Summary Background In a previous meta-analysis, we identified a survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma. ...We updated this meta-analysis with results from new or updated randomised trials presented in the past 3 years. We also compared the benefits of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Methods To identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings, we searched Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane clinical trials database) for studies published since January, 2006, and also manually searched for abstracts from major conferences from the same period. Only randomised studies analysed by intention to treat were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data. We also investigated treatment effects by tumour histology and relations between risk (survival after surgery alone) and effect size. Findings We included all 17 trials from the previous meta-analysis and seven further studies. 12 were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1854), nine were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1981), and two compared neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=194) in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma; one factorial trial included two comparisons and was included in analyses of both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=78) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=81). The updated analysis contained 4188 patients whereas the previous publication included 2933 patients. This updated meta-analysis contains about 3500 events compared with about 2230 in the previous meta-analysis (estimated 57% increase). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 0·78 (95% CI 0·70–0·88; p<0·0001); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0·80 (0·68–0·93; p=0·004) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0·75 (0·59–0·95; p=0·02). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0·87 (0·79–0·96; p=0·005); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0·92 (0·81–1·04; p=0·18) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0·83 (0·71–0·95; p=0·01). The HR for the overall indirect comparison of all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0·88 (0·76–1·01; p=0·07). Interpretation This updated meta-analysis provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. A clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. These results should help inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials. Funding Cancer Australia and the NSW Cancer Institute.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Adjuvant radiotherapy is recommended for patients with melanoma after lymphadenectomy. We previously showed this treatment reduced risk of repeat lymph-node field cancer in ...patients with a high risk of recurrence but had no effect on overall survival. Here, we aim to update the relapse and survival data from that trial and assess quality of life and toxic effects. Methods In the ANZMTG 01.02/TROG 02.01 randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients who had undergone lymphadenectomy for a palpable lymph-node field relapse and were at high risk of recurrence at 16 hospitals (11 in Australia, three in New Zealand, one in Netherlands, and one in Brazil). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to adjuvant radiotherapy (48 Gy in 20 fractions, given over a maximum of 30 days) or observation, stratified by institution, areas of lymph-node field (parotid and cervical, axilla, or groin), number of involved nodes (≤3 vs >3), maximum involved node diameter (≤4 cm vs >4 cm), and extent of extracapsular extension (none, limited, or extensive). Participants, those giving treatment, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants were unaware of each other's treatment allocation. In this follow-up, we assessed outcomes every 3 months from randomisation for the first 2 years, then every 6 months up to 5 years, then annually. The primary endpoint was lymph-node field relapse as a first relapse, assessed in patients without major eligibility infringements (determined by an independent data monitoring committee). We assessed late adverse effects (occurring >90 days after surgery or start of radiotherapy) with standard criteria in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00287196. Findings Between March 21, 2003, and Nov 15, 2007, we randomly assigned 123 patients to adjuvant radiotherapy (109 eligible for efficacy assessments) and 127 to observation (108 eligible). The final follow-up date was Nov 15, 2011. Median follow-up was 73 months (IQR 61–91). 23 (21%) relapses occurred in the adjuvant radiotherapy group compared with 39 (36%) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio HR 0·52 95% CI 0·31–0·88, p=0·023). Overall survival (HR 1·27 95% CI 0·89–1·79, p=0·21) and relapse-free survival (0·89 0·65–1·22, p=0·51) did not differ between groups. Minor, long-term toxic effects from radiotherapy (predominantly pain, and fibrosis of the skin or subcutaneous tissue) were common, and 20 (22%) of 90 patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy developed grade 3–4 toxic effects. 18 (20%) of 90 patients had grade 3 toxic effects, mainly affecting skin (nine 10% patients) and subcutaneous tissue (six 7% patients). Over 5 years, a significant increase in lower limb volumes was noted after adjuvant radiotherapy (mean volume ratio 15·0%) compared with observation (7·7%; difference 7·3% 95% CI 1·5–13·1, p=0·014). No significant differences in upper limb volume were noted between groups. Interpretation Long-term follow-up supports our previous findings. Adjuvant radiotherapy could be useful for patients for whom lymph-node field control is a major issue, but entry to an adjuvant systemic therapy trial might be a preferable first option. Alternatively, observation, reserving surgery and radiotherapy for a further recurrence, might be an acceptable strategy. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Cancer Council Australia, Melanoma Institute Australia, and the Cancer Council South Australia.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background The use of radiotherapy after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for patients with melanoma at high risk of further lymph-node field and distant recurrence is controversial. Decisions for ...radiotherapy in this setting are made on the basis of retrospective, non-randomised studies. We did this randomised trial to assess the effect of adjuvant radiotherapy on lymph-node field control in patients who had undergone therapeutic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma in regional lymph nodes. Methods This randomised controlled trial included patients from 16 hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Brazil. To be eligible for this trial, patients had to be at high risk of lymph-node field relapse, judged on the basis of number of nodes involved, extranodal spread, and maximum size of involved nodes. After lymphadenectomy, randomisation was done centrally by computer and patients assigned by telephone in a ratio of 1:1 to receive adjuvant radiotherapy of 48 Gy in 20 fractions or observation, with institution, lymph-node field, number of involved nodes, maximum node diameter, and extent of extranodal spread as minimisation factors. Participants, those giving treatment, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was lymph-node field relapse (as a first relapse), analysed for all eligible patients. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00287196 . The trial is now closed and follow-up discontinued. Findings 123 patients were randomly allocated to the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 127 to the observation group between March 20, 2002, and Sept 21, 2007. Two patients withdrew consent and 31 had a major eligibility infringement as decided by the independent data monitoring committee, resulting in 217 eligible for the primary analysis (109 in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 108 in the observation group). Median follow-up was 40 months (IQR 27–55). Risk of lymph-node field relapse was significantly reduced in the adjuvant radiotherapy group compared with the observation group (20 relapses in the radiotherapy group vs 34 in the observation group, hazard ratio HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·32–0·98; p=0·041), but no differences were noted for relapse-free survival (70 vs 73 events, HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·65–1·26; p=0·56) or overall survival (59 vs 47 deaths, HR 1·37, 95% CI 0·94–2·01; p=0·12). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were seroma (nine in the radiotherapy group vs 11 in the observation group), radiation dermatitis (19 in the radiotherapy group), and wound infection (three in the radiotherapy group vs seven in the observation group). Interpretation Adjuvant radiotherapy improves lymph-node field control in patients at high risk of lymph-node field relapse after therapeutic lymphadenectomy for metastatic melanoma. Adjuvant radiotherapy should be discussed with patients at high risk of relapse after lymphadenectomy. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Cancer Australia, Melanoma Institute Australia, Cancer Council of South Australia.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Load filters
No result was selected!
Please select the results that you wish to export.
The search was successfully saved.
Editing
The search could not be saved.
Saved searches can be viewed in the list My searches.
The changes made to the saved search were saved successfully.
Save search
Shelf entry
No result was selected!
Adding material to shelf was successful.
Adding material to shelf was partly successful.
Adding material to shelf failed completely.
It was not necessary to add the material to the shelf.
Please select the results that you want to put on shelf!
On shelf the following records have been successfully added:
On shelf the following records have been successfully added:
