Utilising systematic reviews to assess potential overtreatment and claim for better evidence-based research: an analysis of anticancer drugs versus supportive care in advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Highlighting the identified gaps in evidence-based research concerning advanced esophageal cancer (EC) treatment and care, this review evaluates the efficacy and safety of anticancer drugs compared to supportive care for advanced EC patients, aiming to assess the appropriateness of usual treatments and identify the gaps that need to be filled with primary research. METHODS: We searched (May 2022) MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Epistemonikos, and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and PROSPERO) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticancer drugs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or biological/targeted therapy) with supportive care in advanced EC. The results were summarised using GRADE summary of finding tables. RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs. Most studies did not have a special focus on EC, did not detail the treatment lines in all patients, and did not evaluate all outcomes. Anticancer drugs may result in a slight increase in overall survival (OS) (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.71, 0.86; MD 0.83 months) and better progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.56 95% CI 0.49, 0.64, MD 0.68 months), but also may increase toxicity (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.13, 1.65), without a significant improvement in quality of life. The certainty of evidence was low or very low due to indirectness of results and lack of specific focus on EC in some studies. CONCLUSION: RCTs on advanced EC lack specificity, detailed treatment line information, and evaluation of all relevant outcomes. Moreover, when they find any benefit, this is negligible. Therefore, the certainty to justify anticancer drug treatments instead of supportive care in advanced EC is low or very low, and this information should be actively shared with affected patients. More and better RCTs should be conducted to assess whether any old or new proposed treatment for advanced EC patients provides a better balance of benefits and harms than the supportive care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered in OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7CHX6 ) on 2022-03-29.

How appropriate is treating patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer with anticancer drugs? A multicenter retrospective cohort Spanish study.

AIM: To assess the appropriateness of systemic oncological treatments (SOT) provided to patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer (EC) across a group of participating hospitals. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study in five Spanish hospitals including newly confirmed advanced EC cases between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, with a 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 157 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria (median age: 65 years, 85.9% males). Most patients, 125 (79.6%) were treated at least with one active treatment, and 33% received two or more lines of SOT. The 1-, 2- and 5-year overall survival rates were 30.3% [95%CI: 23.8, 38.7], 14.0% [95%CI: 9.3, 21.0], and 7.1% [95% CI: 3.8, 13.1] respectively, and the median survival time 8 months (95% CI: 6, 19) for stages IIIb IIIc and 7 months (95% CI: 5, 9) for stage IV. Clinical stage, receiving more than one line of SOT, and treatment with radiotherapy accelerated the time to death (0.4, 0.9-, and 0.8-times shorter survival respectively, p < 0.05). Better performance status (ECOG < 2) extended survival time by 2.2 times (p = 0.04). Age < 65 years (OR 9.4, 95% CI 3.2, 31.4, p < 0.001), and being treated in one particular hospital (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 0.8, p < 0.01) were associated with the administration of two or more lines of SOT. Altogether, 18.9% and 9.0% of patients received chemotherapy in the last four and two weeks of life, respectively. Moreover, 2.5% of patients were prescribed a new line of chemotherapy during the last month of life. The proportion of all patients who did not have access to palliative care reached 29.3%, and among those who had access to it, 34.2% initiated it in the last month of life. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of advanced EC patients receive many treatments not based on sound evidence and they do not benefit enough from palliative care services. The most accepted appropriateness indicators point out that some of the analyzed patients could have been overtreated. This study provides important insights into the quality of care provided to advanced EC, and furthermore, for giving valuable insight and opportunities for improvement.

Is there a preferred platinum and fluoropyrimidine regimen for advanced HER2-negative esophagogastric adenocarcinoma? Insights from 1293 patients in AGAMENON-SEOM registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal chemotherapy backbone for HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric cancer, either in combination with targeted therapies or as a comparator in clinical trials, is uncertain. The subtle yet crucial differences in platinum-based regimens' safety and synergy with combination treatments need consideration. METHODS: We analyzed cases from the AGAMENON-SEOM Spanish registry of HER2-negative advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated with platinum and fluoropyrimidine from 2008 to 2021. This study focused exclusively on patients receiving one of the four regimens: FOLFOX (5-FU and oxaliplatin), CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), CP (capecitabine and cisplatin) and FP (5-FU and cisplatin). The aim was to determine the most effective and tolerable platinum and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen and to identify any prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among 1293 patients, 36% received either FOLFOX (n = 468) or CAPOX (n = 466), 20% CP (n = 252), and 8% FP (n = 107). FOLFOX significantly increased PFS (progression free survival) compared to CP, with a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.009). The duration of treatment was similar across all groups. Survival outcomes among regimens were similar, but analysis revealed worse ECOG-PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status), > 2 metastatic sites, bone metastases, hypoalbuminemia, higher NLR (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and CP regimen as predictors of poor PFS. Fatigue was common in all treatments, with the highest incidence in FOLFOX (77%), followed by FP (72%), CAPOX (68%), and CP (60%). Other notable toxicities included neuropathy (FOLFOX 69%, CAPOX 62%), neutropenia (FOLFOX 52%, FP 55%), hand-foot syndrome in CP (46%), and thromboembolic events (FP 12%, CP 11%). CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX shown better PFS than CP. Adverse effects varied: neuropathy was more common with oxaliplatin, while thromboembolism was more frequent with cisplatin.