and in patients receiving nCRT. Further, there were significantly higher rates of margin-negative resections (three or more stages versus two stages versus one stage versus upstaged versus no change—99 versus 98 versus 95 versus 91 versus 84 per cent respectively, P < 0.001) and lower rates of lymphovascular invasion (three or more stages versus two stages versus one stage versus no change versus upstaged—1 versus 4 versus 10 versus 20 versus 25 per cent respectively, P < 0.001) with greater levels of downstaging.
Table 1.
Baseline hospital-, patient-, and pathology-level characteristics in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma by extent of downstaging
| Upstaged | No change | Downstaged by one stage | Downstaged by two stages | Downstaged by three or more stages | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facility type | Community | 296 (38.7) | 1052 (34.0) | 1041 (30.8) | 653 (30.6) | 631 (31.8) | <0.001 |
| Integrated | 111 (14.5) | 442 (14.3) | 462 (13.7) | 311 (14.6) | 270 (13.6) | ||
| Academic | 357 (46.7) | 1599 (51.7) | 1880 (55.6) | 1169 (54.8) | 1081 (54.5) | ||
| Facility location | North-east | 169 (22.1) | 780 (25.2) | 858 (25.4) | 550 (25.8) | 476 (24.0) | 0.091 |
| Midwest | 242 (31.7) | 943 (30.5) | 1057 (31.2) | 679 (31.8) | 684 (34.5) | ||
| South | 242 (31.7) | 912 (29.5) | 996 (29.4) | 638 (29.9) | 561 (28.3) | ||
| West | 111 (14.5) | 458 (14.8) | 472 (14.0) | 266 (12.5) | 261 (13.2) | ||
| Hospital distance (miles) | <12.5 | 345 (45.2) | 1357 (43.9) | 1457 (43.1) | 939 (44.0) | 880 (44.4) | 0.958 |
| 12.5–49.9 | 252 (33.0) | 1065 (34.4) | 1155 (34.1) | 730 (34.2) | 673 (34.0) | ||
| ≥50 | 167 (21.9) | 671 (21.7) | 771 (22.8) | 464 (21.8) | 429 (21.6) | ||
| Year of diagnosis | 2004–2005 | 50 (6.5) | 210 (6.8) | 180 (5.3) | 94 (4.4) | 50 (2.5) | <0.001 |
| 2006–2007 | 55 (7.2) | 255 (8.2) | 230 (6.8) | 111 (5.2) | 89 (4.5) | ||
| 2008–2009 | 94 (12.3) | 368 (11.9) | 303 (9.0) | 167 (7.8) | 134 (6.8) | ||
| 2010–2011 | 138 (18.1) | 532 (17.2) | 613 (18.1) | 337 (15.8) | 329 (16.6) | ||
| 2012–2013 | 169 (22.1) | 661 (21.4) | 714 (21.1) | 494 (23.2) | 461 (23.3) | ||
| 2014–2015 | 90 (11.8) | 355 (11.5) | 443 (13.1) | 293 (13.7) | 288 (14.5) | ||
| 2016–2017 | 168 (22.0) | 712 (23.0) | 900 (26.6) | 637 (29.9) | 631 (31.8) | ||
| Age at diagnosis (years) | 18–35 | 11 (1.4) | 27 (0.9) | 20 (0.6) | 12 (0.6) | 16 (0.8) | 0.024 |
| 36–50 | 88 (11.6) | 308 (10.0) | 304 (9.0) | 200 (9.4) | 188 (9.5) | ||
| 51–65 | 386 (50.7) | 1600 (51.8) | 1719 (50.9) | 1043 (48.9) | 980 (49.5) | ||
| 66–80 | 267 (35.1) | 1110 (35.9) | 1290 (38.2) | 859 (40.3) | 765 (38.6) | ||
| >80 | 9 (1.2) | 43 (1.4) | 45 (1.3) | 17 (0.8) | 31 (1.6) | ||
| Sex | Male | 687 (89.9) | 2739 (88.6) | 3010 (89.0) | 1870 (87.7) | 1738 (87.7) | 0.292 |
| Female | 77 (10.1) | 354 (11.4) | 373 (11.0) | 263 (12.3) | 244 (12.3) | ||
| Race | White | 738 (96.6) | 2961 (95.7) | 3270 (96.7) | 2075 (97.3) | 1919 (96.8) | 0.037 |
| Other | 26 (3.4) | 132 (4.3) | 113 (3.3) | 58 (2.7) | 63 (3.2) | ||
| CCI | 0 | 542 (70.9) | 2243 (72.5) | 2443 (72.2) | 1524 (71.4) | 1411 (71.2) | 0.669 |
| 1–2 | 210 (27.5) | 798 (25.8) | 879 (26.0) | 562 (26.3) | 542 (27.3) | ||
| >2 | 12 (1.6) | 52 (1.7) | 61 (1.8) | 47 (2.2) | 29 (1.5) | ||
| Insurance status | Medicare | 296 (39.2) | 1244 (40.9) | 1403 (42.2) | 924 (44.2) | 839 (43.0) | 0.138 |
| Medicaid | 35 (4.6) | 141 (4.6) | 171 (5.1) | 88 (4.2) | 81 (4.1) | ||
| Private insurance | 401 (53.0) | 1545 (50.8) | 1627 (48.9) | 1014 (48.5) | 978 (50.1) | ||
| Not insured/other | 24 (3.2) | 110 (3.6) | 127 (3.8) | 65 (3.1) | 54 (2.8) | ||
| Education level (%) | ≥21 | 104 (13.6) | 575 (18.6) | 632 (18.7) | 464 (21.8) | 419 (21.1) | <0.001 |
| 13–20.9 | 210 (27.5) | 717 (23.2) | 766 (22.6) | 477 (22.4) | 391 (19.7) | ||
| 7–12.9 | 260 (34.0) | 1054 (34.1) | 1133 (33.5) | 697 (32.7) | 683 (34.5) | ||
| <7 | 190 (24.9) | 747 (24.2) | 852 (25.2) | 495 (23.2) | 489 (24.7) | ||
| Medical income (€) | ≤€47 999 | 258 (33.8) | 1061 (34.3) | 1123 (33.2) | 728 (34.1) | 667 (33.7) | 0.002 |
| €48 000−62 999 | 239 (31.3) | 854 (27.6) | 885 (26.2) | 511 (24.0) | 507 (25.6) | ||
| ≥€63 000 | 267 (34.9) | 1178 (38.1) | 1375 (40.6) | 894 (41.9) | 808 (40.8) | ||
| Residence | Metro | 591 (77.4) | 2347 (75.9) | 2579 (76.2) | 1638 (76.8) | 1520 (76.7) | 0.044 |
| Urban | 141 (18.5) | 557 (18.0) | 559 (16.5) | 342 (16.0) | 330 (16.6) | ||
| Rural | 32 (4.2) | 189 (6.1) | 245 (7.2) | 153 (7.2) | 132 (6.7) | ||
| Neoadjuvant therapy | nCT | 76 (9.9) | 245 (7.9) | 217 (6.4) | 122 (5.7) | 70 (3.5) | <0.001 |
| nCRT | 688 (90.1) | 2848 (92.1) | 3166 (93.6) | 2011 (94.3) | 1912 (96.5) | ||
| Tumour grade | Well | 18 (2.4) | 113 (3.7) | 116 (3.4) | 141 (6.6) | 74 (3.7) | <0.001 |
| Moderate | 275 (36.0) | 1070 (34.6) | 1117 (33.0) | 1060 (49.7) | 710 (35.8) | ||
| Poor | 361 (47.3) | 1497 (48.4) | 1627 (48.1) | 658 (30.8) | 799 (40.3) | ||
| Anaplastic | 110 (14.4) | 413 (13.4) | 523 (15.5) | 274 (12.8) | 399 (20.1) | ||
| AJCC clinical overall stage | I | 144 (18.8) | 227 (7.3) | 76 (2.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | <0.001 |
| IIA | 40 (5.2) | 61 (2.0) | 67 (2.0) | 50 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| IIB | 187 (24.5) | 288 (9.3) | 384 (11.4) | 259 (12.1) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| III | 393 (51.4) | 2348 (75.9) | 2419 (71.5) | 1485 (69.6) | 1497 (75.5) | ||
| IVA | 0 (0.0) | 169 (5.5) | 437 (12.9) | 339 (15.9) | 485 (24.5) | ||
| Regional nodes examined (n) | <15 | 389 (50.9) | 1676 (54.2) | 1881 (55.6) | 1223 (57.3) | 1182 (59.6) | <0.001 |
| ≥15 | 375 (49.1) | 1417 (45.8) | 1502 (44.4) | 910 (42.7) | 800 (40.4) | ||
| Margin status | Positive | 126 (16.5) | 271 (8.8) | 165 (4.9) | 49 (2.3) | 13 (0.7) | <0.001 |
| Negative | 638 (83.5) | 2822 (91.2) | 3218 (95.1) | 2084 (97.7) | 1969 (99.3) | ||
| Lymphovascular invasion | Absent | 233 (30.5) | 1053 (34.0) | 1590 (47.0) | 1176 (55.1) | 829 (41.8) | <0.001 |
| Present | 191 (25.0) | 631 (20.4) | 350 (10.3) | 93 (4.4) | 23 (1.2) | ||
| Unknown | 340 (44.5) | 1409 (45.6) | 1443 (42.7) | 864 (40.5) | 1130 (57.0) | ||
| Length of stay, days | Median (i.q.r.) | 9.0 (7.0–10.0) | 9.0 (8.0–11.0) | 9.0 (7.0–10.0) | 9.0 (7.0–11.0) | 9.0 (7.0–11.0) | 0.119 |
Values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated. CCI, Charlson co-morbidity index; nCT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; nCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; AJCC, American Joint Commission on Cancer; i.q.r., interquartile range.
Overall survival
Patients who had downstaged disease by three or more stages had significantly longer survival than those with downstaged disease by two stages or one stage and no change or upstaged disease (median of 77.0 versus 67.6 versus 41.3 versus 28.4 versus 21.4 months respectively, P < 0.001) (Fig. 1a). In adjusted analysis, patients with downstaged disease by three or more stages (HR 0.40, 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.44, P < 0.001), two stages (HR 0.43, 95 per cent c.i. 0.39 to 0.48, P < 0.001), or one stage (HR 0.57, 95 per cent c.i. 0.52 to 0.62, P < 0.001) had significantly longer survival than those with upstaged disease (Table 2). Other independent adverse prognostic factors were receipt of nCT, the presence of poor tumour grade, 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, and absent lymphovascular invasion (Table S1). Sensitivity analyses were performed for both nCRT and nCT, which demonstrated consistent results (Table S2). Sensitivity analyses were performed by receipt of adjuvant therapy, which demonstrated consistent results (Table S3).
Fig. 1.
Overall survival of patients with oesophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy
a Oesophageal adenocarcinoma. b Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Table 2.
Adjusted multivariable Cox regression on overall survival in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma by degree of downstaging
| Patients | Median (95% c.i.) overall survival (months) | HR (95% c.i.) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oesophageal adenocarcinoma | ||||
| Upstaged | 764 (6.7) | 21.4 (19.9,23.8) | Reference | |
| No change | 3093 (27.2) | 28.4 (27.0,29.9) | 0.76 (0.70,0.84) | <0.001 |
| Downstaged by one stage | 3383 (29.8) | 41.3 (38.2,43.9) | 0.57 (0.52,0.62) | <0.001 |
| Downstaged by two stages | 2133 (18.8) | 67.6 (62.6,75.4) | 0.43 (0.39,0.48) | <0.001 |
| Downstaged by three or more stages | 1982 (17.5) | 77.0 (65.0,89.5) | 0.40 (0.36,0.44) | <0.001 |
| Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma | ||||
| Upstaged | 177 (7.9) | 25.8 (21.3,30.9) | Reference | |
| No change | 573 (25.6) | 33.3 (29.1,40.6) | 0.86 (0.69,1.06) | 0.100 |
| Downstaged by one stage | 533 (23.8) | 43.6 (38.2,60.0) | 0.69 (0.55,0.86) | 0.001 |
| Downstaged by two stages | 526 (23.5) | 72.6 (62.6,97.4) | 0.58 (0.46,0.73) | <0.001 |
| Downstaged by three or more stages | 430 (19.2) | 78.8 (69.4,114.1) | 0.55 (0.43,0.71) | <0.001 |
Values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated.
Sensitivity analysis by downstaging of T3/4 N+
Sensitivity analyses of patients initially clinically staged as T3/4 N+ (cT3/4 N+) who received NAT and were downstaged to ypT0 N0 (Fig. 2a), ypT1/2 N0 (Fig. 2b), ypT1/2 N+ (Fig. 2c), or ypT3/4 N0 (Fig. 2d) were performed. In each survival graph, the two control curves represent stage-matched patients who were not administered nCT (pTNM) and patients who were not downstaged by chemotherapy (that is non-responders who were still ypT3/4 N+ after surgical resection). In all of these survival analyses, a significant survival benefit was seen in NAT responders versus non-responders, whereas no difference was observed between responders and stage-matched neoadjuvant-naive controls (Table 3).
Fig. 2.
Comparison of patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma receiving neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy, downstaged from cT3/4 N+
a ypT0 N0/pT0 N0. b ypT1/2 N0/pT1/2 N0. c ypT1/2 N+/pT1/2 N+. d ypT3/4 N0/pT3/4 N0. Control groups are represented by cT3/4 N+ to ypT3/4 N+ (not downstaged) and stage-matched controls.
Table 3.
Overall survival in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma downstaged from cT3/4 N+ disease with comparison of patients undergoing oesophagectomy only
| Oesophageal adenocarcinoma | Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | Median (95% c.i.) overall survival (months) | Patients | Median (95% c.i.) overall survival (months) | |
| Control | ||||
| ypT3/4 N+ | 2675 | 23.1 (22.2,24.3) | 216 | 20.6 (18.3,26.8) |
| Group 1 | ||||
| pT0 N0 | 311 | 141.8 (125.8,NR) | 71 | 133.3 (79.6,NR) |
| ypT0 N0 | 2265 | 83.7 (73.0,94.7) | 494 | 81.4 (69.7,120.1) |
| Group 2 | ||||
| pT1/2 N0 | 2974 | 153.6 (139.2,NR) | 356 | 96.7 (82.9,124.5) |
| ypT1/2 N0 | 3220 | 65.4 (60.2,69.2) | 286 | 73.0 (53.6,112.7) |
| Group 3 | ||||
| pT1/2 N+ | 613 | 42.6 (37.4,50.5) | 56 | 88.1 (43.3,NR) |
| ypT1/2 N+ (downstaged) | 521 | 36.0 (30.9,39.8) | 32 | 25.1 (17.0,40.3) |
| ypT1/2 N+ (no downstaging) | 887 | 32.7 (29.5,35.0) | 84 | 25.8 (21.6,33.2) |
| Group 4 | ||||
| pT3/4 N0 | 343 | 38.6 (31.9,44.1) | 71 | 18.7 (13.9,53.4) |
| ypT3/4 N0 (downstaged) | 1627 | 38.3 (35.2,42.7) | 202 | 35.1 (26.7,57.9) |
| ypT3/4 N0 (no downstaging) | 216 | 31.4 (26.1,39.9) | 17 | 18.4 (11.6,NR) |
Values are n unless otherwise indicated. NR, not reached.
Sensitivity analysis by margin-negative resections
Sensitivity analyses in patients with margin-negative resections (10 731 patients) demonstrated patients who had downstaged disease by three or more stages had significantly longer survival than those with downstaged disease by two stages or one stage and no change or upstaged disease (median of 77.0 versus 67.9 versus 42.5 versus 29.6 versus 23.4 months respectively, P < 0.001), consistent on adjusted analysis (Table S4). Similar results were seen in patients receiving nCRT and nCT (Table S4).
Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma
Patient characteristics
This study included 2239 patients with OSCC who underwent oesophagectomy after NAT, of which 19 per cent (430 patients) were downstaged by three or more stages, followed by 24 per cent (526 patients) who were downstaged by two stages and 24 per cent (533 patients) who were downstaged by one stage. The baseline characteristics of patients by extent of downstaging are presented in Table 4. Rates of downstaging of three or more stages were significantly higher in patients with poor/anaplastic disease and in patients receiving nCRT. Further, patients with downstaging of three or more stages had significantly higher rates of margin-negative resections (99 versus 98 versus 94 versus 91 versus 86 per cent respectively, P < 0.001) and presence of lymphovascular invasion (0 versus 2 versus 5 versus 11 versus 16 per cent respectively, P < 0.001) compared with patients with downstaging by two stages or one stage and no change or upstaged disease.
Table 4.
Baseline clinicopathological characteristics in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma by extent of downstaging
| Upstaged | No change | Downstaged by one stage | Downstaged by two stages | Downstaged by three or more stages | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facility type | Community | 69 (39.0) | 167 (29.1) | 165 (31.0) | 159 (30.2) | 121 (28.1) | 0.200 |
| Integrated | 18 (10.2) | 71 (12.4) | 83 (15.6) | 70 (13.3) | 55 (12.8) | ||
| Academic | 90 (50.8) | 335 (58.5) | 285 (53.5) | 297 (56.5) | 254 (59.1) | ||
| Facility location | North-east | 48 (27.1) | 148 (25.8) | 145 (27.2) | 119 (22.6) | 115 (26.7) | 0.100 |
| Midwest | 53 (29.9) | 143 (25.0) | 142 (26.6) | 145 (27.6) | 135 (31.4) | ||
| South | 51 (28.8) | 187 (32.6) | 181 (34.0) | 185 (35.2) | 139 (32.3) | ||
| West | 25 (14.1) | 95 (16.6) | 65 (12.2) | 77 (14.6) | 41 (9.5) | ||
| Hospital distance (miles) | <12.5 | 104 (58.8) | 294 (51.3) | 272 (51.0) | 279 (53.0) | 205 (47.7) | 0.100 |
| 12.5–49.9 | 51 (28.8) | 163 (28.4) | 162 (30.4) | 142 (27.0) | 149 (34.7) | ||
| ≥50 | 22 (12.4) | 116 (20.2) | 99 (18.6) | 105 (20.0) | 76 (17.7) | ||
| Year of diagnosis | 2004–2005 | 20 (11.3) | 47 (8.2) | 42 (7.9) | 27 (5.1) | 22 (5.1) | <0.001 |
| 2006–2007 | 10 (5.6) | 54 (9.4) | 49 (9.2) | 28 (5.3) | 16 (3.7) | ||
| 2008–2009 | 26 (14.7) | 50 (8.7) | 40 (7.5) | 42 (8.0) | 34 (7.9) | ||
| 2010–2011 | 26 (14.7) | 120 (20.9) | 119 (22.3) | 83 (15.8) | 77 (17.9) | ||
| 2012–2013 | 35 (19.8) | 127 (22.2) | 107 (20.1) | 132 (25.1) | 110 (25.6) | ||
| 2014–2015 | 26 (14.7) | 60 (10.5) | 52 (9.8) | 74 (14.1) | 51 (11.9) | ||
| 2016–2017 | 34 (19.2) | 115 (20.1) | 124 (23.3) | 140 (26.6) | 120 (27.9) | ||
| Age at diagnosis (years) | 18–35 | 1 (0.6) | 5 (0.9) | 7 (1.3) | 3 (0.6) | 0 (0.0) | 0.100 |
| 36–50 | 12 (6.8) | 55 (9.6) | 46 (8.7) | 44 (8.4) | 45 (10.5) | ||
| 51–65 | 108 (61.0) | 272 (47.5) | 282 (53.1) | 277 (52.7) | 235 (54.7) | ||
| 66–80 | 52 (29.4) | 234 (40.8) | 192 (36.2) | 199 (37.8) | 144 (33.5) | ||
| >80 | 4 (2.3) | 7 (1.2) | 4 (0.8) | 3 (0.6) | 6 (1.4) | ||
| Sex | Male | 113 (63.8) | 348 (60.7) | 335 (62.9) | 296 (56.3) | 263 (61.2) | 0.200 |
| Female | 64 (36.2) | 225 (39.3) | 198 (37.1) | 230 (43.7) | 167 (38.8) | ||
| Race | White | 126 (71.2) | 445 (77.7) | 419 (78.6) | 396 (75.3) | 339 (78.8) | 0.200 |
| Other | 51 (28.8) | 128 (22.3) | 114 (21.4) | 130 (24.7) | 91 (21.2) | ||
| CCI | 0 | 142 (80.2) | 457 (79.8) | 414 (77.7) | 403 (76.6) | 326 (75.8) | 0.800 |
| 1–2 | 33 (18.6) | 110 (19.2) | 114 (21.4) | 114 (21.7) | 96 (22.3) | ||
| >2 | 2 (1.1) | 6 (1.0) | 5 (0.9) | 9 (1.7) | 8 (1.9) | ||
| Insurance status | Medicare | 66 (38.6) | 267 (47.1) | 208 (39.6) | 215 (42.1) | 161 (38.1) | 0.100 |
| Medicaid | 18 (10.5) | 47 (8.3) | 50 (9.5) | 63 (12.3) | 40 (9.5) | ||
| Private insurance | 77 (45.0) | 233 (41.1) | 241 (45.9) | 216 (42.3) | 207 (48.9) | ||
| Not insured/other | 10 (5.8) | 20 (3.5) | 26 (5.0) | 17 (3.3) | 15 (3.5) | ||
| Education level (%) | ≥21 | 50 (28.2) | 136 (23.7) | 123 (23.1) | 149 (28.3) | 112 (26.0) | 0.100 |
| 13–20.9 | 35 (19.8) | 124 (21.6) | 141 (26.5) | 105 (20.0) | 82 (19.1) | ||
| 7–12.9 | 48 (27.1) | 168 (29.3) | 161 (30.2) | 168 (31.9) | 143 (33.3) | ||
| <7 | 44 (24.9) | 145 (25.3) | 108 (20.3) | 104 (19.8) | 93 (21.6) | ||
| Medical income (€) | ≤€47 999 | 65 (36.7) | 209 (36.5) | 221 (41.5) | 209 (39.7) | 141 (32.8) | 0.300 |
| €48 000–62 999 | 45 (25.4) | 139 (24.3) | 127 (23.8) | 116 (22.1) | 111 (25.8) | ||
| ≥€63 000 | 67 (37.9) | 225 (39.3) | 185 (34.7) | 201 (38.2) | 178 (41.4) | ||
| Residence | Metro | 146 (82.5) | 470 (82.0) | 421 (79.0) | 414 (78.7) | 349 (81.2) | 0.800 |
| Urban | 22 (12.4) | 68 (11.9) | 77 (14.4) | 81 (15.4) | 55 (12.8) | ||
| Rural | 9 (5.1) | 35 (6.1) | 35 (6.6) | 31 (5.9) | 26 (6.0) | ||
| Neoadjuvant therapy | nCT | 17 (9.6) | 36 (6.3) | 35 (6.6) | 16 (3.0) | 9 (2.1) | <0.001 |
| nCRT | 160 (90.4) | 537 (93.7) | 498 (93.4) | 510 (97.0) | 421 (97.9) | ||
| Tumour grade | Well | 13 (7.3) | 27 (4.7) | 33 (6.2) | 42 (8.0) | 38 (8.8) | <0.001 |
| Moderate | 85 (48.0) | 240 (41.9) | 236 (44.3) | 252 (47.9) | 168 (39.1) | ||
| Poor | 54 (30.5) | 215 (37.5) | 193 (36.2) | 105 (20.0) | 115 (26.7) | ||
| Anaplastic | 25 (14.1) | 91 (15.9) | 71 (13.3) | 127 (24.1) | 109 (25.3) | ||
| AJCC clinical overall stage | I | 45 (25.4) | 56 (9.8) | 56 (10.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | <0.001 |
| II | 120 (67.8) | 280 (48.9) | 145 (27.2) | 350 (66.5) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| III | 12 (6.8) | 233 (40.7) | 295 (55.3) | 137 (26.0) | 367 (85.3) | ||
| IVA | 0 (0.0) | 4 (0.7) | 37 (6.9) | 39 (7.4) | 63 (14.7) | ||
| Regional nodes examined | <15 | 107 (60.5) | 324 (56.5) | 326 (61.2) | 302 (57.4) | 260 (60.5) | 0.500 |
| ≥15 | 70 (39.5) | 249 (43.5) | 207 (38.8) | 224 (42.6) | 170 (39.5) | ||
| Margin status | Positive | 24 (13.6) | 53 (9.2) | 33 (6.2) | 13 (2.5) | 4 (0.9) | <0.001 |
| Negative | 153 (86.4) | 520 (90.8) | 500 (93.8) | 513 (97.5) | 426 (99.1) | ||
| Lymphovascular invasion | Absent | 63 (35.6) | 248 (43.3) | 255 (47.8) | 219 (41.6) | 160 (37.2) | <0.001 |
| Present | 28 (15.8) | 65 (11.3) | 27 (5.1) | 12 (2.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Unknown | 86 (48.6) | 260 (45.4) | 251 (47.1) | 295 (56.1) | 270 (62.8) | ||
| Length of stay | Median (i.q.r.) | 9.0 (13.0) | 10.0 (9.0) | 9.0 (9.0) | 9.0 (7.0) | 9.0 (9.0) | 0.500 |
Values are n (%) unless otherwise indicated. CCI, Charlson co-morbidity index; nCT, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; nCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; AJCC, American Joint Commission on Cancer; i.q.r., interquartile range.
Overall survival
Patients who had downstaged disease by three or more stages had significantly longer survival than those with downstaged disease by two stages or one stage and no change or upstaged disease (median of 78.8 versus 72.6 versus 43.6 versus 33.3 versus 25.8 months respectively, P < 0.001) (Fig. 1b). In adjusted analysis, patients with downstaged disease by three or more stages (HR 0.55, 95 per cent c.i. 0.43 to 0.71, P < 0.001), two stages (HR 0.58, 95 per cent c.i. 0.46 to 0.73, P < 0.001), or one stage (HR 0.69, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 0.86, P = 0.001) had significantly longer survival than those with upstaged disease (Table 2). Other adverse independent prognostic factors were the presence of poor/anaplastic tumour grade, 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, and absent lymphovascular invasion (Table S5). Sensitivity analyses were performed for both nCRT and nCT, which demonstrated consistent results in patients receiving nCRT, but not those receiving nCT (Table S2). Sensitivity analyses were performed by receipt of adjuvant therapy, which demonstrated consistent results (Table S3).
Sensitivity analysis by downstaging of T3/4 N+
Sensitivity analyses of patients initially clinically staged as T3/4 N+ (cT3/4 N+) who received NAT and were downstaged to ypT0 N0 (Fig. 3a), ypT1/2 N0 (Fig. 3b), ypT1/2 N+ (Fig. 3c), or ypT3/4 N0 (Fig. 3d) were performed. In each survival graph, the two control curves represent stage-matched patients who were not administered nCT (pTNM) and patients who were not downstaged by chemotherapy (that is non-responders who were still ypT3/4 N+ after surgical resection). In all of these survival analyses, as seen in patients with OAC, a significant survival benefit was seen in NAT responders versus non-responders, whereas no difference was observed between responders and stage-matched neoadjuvant-naive controls (Table 3).
Fig. 3.
Comparison of patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma receiving neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy, downstaged from cT3/4 N+
a ypT0 N0/pT0 N0. b ypT1/2 N0/pT1/2 N0. c ypT1/2 N+/pT1/2 N+. d ypT3/4 N0/pT3/4 N0. Control groups are represented by cT3/4 N+ to ypT3/4 N+ (not downstaged) and stage-matched controls.
Sensitivity analysis by margin-negative resections
Sensitivity analyses in patients with margin-negative resections (2075 patients) demonstrated patients who had downstaged disease by three or more stages had significantly longer survival than those with downstaged disease by two stages or one stage and no change or upstaged disease (median of 78.8 versus 72.3 versus 47.7 versus 38.3 versus 28.0 months respectively, P < 0.001), consistent on adjusted analysis (Table S6). Similar results were seen in patients receiving nCRT and nCT (Table S6).
Discussion
NAT followed by oesophagectomy remains the optimum curative treatment for patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer12,13. However, this treatment is still associated with recurrence rates of more than 50 per cent14–16. In this setting, the prognostic value of the extent of downstaging has rarely been reported3. This national cohort study including almost 14 000 patients with OAC and OSCC demonstrated that downstaging by three or more stages is independently associated with improved long-term survival, both in patients receiving nCT and nCRT. Notably, even downstaging by one stage is associated with an improvement in survival by 19 and 17 per cent compared with upstaged disease for OAC and OSCC respectively. Further, there appeared to be similar survival in patients who received NAT compared with similarly staged neoadjuvant-naive patients, which was evident for both histological subtypes. These findings are similar to a single-centre study from the UK3. However, the previous study did not demonstrate this significance with OSCC and showed a survival advantage for patients who received NAT compared with unimodality surgery with an equivalent pathological stage, for advanced OAC and OSCC.
The findings from this study raise several important points for consideration. First, the increased downstaging in some patients might reflect a cohort of patients with tumours chemosensitive to specific chemotherapy regimens, and a further cohort of patients in which chemotherapy is ineffective. Second, recent studies have demonstrated a deleterious impact of neoadjuvant oncological therapy on fitness17. The impact of this decline of fitness on survival has not been established. However, whether the ability to predetermine the impact of NAT on disease stage based on specific biological factors of a tumour can help individualize oncological therapy is still a matter of debate. This may spare a subgroup of patients from the adverse physiological impact of neoadjuvant oncological therapy18. In these patients, as identified by this paper, NAT may lead to static or a poorer stage and no apparent improvement in survival. In future, approaches to deliver targeted therapy would include: analysis of tumour heterogeneity or clonality before NAT; non-invasive biomarkers of response, such as circulating tumour DNA; radiological assessment of response using PET-CT; improved systems to assess tumour regression19; and careful consideration of the role of surgery in patients whose disease regresses during preoperative chemotherapy, with an ultimate aim of organ preservation in a subgroup of patients20.
The Eighth Edition of the AJCC staging system includes both clinical and pathological stage grouping, but is imperfect. To maximize accuracy of staging, it relies on appropriate lymphadenectomy21,22. There is a difference between the lymphadenectomy required to help accurately stage the disease, and the lymphadenectomy required for optimal oncological control. A previous cohort study identified that accurate staging is dependent on tumour size, with short cancers (less than 2.5 cm) requiring a minimum of 20 nodes, whereas more extended cancers (greater than or equal to 2.5 cm) require approximately 60 lymph nodes23. However, the number of nodes required for oncological clearance is likely to be related to the depth of tumour invasion, with a stepwise increase in suggested nodes to be obtained with lymphadenectomy: T1 tumours requiring 10 nodes to be obtained, T2 tumours requiring 20 nodes to be obtained, and T3 tumours requiring more than 30 nodes to be obtained24.
This study has important limitations that need to be addressed. First, comparing pathological stage with post-neoadjuvant stage may misrepresent the impact of NAT. It is difficult to ascertain the inherent differences or inaccuracies in staging modalities and their use across different centres within the included cohort study and variation in staging approaches may reflect this25. For example, the use of endoscopic ultrasound and PET imaging are not routinely adopted in all of the centres. Second, the NCDB does not provide information on the chemotherapy regimens, such as FLOT and CROSS, and thus does not permit a deeper comparison of the impact of downstaging and data on Mandard regression gradings are not available. Again, the variation in use of these chemotherapy options is likely to reflect centre-level practices. Third, the NCDB does not capture all cancer cases (approximately 72 per cent) and there may be underlying selection bias within the included patients. Finally, this study lacks data on cancer-specific or recurrence-free survival to evaluate the impact of downstaging on these endpoints.
The extent of downstaging after NAT is an important prognostic factor in patients with both OAC and OSCC. Further, patients with an equivalent pathological stage who have received NAT have a more favourable prognosis, with important implications for counselling patients. However, the optimal NAT for both OAC and OSCC remains controversial. Identifying biomarkers associated with response to chemotherapy regimens is imperative in moving towards a more tailored treatment.
Supplementary Material
Contributor Information
Sivesh K Kamarajah, Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK; Academic Department of Surgery, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sheraz R Markar, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK; Department of Molecular Medicine & Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Nuffield Department of Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Donald Low, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Alexander W Phillips, Northern Oesophagogastric Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle University Trust Hospitals, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; School of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Funding
The authors have no funding to declare.
Disclosure
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available at BJS Open online.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BPLet al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2074–2084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Alderson D, Cunningham D, Nankivell M, Blazeby JM, Griffin SM, Crellin Aet al. Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1249–1260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Kamarajah SK, Navidi M, Wahed S, Immanuel A, Hayes N, Griffin SMet al. Significance of neoadjuvant downstaging in carcinoma of esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:3182–3192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Al-Batran SE, Homann N, Pauligk C, Goetze TO, Meiler J, Kasper Set al. 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;393:1948–1957 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Visser E, Markar SR, Ruurda JP, Hanna GB, van Hillegersberg R. Prognostic value of lymph node yield on overall survival in esophageal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2019;269:261–268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Ko CY, Ritchey J, Stewart AK, Winchester DPet al. Validation of the 6th edition AJCC pancreatic cancer staging system: report from the national cancer database. Cancer 2007;110:738–744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Merkow RP, Rademaker AW, Bilimoria KY. Practical guide to surgical data sets: National Cancer Database (NCDB). JAMA Surg 2018;153:850–851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Mallin K, Browner A, Palis B, Gay G, McCabe R, Nogueira Let al. Incident cases captured in the National Cancer Database compared with those in U.S. population based central cancer registries in 2012–2014. Ann Surg Oncol 2019;26:1604–1612 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. College of American Pathologists . Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Esophagus.June 2021. https://documents.cap.org/protocols/Esophagus_4.2.0.0.REL_CAPCP.pdf
- 10. Kamarajah SK, Sonnenday CJ, Cho CS, Frankel TL, Bednar F, Lawrence TSet al. Association of adjuvant radiotherapy with survival after margin-negative resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a propensity-matched National Cancer Database (NCDB) analysis. Ann Surg 2019;273:587–594 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Kamarajah SK, Phillips AW, Hanna GB, Low DE, Markar SR. Definitive chemoradiotherapy compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with esophagectomy for locoregional esophageal cancer: national population-based cohort study. Ann Surg 2022;275:526–533 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Markar SR, Bodnar A, Rosales J, Song G, Low DE. The impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on perioperative outcomes, tumor pathology, and survival in clinical stage II and III esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:3935–3941 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Markar S, Gronnier C, Duhamel A, Mabrut J-Y, Bail J-P, Carrere Net al. The impact of severe anastomotic leak on long-term survival and cancer recurrence after surgical resection for esophageal malignancy. Ann Surg 2015;262:972–980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Nieman DR, Peyre CG, Watson TJ, Cao W, Lunt MD, Lada MJet al. Neoadjuvant treatment response in negative nodes is an important prognosticator after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2015;99:277–283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Ott K, Bader FG, Lordick F, Feith M, Bartels H, Siewert JR. Surgical factors influence the outcome after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a consecutive series of 240 patients at an experienced center. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:1017–1025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Portale G, Hagen JA, Peters JH, Chan LS, DeMeester SR, Gandamihardja TAKet al. Modern 5-year survival of resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma: single institution experience with 263 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2006;202:588–596; discussion 596–598 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Sinclair R, Navidi M, Griffin SM, Sumpter K. The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on cardiopulmonary physical fitness in gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2016;98:396–400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Navidi M, Phillips AW, Griffin SM, Duffield KE, Greystoke A, Sumpter Ket al. Cardiopulmonary fitness before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric cancer. Br J Surg 2018;105:900–906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Klevebro F, Nilsson K, Lindblad M, Ekman S, Johansson J, Lundell Let al. Association between time interval from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to surgery and complete histological tumor response in esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: a national cohort study. Dis Esophagus 2020;33:doz078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Noordman BJ, Shapiro J, Spaander MC, Krishnadath KK, van Laarhoven HWM, van Berge Henegouwen MIet al. Accuracy of detecting residual disease after cross neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer (preSANO trial): rationale and protocol. JMIR Res Protoc 2015;4:e79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Rice TW, Patil DT, Blackstone EH. 8th Edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction: application to clinical practice. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2017;6:119–130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Rice TW, Gress DM, Patil DT, Hofstetter WL, Kelsen DP, Blackstone EH. Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction-Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:304–317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Hofstetter WL, Schipper PH, Kesler KA, Law Set al. Esophageal cancer: associations with (pN+) lymph node metastases. Ann Surg 2017;265:122–129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Rizk NP, Ishwaran H, Rice TW, Chen L-Q, Schipper PH, Kesler KAet al. Optimum lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 2010;251:46–50 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. van Vliet EP, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG, Kuipers EJ, Siersema PD. Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2008;98:547–557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.