Concurrent chemoradiotherapyof different radiation doses and different irradiation fields for locally advanced thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial
Jian Zhang,Minghao Li,Kaixian Zhang,Anping Zheng,Guang Li,Wei Huang,Shaoshui Chen,Xiangming Chen,Xiaomin Li,Yanxing Sheng,Xinchen Sun,Liping Liu,Xiaowei Liu,Jie Li,Jun Wang,Hong Ge,Shucheng Ye,Qingsong Pang,Xianwen Zhang,Shengbin Dai,Richard Yu,Wendong Gu,Mingming Dai,Gaowa Siqin,Yunwei Han,Xiaolin Ge,Xin Yuan,Yongjing Yang,Haiwen Zhu,Juan Pu,Lihua Dong,Xiangdong Sun,Jundong Zhou,Weidong Mao,Fei Gao,Haiqun Lin,Heyi Gong,Tao Zhou,Zhenjiang Li,Hongsheng Li,Zhongtang Wang,Baosheng Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12601
2024-08-19
Abstract:Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the optimal radiotherapy regimen, particularly in terms of total dose and planned range of irradiation field, remains unclear. This phase III clinical trial aimed to compare the survival benefits between different radiation doses and different target fields. Methods: This trial compared two aspects of radiation treatment, total dose and field, using a two-by-two factorial design. The high-dose (HD) group received 59.4 Gy radiation, and the standard-dose (SD) group received 50.4 Gy. The involved field irradiation (IFI) group and elective nodal irradiation (ENI) group adopted different irradiation ranges. The participants were assigned to one of the four groups (HD+ENI, HD+IFI, SD+ENI and SD+IFI). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS). The synergy indexwas used to measure the interaction effect between dose and field. Results: The interaction analysis did not reveal significant synergistic effects between the dose and irradiation field. In comparison to the target field, patients in IFI or ENI showed similar OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80-1.23, p = 0.930) and PFS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.25). The HD treatment did not show significantly prolonged OS compared with SD (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.72-1.11, p = 0.318), but it suggested improved PFS (25.2 months to 18.0 months). Among the four groups, the HD+IFI group presented the best survival, while the SD+IFI group had the worst prognosis. No significant difference in the occurrence of severe adverse events was found in dose or field comparisons. Conclusions: IFI demonstrated similar treatment efficacy to ENI in CCRT of ESCC. The HD demonstrated improved PFS, but did not significantly improve OS. The dose escalation based on IFI (HD+IFI) showed better therapeutic efficacy than the current recommendation (SD+ENI) and is worth further validation.