Table 4.
Results of definitive CCRT and surgery for cervical esophageal cancer (CEC) in previous studies.
| Definitive CCRT for Cervical Esophageal Cancer | |||||||
| Author | Patients, No. | Con-CT, % | Dose of RT, Gy | Treatment-Related Mortality (%) | LC, % | Overall Survival (%) | |
| 2-Year | 5-Year | ||||||
| Stuschke et al. 1999 [11] | 17 | Yes a | 60–66 Gy | 0 | 33 (2 y) b | 24 | NA |
| Burmeister et al. 2000 [29] | 34 | Yes, 100 | 50.4–65 Gy (mean 61.2) | 5.9 | 88 | NA | 55 |
| Yamada et al. 2006 [13] | 27 | Yes, 85.2 | 44–73.7 Gy(mean 66) | NA | 52 | NA | 37.9 |
| Wang et al.2006 [37] | 22 (13) c | Yes d | 24.5–64.8 Gy (median 50.4) | NA | 47.7 (5 y) c | NA | 18.6 c |
| Uno et al. 2007 [38] | 21 | Yes, 90.5 | 60–74 Gy (median 64) | 4.8 | NA | 41 | 27 |
| Huang et al. 2008 [39] | 21 | Yes | 54 Gy/20 fx | NA | 48 (2 y) | 52 | NA |
| 29 | Yes | 70 Gy/30 fx | NA | 46 (2 y) | 43 | NA | |
| Tong et al. 2011 [12] | 21 | Yes, 100 | 60–68 Gy | 4.8 | NA | 46.9 | NA |
| Gkika et al. 2013 [40] | 55 | Yes, 100 | 50–70 Gy (median 60) | 0 | 55 (2 y) b | 35 | 25 |
| Cao et al. 2014 [5] | 161 | Yes, 23.4 | 59.4–80 Gy | NA | 69.9 (2 y) | 51 | NA |
| Grass et al. 2015 [4] | 240 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 40 | 28 |
| Cao et al. 2015 [15] | 115 | Yes, 30 | 59.4–80 Gy | 1.7 | 68.3 (2 y) | 47.6 | NA |
| Zhang et al. 2015 [14] | 102 | Yes, 100 | 50–70 Gy | 0 | 35.3 (3 y) e | NA | NA |
| Cao et al. 2016 [16] | 64 | Yes, 34.4 | 60–80 Gy (median 62) | 1.6 | 74.5 (2 y) | 42.5 | NA |
| Herrmann et al. 2017 [41] | 55 | Yes, 92.7 f | 28–72 Gy (median 56) | 0 | 52 (3 y) b | NA | NA |
| Zhao et al. 2017 [42] | 86 | Yes, 70 | 50–70 Gy (median 61.6) | 0 | 57.9 (3 y) e | NA | NA |
| Li et al. 2018 [17] | 92 | Yes, 100 | 60 Gy | 4.3 | NA | 66.3 | NA |
| Primary Surgery for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the Cervical Esophagus | |||||||
| Author | Patients, No. | RT/CRT, % | Treatment-Related Mortality (%) | LC, % | Overall Survival (%) | ||
| Neoadjuvant | Adjuvant | 2-Year | 5-Year | ||||
| Triboulet et al. 2001 [9] | 78 (131) g | 12.9 g | 73 g | 4.8 g | 78 g | NA | 14 |
| Daiko et al. 2007 [43] | 74 | 0 | 14.9 | 4 | 51.4 b | NA | 33 |
| Kadota et al. 2009 [27] | 32 | 0 | NA | 0 | 79.1 (low-tumor group)71.8 (high-tumor group) (5 y) | NA | NA |
| Ott et al. 2009 [18] | 109 | 86 | 0 | 2.8 | 70 h | 61.8 | 47 |
| Tong et al. 2011 [12] | 62 | 0 | 61 | 7.1 | NA | 37.6 | NA |
| Cao et al. 2014 [5] | 63 | 0 | 57.1 | 1.5 | 68.6 (2 y) | 50.7 | NA |
| Grass et al. 2015 [4] | 32 | 44 | 31 | NA | NA | 64 | 43 |
a All patients received induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy. b Loco-regional control. c With upper thoracic esophageal cancer (upper thoracic esophageal cancer cases). d 17% of patients received induction chemotherapy. e Loco-regional failure-free survival. f 58.2% of patients received induction chemotherapy. g With hypopharyngeal cancer (hypopharyngeal cancer cases). h In patients who had a complete (R0) resection. Abbreviations: Con-CT, concurrent chemotherapy; LC, local control; NA, not available.