Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010511.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 22 August 2017see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Gut Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Balamurugan A Vellayappan

    Correspondence to: Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Yu Yang Soon

    Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

  • Geoffrey Y Ku

    Gastrointestinal Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA

  • Cheng Nang Leong

    Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

  • Jiade J Lu

    Shanghai Proton and Heavy Ion Center (SPHIC), Shanghai, China

  • Jeremy CS Tey

    Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

Contributions of authors

Conception and design: BAV, YYS, GYK, JCST.
Protocol writing: BAV, YYS.
Final approval of protocol: BAV, YYS, GYK, CNL, JJL, JCST.
Manuscript writing: BAV, YYS.
Final approval of manuscript: BAV, YYS, GYK, CNL, JJL, JCST.

Declarations of interest

BAV: none known.
YYS: none known.
GYK: none known.
CNL: none known.
JJL: none known.
JCST: none known.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group for assisting us with the search strategy. We thank Ms Karin Dearness, Managing Editor, for providing administrative support. We would also like to thank our reviewers: Ms. Sarah Rhodes, Dr. Richard Malthaner, Dr. Rebecca Wong.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Aug 22

Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer

Review

Balamurugan A Vellayappan, Yu Yang Soon, Geoffrey Y Ku, Cheng Nang Leong, Jiade J Lu, Jeremy CS Tey

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010511.pub2

2013 May 31

Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer

Protocol

Balamurugan A Vellayappan, Yu Yang Soon, Geoffrey Y Ku, Cheng Nang Leong, Jiade J Lu, Jeremy CS Tey

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010511

Differences between protocol and review

In our protocol, we stated that we intended to perform subgroup and sensitivity analyses. However, this was not carried out, due to limited available information and the presence of only two RCTs.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

PRISMA flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

PRISMA flow diagram.

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 1 Overall survival.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 1 Overall survival.

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 2 Freedom from locoregional relapse.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 2 Freedom from locoregional relapse.

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 3 Quality of Life (at 3 months).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 3 Quality of Life (at 3 months).

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 4 Treatment‐related mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 4 Treatment‐related mortality.

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 5 Use of salvage procedures for dysphagia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone, Outcome 5 Use of salvage procedures for dysphagia.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer

Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer

Patient or population: nonmetastatic esophageal cancer
Setting: hospital
Intervention: chemoradiotherapy plus surgery
Comparison: chemoradiotherapy alone

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Risk with chemoradiotherapy alone

Risk with chemoradiotherapy plus surgery

Overall survival
Follow‐up: median 4 to 6 years

35.4% to 40.0% at 2 years

34.0% to 39.9% at 2 years

HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.24)

431
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊕
High

Freedom from locoregional relapse

Follow‐up: median 4 to 6 years

40.7% to 57.0% at 2 years

64.3% to 66.4% at 2 years

HR 0.55 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.76)

431
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate1

Quality of Life

assessed with: Spitzer QoL index

Scale: 0 to10

Follow‐up: 3 months

the mean Q0L score was 7.52 points in the chemoradiotherapy alone group

the mean QoL score in the chemoradiotherapy plus surgery group was 0.93 points worse (from ‐1.62 worse to ‐0.24 worse)

165

(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very Low2,3,4

Treatment‐related mortality

Follow‐up: median 1 to 3 months

1.9 per 100

9.5 per 100

(3.2 to 27.8)

RR 5.11
(95% CI 1.74 to 15.02)

431
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

Use of salvage procedures for dysphagia

Follow‐up: median 4 years

46 per 100

24 per 100

RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.75)

259

(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Low1,2

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; HR: Hazard ratio;

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1 Downgraded one level due to risk of bias (detection bias as investigators were not blinded).
2 Downgraded one level due to imprecision.
3 Downgraded two levels due to risk of bias (detection bias as investigators and participants were not blinded).

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer
Comparison 1. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Overall survival Show forest plot

2

431

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.79, 1.24]

2 Freedom from locoregional relapse Show forest plot

2

431

Hazard Ratio (Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.39, 0.76]

3 Quality of Life (at 3 months) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4 Treatment‐related mortality Show forest plot

2

431

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

5.11 [1.74, 15.02]

5 Use of salvage procedures for dysphagia Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus surgery versus chemoradiotherapy alone