A Comparison Between Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Treating Esophageal Carcinoma: A Study at a Tertiary Care Cancer Center in Suburban India

Background and objectiveEsophageal carcinoma remains a disease associated with high mortality rates among patients even after receiving treatment. Management with surgery alone offers a five-year survival of only 20%. Hence adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies were instituted to treat this condition along with surgery. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) followed by surgery is currently the standard of care. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is also recommended by some authors as a method of adequate care. There is a scarcity of studies in the literature comparing NACRT with NACT. In light of this, we employed the criteria of pathological response as a primary endpoint to compare the effectiveness of NACT and NACRT in treating esophageal carcinoma.Materials and methodsA total of 50 patients with esophageal cancer having Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores 0-2 with cancer stages cT2-T4a, cN0-N1, and cM0 were enrolled. The patients were further classified into two groups of 25 each. While one group received chemotherapy using inj. paclitaxel and carboplatin (NACT group), the other was managed with inj paclitaxel and carboplatin as well as 42 Gy of fractionated irradiation (NACRT group). Six weeks after the last dose of radiation or three weeks after chemotherapy, they were evaluated and offered transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE).ResultsSquamous cell carcinoma was found in 39 (78%) cases and 11 (22%) cases had adenocarcinoma. Pathologically complete or near-complete responses were seen in 42% of patients in the NACRT group and 22% in the NACT group.ConclusionWhile NACT and NACRT are both effective therapies for esophageal cancers, NACRT offers better tumor regression compared to NACT. Given the higher rates of complete or near-complete response in the NACRT group, NACRT is likely to offer higher overall survival rates than NACT.