RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and surgical resection are the standard of care for cT1N0M0 esophageal cancer (EC), whereas definitive chemoradiotherapy (d-CRT) is a treatment option. Nevertheless, the comparative efficiency and safety of ESD, surgery and d-CRT for cT1N0M0 EC remain unclear. AIM: To compare the efficiency and safety of ESD, surgery and d-CRT for cT1N0M0 EC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the hospitalized data of a total of 472 consecutive patients with cT1N0M0 EC treated at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer center between 2017-2019 and followed up until October 30th, 2022. We analyzed demographic, medical recorded, histopathologic characteristics, imaging and endoscopic, and follow-up data. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to analyze the difference of survival outcome by treatments. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to minimize potential confounding factors. RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent ESD (n = 99) or surgery (n = 220) or d-CRT (n = 16) at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from 2017 to 2019. The median follow-up time for the ESD group, the surgery group, and the d-CRT group was 42.0 mo (95%CI: 35.0-60.2), 45.0 mo (95%CI: 34.0-61.75) and 32.5 mo (95%CI: 28.3-40.0), respectively. After adjusting for background factors using IPTW, the highest 3-year overall survival (OS) rate and 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate were observed in the ESD group (3-year OS: 99.7% and 94.7% and 79.1%; and 3-year RFS: 98.3%, 87.4% and 79.1%, in the ESD, surgical, and d-CRT groups, respectively). There was no difference of severe complications occurring between the three groups (P ≥ 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment method, histology and depth of infiltration were independently associated with OS and RFS. CONCLUSION: For cT1N0M0 EC, ESD had better long-term survival and lower hospitalization costs than those who underwent d-CRT and surgery, with a similar rate of severe complications occurring.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: According to the NCCN guidelines, there is weak evidence to support the use of elective neck dissection (END) in early-stage oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC). We sought to examine the indications for END in patients with cT1N0M0 OCSCC defined according to the AJCC Staging Manual, Eight Edition. METHODS: Of the 3886 patients diagnosed with cT1N0M0 included in the study, 2065 underwent END and 1821 neck observation. RESULTS: The 5-year outcomes for patients who received END versus neck observation before and after propensity score matching (n = 1406 each) were as follows: neck control, 96 %/90 % (before matching), p < 0.0001; 96 %/90 % (after matching), p < 0.0001; disease-specific survival (DSS), 93 %/92 % (before matching), p = 0.0227; 93 %/92 % (after matching), p = 0.1436. Multivariable analyses revealed that neck observation, depth of invasion (DOI) > 2.5 mm, and poor differentiation were independent risk factors for 5-year outcomes. Upon the application of a scoring system ranging from 0 (no risk factor) to 3 (presence of the three risk factors), the following 5-year rates were observed: neck control, 98 %/95 %/84 %/85 %; DSS, 96 %/93 %/88 %/85 %; and overall survival, 90 %/86 %/79 %/59 %, respectively (all p < 0.0001). The survival outcomes of patients with scores of 0 and 1 were similar. The occult metastasis rates in the entire study cohort, DOI > 2.5 mm, and poor differentiation were 6.8 %/9.2 %/17.1 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: Because all patients who received neck observation had a score of 1 or higher, END should be performed when a DOI > 2.5 mm or poorly differentiated tumors are present. Under these circumstances, 48.6 % (1888/3886) of cT1N0M0 patients may avoid END without compromising oncological outcomes.