Pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Eastern versus Western countries: meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma can be treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy followed by oesophagectomy. Discrepancies in pathological response rates have been reported between studies from Eastern versus Western countries. The aim of this study was to compare the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in Eastern versus Western countries. METHODS: Databases were searched until November 2022 for studies reporting pCR rates after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Multi-level meta-analyses were performed to pool pCR rates separately for cohorts from studies performed in centres in the Sinosphere (East) or in Europe and the Anglosphere (West). RESULTS: For neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 51 Eastern cohorts (5636 patients) and 20 Western cohorts (3039 patients) were included. Studies from Eastern countries included more men, younger patients, more proximal tumours, and more cT4 and cN+ disease. Patients in the West were more often treated with high-dose radiotherapy, whereas patients in the East were more often treated with a platinum + fluoropyrimidine regimen. The pooled pCR rate after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 31.7% (95% c.i. 29.5% to 34.1%) in Eastern cohorts versus 40.4% (95% c.i. 35.0% to 45.9%) in Western cohorts (fixed-effect P = 0.003). For cohorts with similar cTNM stages, pooled pCR rates for the East and the West were 32.5% and 41.9% respectively (fixed-effect P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The pathological response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is less favourable in patients treated in Eastern countries compared with Western countries. Despite efforts to investigate accounting factors, the discrepancy in pCR rate cannot be entirely explained by differences in patient, tumour, or treatment characteristics.

Long-term pulmonary function, thoracic pain, and quality of life in patients with one or more rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes after rib fractures and the effect of treatment modality or chest wall injury severity on these outcomes remains uncertain. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the long-term pulmonary function, thoracic pain, and quality of life in patients admitted with rib fractures. METHODS: Patients admitted with rib fractures between January 1, 2012, and December 1, 2019, were included. Data on long-term outcomes were collected during one follow-up visit. Patients were stratified by chest wall injury severity (one or two rib fractures, ≥3 rib fractures, or a flail chest) and treatment modality (surgical stabilization of rib fractures [SSRF] or nonoperative management). Multivariable analysis was performed to compare outcomes after SSRF with nonoperative treatment in patients with three or more rib fractures. RESULTS: In total, 300 patients were included. The median follow-up was 39 months (P25-P75, 18-65 months). At follow-up, the corrected forced vital capacity returned to 84.7% (P25-P75, 74.3-93.7) and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second to 86.3% (P25-P75, 75.3-97.0) of the predicted reference values. Quality of life was determined using the Short Form-12 version 2 and EuroQoL-5D-5L. The Short Form-12 version 2 physical and mental component summary were 45 (P25-P75, 38-54) and 53 (P25-P75, 43-60), respectively. The EuroQoL-5D-5L utility score was 0.82 (P25-P75 0.66-0.92) and visual analog scale score 75 (P25-P75 70-85). This indicated a quality of life within normal population ranges. Moderate to severe thoracic pain was reported by 64 (21.3%) patients. Long-term outcomes returned to values within population ranges and were similar across chest wall injury severity and for patients treated with SSRF or nonoperatively. CONCLUSION: While long-term pulmonary function and quality of life recover to values considered normal, subjective thoracic complaints, such as pain and dyspnea, remain frequently present following rib fractures. No effect of chest wall injury severity or treatment modality on long-term outcomes was demonstrated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.