Abstract
Background:
Esophageal cancer is one of the worst malignant digestive neoplasms with poor treatment outcomes. Definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has become the standard nonsurgical treatment option for locally advanced esophageal cancer. The chemotherapeutic drugs 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin have been most commonly used in CRT of esophageal cancer. However, radiotherapy combined with 5-FU/cisplatin often delivers severe toxicity to patients. S-1 as an oral chemotherapeutic drug exhibits higher anti-tumor activity, less adverse effects, and better biological availability. S-1 also has excellent effects as a CRT regimen for esophageal cancer.
Methods:
A systematic literature search will be performed through January 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language. Randomized controlled trials, prospective comparative studies will be included. All meta-analyses will be performed using Review Manager software. The quality of the studies will be evaluated using the guidelines listed in the Cochrane Handbook. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements will be followed until the findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis are reported.
Results:
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Conclusion:
Our study will draw an objective conclusion of the effects of S-1 combined with radiotherapy in the treatment of unresectable esophageal cancer and provide level I evidence for clinical decision makings.
Keywords: chemoradiotherapy, CRT, esophageal neoplasms, S-1
1. Introduction
Esophageal cancer is the ninth most commonly diagnosed cancer and the sixth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide in 2013.[1] Moreover, it is one of the worst malignant digestive neoplasms with poor treatment outcomes. Esophagectomy plays an important role and offers a potential curable chance for the early stage of esophageal cancer.[2–4] But at initial diagnosis, about 40% to 60% of patients are not candidates for surgical treatment.[5] Definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has become the standard nonsurgical treatment option for locally advanced esophageal cancer, based on the evidence of early trials.[6,7] And even some studies have shown comparable efficacy of definite CRT compared to surgery in patients with nonmetastatic disease.[8,9] The chemotherapeutic drugs 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin have been most commonly used in the definitive CRT of esophageal cancer.[10] However, radiotherapy combined with 5-FU/cisplatin chemotherapy often delivers severe toxicity to patients.[11–13] A retrospective study that investigated the toxicity of CRT with 5-FU and cisplatin showed the treatment-related mortality rate was as high as 18% in elderly patients (age≥75 years).[14] Therefore, exploring new CRT regimens with better tolerance and lower toxicity for patients with esophageal cancer are desperately needed.
S-1 is a novel oral combination drug comprising tegafur (FT), a prodrug of 5-FU, and 2 modulators of 5-FU metabolism, gimeracil (CDHP) and oteracil (Oxo), in a 1:0.4:1 molar ratio (FT:CDHP:Oxo). Evidence suggested that orally administered S-1 that mimics continuous infusion of 5-FU exhibits higher antitumor activity, less adverse effects, and better biological availability while compared with conventional 5-FU.[15–17] In recent years, S-1 as an excellent CRT drug, single use or combined with platinum, has been widely applied for advanced esophageal cancer and achieved good clinical remission rate (CR).[18–23] However, the sample size of these studies was relatively small and results in weak statistical power. Therefore, we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis related to S-1-based CRT versus radiotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer to further evaluate the clinical value of S-1. Moreover, in order to minimize the heterogeneity and bias, we will select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies. The evidence grade will be determined by using the guidelines of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. If data are sufficient, we will also conduct subgroup analyses using different histological types.
2. Objective
A systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed to assess the efficacy and safety of S-1 combined with radiotherapy in the treatment of unresectable esophageal cancer.
3. Methods
This protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis is performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement.[24] This protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO network (registration number: CRD42018088277). The systematic review and meta-analysis will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.[25]
3.1. Eligibility criteria
3.1.1. Types of participants
The included participants will be adults who were diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer histologically or cytologically confirmed and treated with radiotherapy. Comparisons of S-1-based CRT with radiotherapy alone in the clinical treatment were evaluated. There will be no restrictions regarding sex, race/ethnicity, education and economic status, and no restriction in publication language.
3.1.2. Types of studies
We propose to include studies that report comparisons between S-1-based CRT and radiotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced unresectable esophageal cancer. RCTs and prospective comparative studies will be used for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the systematic review.
3.1.3. Exclusion criteria
Non-peer reviewed articles, review articles, case reports, case series, animal studies, meeting abstracts, letters to the editor, commentaries, editorials, proceedings, and other nonrelevant studies will be excluded from analysis.
3.2. Information sources
We will perform a systematic literature search through January 31, 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language.
3.3. Search strategy
The relevant searching terms will match Medical Subject Heading terms, and the searches will be repeated immediately before the final analyses to identify additional studies for inclusion. An example of the PubMed search strategy is shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Search strategy for PubMed.
3.4. Study records
3.4.1. Selection of studies
Two review authors (WW and DX) will independently screen titles and abstracts of all the potential studies to assess whether they meet the inclusion criteria as defined by the protocol. We will retrieve the full text of all potentially eligible studies and 2 review authors (WW and DX) will independently screen the full text and identify studies for inclusion, and record reasons for exclusion of the ineligible studies. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion or, if required, consultation with a third review author (YS or FL). Duplicates will be excluded and multiple reports of the same study will be integrated into 1 unit of interest in the review. The selection process will be recorded in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA flow diagram and “Characteristics of excluded studies” table.[26] No language restrictions will be imposed.
3.4.2. Data extraction and management
Data will be extracted from the included studies by 3 authors (WW, DX, and YS) independently and recorded on a predesigned data collection form. We will extract the following study characteristics:
-
(1)
Study characteristics: study design, number of study centers and locations, study setting, withdrawals, total duration of the trial, periods of data collection, follow-up duration, and blanking periods.
-
(2)
Population characteristics: inclusion and exclusion criteria, number, mean age, age range, gender, diagnostic criteria, pathological confirmation, staging of the tumor according to the AJCC TNM classification for esophageal cancer.
-
(3)
Intervention characteristics: total radiation dose, fractions, S-1 dose, administration frequency, and cycles.
-
(4)
Outcomes: primary and secondary outcomes specified and collected, and time points reported.
3.5. Outcomes
3.5.1. Primary outcome
The primary outcome measure of our systematic review is overall survival (OS).
3.5.2. Secondary outcomes
The secondary outcomes are: progression-free-survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and grade 3 and 4 adverse events.
3.6. Assessment of risk of bias
Three review authors (WW, DX, and YS) will independently assess the risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion or by involving another review author (FL). The risk of bias will be assessed according to the following domains: random sequence generation; allocation concealment; blinding of participants and personnel; blinding of outcome assessment; incomplete outcome data; selective outcome reporting; and other bias. Each potential source of bias will be graded as high, low or unclear and a quote from the study report with a justification for our judgement will be provided in the “Risk of bias” table. The risk of bias judgements across different studies for each of the domains listed will be summarized.
3.7. Data synthesis
Data from studies judged to be clinically homogeneous will be pooled using Review Manager 5.3 software. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed using the Cochran's Q and Higgins Ι2 statistic. P < .10 for the Chi2 statistic or an I2 > 50% will be considered as showing considerable heterogeneity, and the data will be analyzed using the random-effect model. Otherwise, the fixed-effect model will be used. The Mantel–Haenszel method will be applied for pooling of dichotomous data and results will be presented as relative risk (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Inverse variance method will be used for pooling of continuous data and results will be presented as standardized mean difference (SMD) with their 95% CI.
3.7.1. Subgroup analysis
If data are sufficient, we will conduct subgroup analyses on different histological types: squamous carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Subgroup analyses will also be performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.
3.7.2. Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis will be performed to confirm whether the pooled results are robust and credible by excluding highly biased studies.
3.7.3. Dealing with missing data
In the condition of missing or unclear data, study authors will be contacted at the eligibility assessment and/or data extraction stage. Secondary publications may be considered as missing data if they have the same study population.
3.8. Publication bias
Egger's regression test will be performed to assess the publication bias of the included studies.[27] If there is a publication bias, trim and fill analysis will be performed.
3.9. Evidence evaluation
The evidence grade will be determined by using the guidelines of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and using 4 levels—high quality, moderate quality, low quality, and very low quality.[28]
4. Discussion
S-1 is a promising chemotherapy product with good efficacy and acceptable tolerability in various solid tumors, such as advanced gastric cancer,[29] colorectal cancer,[15] esophageal cancer,[18] non-small-cell lung cancer,[17] pancreatic cancer,[16] and head and neck cancer.[30] And as mentioned above, S-1 has also exhibited excellent effects as a CRT regimen for esophageal cancer. This protocol presents the methodology of a systematic review for assessing the efficacy and safety of S-1 combined with radiotherapy in the treatment of advanced unresectable esophageal cancer. We will comprehensively search, screen, assess, and extract valuable data from several databases as previously mentioned, and report this review results according to the PRISMA guidelines. To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing S-1-based CRT with radiotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer regardless patient race.
5. Author contributions
Conceptualization: F. Liu, Y. Song.
Data curation: W. Wang, D. Xing.
Formal analysis: W. Wang, D. Xing.
Funding acquisition: F. Liu.
Investigation: F. Liu.
Methodology: W. Wang, D. Xing.
Project administration: F. Liu.
Resources: D. Xing.
Software: W. Wang.
Supervision: F. Liu, Y. Song.
Validation: Y. Song.
Visualization: Y. Song.
Writing – original draft: W. Wang, D. Xing.
Writing – review & editing: W. Wang, D. Xing.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: AJCC = American Joint Committee on Cancer, CDHP = gimeracil, CI = confidence interval, CR = remission rate, CRT = chemoradiotherapy, FT = tegafur, GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, ORR = objective response rate, OS = overall survival, Oxo = oteracil, PFS = progression-free-survival, PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, PRISMA-P = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, RCT = randomized controlled trial, RR = relative risk, SMD = standardized mean difference. 5-FU = 5-fluorouracil.
Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval and informed consent are not required, as the study will be a literature review and will not involve direct contact with patients or alterations to patient care.
Trial registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42018088277).
WW and DX contributed equally to this work.
Contributors: WW, DX, YS, and FL conceived and designed this study. WW and DX drafted the protocol. WW, DX, and YS will conduct the search, data screening, and extraction. WW, DX, YS, and FL have critically reviewed the manuscript and approved it for publication.
Competing interests: None declared.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
The authors have no funding and no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
- [1].Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A, et al. Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 2015;1:505–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Fujita H, Kakegawa T, Yamana H, et al. Mortality and morbidity rates, postoperative course, quality of life, and prognosis after extended radical lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Comparison of three-field lymphadenectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg 1995;222:654–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Hulscher JB, van Sandick JW, de Boer AG, et al. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1662–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Igaki H, Tachimori Y, Kato H. Improved survival for patients with upper and/or middle mediastinal lymph node metastasis of squamous cell carcinoma of the lower thoracic esophagus treated with 3-field dissection. Ann Surg 2004;239:483–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Sagar PM, Gauperaa T, Sue-Ling H, et al. An audit of the treatment of cancer of the oesophagus. Gut 1994;35:941–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Herskovic A, Martz K, al-Sarraf M, et al. Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone in patients with cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1593–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Cooper JS, Guo MD, Herskovic A, et al. Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial (RTOG 85-01). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. JAMA 1999;281:1623–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Teoh AY, Chiu PW, Yeung WK, et al. Long-term survival outcomes after definitive chemoradiation versus surgery in patients with resectable squamous carcinoma of the esophagus: results from a randomized controlled trial. Ann Oncol 2013;24:165–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Morgan MA, Lewis WG, Casbard A, et al. Stage-for-stage comparison of definitive chemoradiotherapy, surgery alone and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg 2009;96:1300–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, et al. Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet 2013;381:400–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Tougeron D, Di Fiore F, Thureau S, et al. Safety and outcome of definitive chemoradiotherapy in elderly patients with oesophageal cancer. Brit J Cancer 2008;99:1586–92. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Semrau R, Herzog SL, Vallbohmer D, et al. Radiotherapy in elderly patients with inoperable esophageal cancer. Is there a benefit? Strahlenther Onkol 2012;188:226–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Takeuchi S, Ohtsu A, Doi T, et al. A retrospective study of definitive chemoradiotherapy for elderly patients with esophageal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2007;30:607–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Wakui R, Yamashita H, Okuma K, et al. Esophageal cancer: definitive chemoradiotherapy for elderly patients. Dis Esophagus 2010;23:572–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Sadahiro S, Suzuki T, Tanaka A, et al. Phase I/II study of preoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy with S-1 for locally advanced, resectable rectal adenocarcinoma. Oncology 2011;81:306–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Sudo K, Yamaguchi T, Ishihara T, et al. Phase II study of oral S-1 and concurrent radiotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;80:119–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Kawahara M. Efficacy of S-1 in non-small cell lung cancer. Exp Opin Pharmacother 2014;15:1927–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [18].Iwase H, Shimada M, Tsuzuki T, et al. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with a novel fluoropyrimidine, S-1, and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal cancer: long-term results of a phase II trial. Oncology 2013;84:342–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [19].Chang H, Shin SK, Cho BC, et al. A prospective phase II trial of S-1 and cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced esophageal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2014;73:665–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [20].Tahara M, Fuse N, Mizusawa J, et al. Phase I/II trial of chemoradiotherapy with concurrent S-1 and cisplatin for clinical stage II/III esophageal carcinoma (JCOG 0604). Cancer Sci 2015;106:1414–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [21].Yamashita H, Haga A, Takenaka R, et al. Efficacy and feasibility of ambulatory treatment-based monthly nedaplatin plus S-1 in definitive or salvage concurrent chemoradiotherapy for early, advanced, and relapsed esophageal cancer. Radiat Oncol (London, England) 2016;11:4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [22].Wang H, Li G, Chen L, et al. Definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy with S-1 and cisplatin in elderly esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients. J Thorac Dis 2017;9:646–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [23].Ji Y, Du X, Tian Y, et al. A phase II study of S-1 with concurrent radiotherapy in elderly patients with esophageal cancer. Oncotarget 2017;8:83022–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [24].Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [25].Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [26].Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [27].Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:161–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [28].Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, et al. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e99682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Li DH, Pan ZK, Ye F, et al. S-1-based versus 5-FU-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tumour Biol 2014;35:8201–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Tahara M, Minami H, Kawashima M, et al. Phase I trial of chemoradiotherapy with the combination of S-1 plus cisplatin for patients with unresectable locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Sci 2011;102:419–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]