Next Article in Journal
Evaluating the Risk of Inguinal Lymph Node Metastases before Surgery Using the Morphonode Predictive Model: A Prospective Diagnostic Study in Vulvar Cancer Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Socioeconomic Deprivation Is Not Associated with Outcomes after Esophagectomy at a German High-Volume Center
Previous Article in Journal
NEDD9 Overexpression Causes Hyperproliferation of Luminal Cells and Cooperates with HER2 Oncogene in Tumor Initiation: A Novel Prognostic Marker in Breast Cancer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nomogram-Based Survival Predictions and Treatment Recommendations for Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with Upfront Surgery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/cancers15041122
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Perineural Invasion and Preexisting Type 2 Diabetes on Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

by
Nai-Wen Su
1,2,
Lai-Man Mok
3,
Mei-Lin Chan
3,
Hung-Chang Liu
3,
Wei-Chin Chang
4,5,
Chun-Ho Yun
6,
Tze-Yu Shieh
7,
Ming-Che Wu
8,
Huan-Chau Lin
2,
Wen-Chien Huang
3,5,* and
Yu-Jen Chen
9,10,11,*
1
Department of Optometry, MacKay Junior College of Medicine, Nursing, and Management, Taipei 11260, Taiwan
2
Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei 10449, Taiwan
3
Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei 10449, Taiwan
4
Department of Pathology, MacKay Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City 25160, Taiwan
5
Department of Medicine, MacKay Medical College, New Taipei City 25245, Taiwan
6
Department of Radiology, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei 10449, Taiwan
7
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei 10449, Taiwan
8
Department of Nuclear Medicine, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei 10449, Taiwan
9
Department of Radiation Oncology, MacKay Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City 25160, Taiwan
10
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung 40402, Taiwan
11
Department of Artificial Intelligence and Medical Application, MacKay Junior College of Medicine, Nursing, and Management, Taipei 11260, Taiwan
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(4), 1122; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041122
Submission received: 15 January 2023 / Revised: 4 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 February 2023 / Published: 9 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research Progress in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery is the standard treatment in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. This multimodality strategy provides survival benefits superior to surgery alone, especially in patients obtaining a pathological complete response (pCR). Owing to subsequent recurrence and metastasis, many patients do not achieve a pCR (non-pCR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and therefore have very poor outcomes. It is necessary to identify poor prognostic factors. In this real-world data analysis and retrospective cohort study, we found that the presence of perineural invasion and preexisting type 2 diabetes had negative impacts on disease-free survival in the non-pCR population. Patients with a combination of both two factors had the worst survival. Our findings provide clinical information for future translational investigations and possible clinical applications.

Abstract

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT) followed by surgery is the cornerstone treatment strategy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Despite this high- intensity multimodality therapy, most patients still experience recurrences and metastases, especially those who do not achieve a pathological complete response (pCR) after neoCRT. Here, we focused on identifying poor prognostic factors. In this retrospective cohort study; we enrolled 140 patients who completed neoCRT plus surgery treatment sequence with no interval metastasis. Overall, 45 of 140 patients (32.1%) achieved a pCR. The overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS), and metastasis-free survival was significantly better in patients with a pCR than in patients with a non-pCR. In the non-pCR subgroup, the presence of perineural invasion (PNI) and preexisting type 2 diabetes (T2DM) were two factors adversely affecting DFS. After adjusting for other factors, multivariate analysis showed that the hazard ratio (HR) was 2.354 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.240–4.467, p = 0.009) for the presence of PNI and 2.368 (95% CI 1.351–4.150, p = 0.003) for preexisting T2DM. Patients with a combination of both factors had the worst survival. In conclusion, PNI and preexisting T2DM may adversely affect the prognosis of patients with ESCC receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

1. Introduction

Esophageal cancer (EC) is a highly aggressive disease with a grave prognosis. It is the seventh most common cancer and sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality [1]. The two major histologic types are esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, each possessing distinct geographic distribution, pathophysiology, and treatment outcomes [2]. ESCC accounts for the majority (85%) of new EC cases worldwide annually [3,4]. The highest incidence is in Eastern Asia, including Taiwan, with EC having a significant impact on health care systems [5,6]. Additionally, more than half of patients with ESCC present with locally advanced disease status. Therefore, it is important to combine treatment modalities to initially achieve local tumor control and to prevent subsequent distant spread [7].
While neoadjuvant chemotherapy is implemented in some areas [8,9,10], neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoCRT) followed by surgery is a more widely accepted treatment strategy worldwide [11,12,13]. The pivotal CROSS study, as well as other clinical trial results, demonstrated that neoCRT plus surgery provided more survival benefits than surgery alone in locally advanced ESCC [14,15]. Moreover, the benefits were maintained after long-term follow up [16,17]. Approximately 20–40% of patients with locally advanced EC achieve a pathological complete response (pCR) after neoCRT treatment and thereafter obtain superior survival outcomes [18,19,20,21,22]. In contrast, more than half of the patients have residual disease after neoCRT, resulting in future local or distant recurrences. From the literature review, patients with EC having some comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and pathological risk factors, such as perineural invasion(PNI) or vascular invasion were reported to have inferior outcomes [23,24,25,26].In this study, we collected 10-year cohort data and analyzed the survival outcomes of patients with locally advanced ESCC treated with neoCRT followed by surgery, focusing on patients not achieving a pCR (non-pCR). We found that the presence of PNI and preexisting T2DM would result in a worse survival outcome in patients.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Eligibility

This retrospective cohort study was approved by MacKay Memorial Hospital Institutional Review Board, approval number 21MMHIS178e. Informed consent from participants was not required in this IRB-approved study. Patients with pathologically confirmed, non-metastatic, locally advanced (stage II, III, or IVa) ESCC who completed neoCRT followed by surgery were included. However, patients who died within 3 months of the surgery were excluded from the survival analysis. Cancer staging was performed according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition for both clinical and pathological staging. The clinical staging procedures included physical examinations, panendoscopic ultrasound, chest computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography, and bronchoscopy as needed. Feeding jejunostomy was also deployed to maintain enteric nutrition, although this was not mandatory. After surgery, patients were followed up with chest CT scans every 3–4 months during the first 2 years, and every 6 months during years 3–5. Additional imaging studies were arranged according to clinical necessity. Once the disease recurred, its management was at the discretion of the treating physician and was based on the best patient benefits.

2.2. Multimodality Treatments

The cases of all enrolled patients with ESCC were discussed during the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings before the implementation of neoCRT and before surgical resection. Radiotherapy was planned using simulation CT images. Patients were first immobilized in the supine position using an Alpha Cradle® (Smithers Medical Products, Inc. North Canton, OH, USA). The CT images (Brilliance Big Bore CT simulator/Philips Medical Systems, Cleveland, OH, USA) were obtained using 3-mm-thick slices. The delineation of gross tumor volume (GTV) included the esophageal gross tumor and enlarged regional lymph nodes. The clinical target volume (CTV)-48 was defined as 0.5–1 cm outside the GTV to cover the microscopic extension. The CTV-43.2 included subclinical mucosal/submucosal disease and risky regional nodal basins such as supraclavicular, paraesophageal, paratracheal and celiac trunk regions. The planning target volume (PTV) enclosed the CTV with margins to account for possible uncertainties in patient set-up error or internal organ motion. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy or helical tomotherapy with simultaneously integrated boost technique delivered 48 Gy (2 Gy per fraction) to the PTV-48 and 43.2 Gy (1.8 Gy per fraction) to the PTV-43.2. Normal organ constraints included the following: maximum dose of spinal cord was <45 Gy, proportion of lung receiving > 20 Gy (V20) < 20% in each side lung, and mean heart dose <30 Gy. The treatment plans had to satisfy the criterion that at least 95% of the PTV was covered with the prescribed dose. RT was withheld if the patient had ≥ grade 3 decline in neutrophil or platelet counts.
For concurrent chemotherapy, we used two regimens, weekly cisplatin 20–30 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 50 mg/m2, or weekly cisplatin 30 mg/m2 if self-funded paclitaxel was not feasible. Both chemotherapy regimens were administered in 5–6 cycles during RT. If patients had renal insufficiency at the beginning or during the course of chemotherapy, cisplatin was substituted with carboplatin (area under the curve 2).
After disease re-evaluation processes and operation appropriateness confirmed by MDT, surgery with esophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection was scheduled at 4–6 weeks after the end of neoCRT. In brief, the Ivor Lewis procedure with two-field lymph node dissection was selected for tumors located at the distal thoracic esophagus. The McKeown method with three-field lymph node dissection was selected for tumors located at the upper or middle thoracic esophagus. Additionally, for cervical esophageal tumors, either laryngeal-preserving surgery or pharyngo-laryngo-esophagectomy was performed depending on whether the proximal margin of the tumor was within or beyond 2 cm from the inferior margin of the pyriform sinus of the hypopharynx. Pathological response was assessed by pathologists specialized in gastroenterology (W.-C.C.). A pCR was defined as no residual tumor in the primary tumor site or in all examined lymph nodes (ypT0N0).

2.3. Endpoints Definition and Study Variables

All time-related endpoints were counted from the starting date of neoCRT to the date of event occurrence. The data cutoff date was 31 December 2021. Patients who were lost to follow up or those without an event until the data cutoff date were recorded as being “censored”. At least 1 year of follow up at our institute was required for living patients to be included in this study. The study endpoints were (1) overall survival (OS): death from any cause; (2) disease-free survival (DFS): any events of local or distant recurrence, including a second primary tumor, or death, depending on which occurred first; and (3) metastasis-free survival (MFS): any event of distant recurrence or death, depending on which occurred first. We analyzed clinical and pathological variables that may have prognostic impacts on survival outcomes. Clinical factors included age (<57-years vs. ≥57-years), sex, ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1/2), tumor location (cervical/upper vs. middle/lower esophagus), history of T2DM, history of head and neck cancer, chemotherapy regimens (platinum/paclitaxel vs. platinum), number of cycles delivered (<5 vs. ≥5), and time from the completion of neoCRT to operation (<6 vs. ≥6 weeks). Pathological factors comprised the pathological T stage (T0–T2 vs. T3/T4), pathological N stage (N0/N1 vs. N2/N3), cell differentiation (well/moderate vs. poor), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and PNI (with vs. without), and dissected lymph node numbers (<15 vs. ≥15).

2.4. Statistical Methods and Tools

Clinical or pathological characteristic comparisons between the two groups were calculated using two-sample t-test or Fisher`s exact test. Survival curves were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method and statistical significance was examined using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate outcome analyses were computed using the proportional hazards method to demonstrate the survival impacts of the clinical or pathological variables. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Statistical analyses and graphic preparation were executed using SPSS software (version 22; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Enrollment and Characteristics

We retrospectively collected clinicopathological information and treatment outcomes of patients with ESCC in our institute from January 2010 to December 2019. There were 216 patients with locally advanced ESCC who received neoCRT after the MDT discussion. Distant metastasis developed at the end of neoCRT in 25 of 216 patients; therefore, the interval metastasis rate was 11.6%. Finally, 154 patients underwent surgery. The detailed patient disposition process depicted in Figure 1. Overall, 140 patients were included in the survival analysis. The median age was 57-years (range, 37–81), and 130 of 140 (92.9%) patients were men. The number of patients with primary tumors at the cervical esophagus was 10 (7.1%); upper thoracic, 31 (22.1%); middle thoracic, 60 (42.9%); and lower thoracic, 39 (27.9%). The clinical stage distribution was 24 (17.1%), 89 (63.6%), and 27 (19.3%) for stages II, III and IVa. Overall, 63 (45%) patients received platinum plus paclitaxel as the concurrent chemotherapy. Of all the patients, 102 (75.6%) received five cycles of chemotherapy during irradiation. The median radiation dose was 48 Gy (range, 24–54 Gy). The median time interval from the completion of neoCRT to surgery was 41 days (range, 19–75 days). In total, 21 (15%) and 13 (9.3%) patients had a history of T2DM and head and neck cancer, respectively. Seventeen patients with T2DM had the HbA1c level checked at ESCC diagnosis. The mean (range), median and interquartile range of HbA1c level (%) were 6.62 (5.1–7.9), 6.7 and 6.1 to 7.15, respectively. Detailed patient clinical characteristics are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Overall Treatment Outcomes

With a median follow-up time of 59.5 months, the median OS and DFS of the overall population were 24.3 months (95% confidence interval (CI):16.6–31.9 months) and 11.2 months (95% CI: 8.4–13.9 months), respectively. Furthermore, 45 of 140 (32.1%) patients had achieved a pCR. The median OS, DFS and MFS of patients with a pCR were significantly greater than those of patients with a non-pCR (Figure 2a–c). The hazard ratios (HRs) of OS, DFS and MFS were 0.367 (95% CI: 0.226–0.594; p < 0.0001), 0.457 (95% CI: 0.295–0.706; p < 0.0001) and 0.415 (95% CI: 0.264–0.5; p < 0.0001), respectively, for patients achieving a pCR compared with patients with a non-pCR. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS rates were 93.3%, 65.6%, and 44% for patients with a pCR and 68.4%, 28.1%, 18.7% for patients with a non-pCR, respectively. Overall, 24 of 45 (53.3%) patients with a pCR and 78 of 95 (82.1%) patients with a non-pCR developed DFS events after neoCRT plus surgery. Separate pCR and non-pCR patient clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1.

3.3. Prognostic Factors in Patients with a Non-pCR

The group of patients who did not achieve a pCR after neoCRT was heterogenous, generally implying adverse survival outcomes. In total, 95 patients (67.8%) did not obtain a pCR after neoCRT. The detailed pathological features are shown in Table 2. Overall, 6 of 95 (6.3%) patients had an R1 resection; there were no R2 resection. Among the clinicopathological variables, we performed univariate analysis to define the poor prognostic factors of DFS in this patient population (Table 3). We found that patients with preexisting T2DM had worse DFS with a HR of 2.139 (95% CI 1.141–4.011, p = 0.018), and the median DFS was 8.36 vs. 11.21 months (log-rank test, p = 0.018) in patients with and without preexisting T2DM, respectively. Patients with PNI had poorer DFS with a HR of 2.449 (95% CI 1.497–4.007, p = 0.0001), and the median DFS was 7.84 vs. 14.75 months (log-rank test, p = 0.0001) in patients with and without PNI, respectively. Finally, patients with a higher pathological N stage (N2/N3 vs. N0/N1) had inferior DFS with a HR of 1.843 (95% CI 1.117–3.041, p = 0.017), and the median DFS was 8.49 vs. 13.41 months (log-rank test, p = 0.015) in patients with N2/N3 and N0/N1 disease (Figure 3a–c). There were no association among these three factors. Subsequently, we included these three variables into a multivariate analysis. After adjusting for other variables, patients with T2DM and PNI remained poor prognostic factors in this patient population. The HR was 2.354 (95% CI 1.240–4.467, p = 0.009) and 2.368 (95% CI 1.351–4.150, p = 0.003), respectively (Table 3). Focusing on these two factors, preexisting T2DM and presence of PNI, there were 61, 29 and 5 patients with neither, one, or both factors, respectively. The median DFS was 16.8 (95% CI 8.93–24.71), 10.8 (95% CI 7.80–13.78), and 5.4 (95% CI 3.59–7.23) months, and it was significantly worse in patients with both features (p < 0.0001) (Supplementary Figure S1).

4. Discussion

NeoCRT followed by surgery is the cornerstone treatment for locally advanced EC [27,28]. In the current study, we reported the survival outcomes of a 10-year single institute retrospective cohort treated with this multimodality strategy. We demonstrated its feasibility in our real-world daily practice. With advancement in surgical techniques and team collaboration, approximately 7% of patients have either a cervical tumor location or clinical T4 lesion. Owing to high technical demands, these clinical features usually preclude patients from having neoCRT plus surgery as one of their curative options [29,30]. Concerning the pCR rate, our data were comparable to those reported in the literature [31,32,33,34]. While patients with a pCR did have better survival outcomes than patients with a non-pCR, the low pCR rate (20–40%) under current neoCRT regimens was a limitation. In pursuit of a higher pCR rate, immunotherapy agents have been investigated in the neoadjuvant treatment setting for EC. While most studies use combined anti-PD1/anti-PDL1 and chemotherapy without radiotherapy, the pCR results were promising [35,36,37,38,39]. However, large phase III randomized, controlled trials are awaited to provide more solid evidence in this research field.
In contrast, approximately 80% of patients with a non-pCR had subsequent DFS events in this study that brought them a very dismal prognosis. Thus, we put an emphasis on the survival prognostic factors in this patient population. After univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, we found that preexisting T2DM and the presence of PNI predicted poor outcomes. Patients with both factors, in particular, had a DFS result that was worse than those of patients with either one or none of the factors. T2DM and uncontrolled hyperglycemia have long been linked with worse treatment outcomes in a variety of cancer types [40,41,42,43,44]. Several studies have addressed the issue regarding T2DM and its prognostic impact in EC. All these studies were reported in a retrospective manner with heterogenous treatments, except one that used propensity score analysis. There were inconsistent results regarding T2DM being a poor prognostic factor in patients with resectable EC [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. In the reported studies, we observed that approximately 10% of patients with EC have preexistingT2DM. Thus, T2DM and glycemic control may impact the treatment outcomes in patients with ESCC, requiring further prospective cohort investigation.
Pathological demonstration of PNI by malignant cells usually portends poor prognosis in several cancer types [54,55]. Through sophisticated laboratory works, tumor PNI tends to be a continuous, multistep process. Not only malignant cells but also neuron supporting cells (eg. Schwann cells), recruited immune cells and a network of molecules (e.g., neurotrophin, angiogenesis, and chemokines factors) are all involved in the supporting system [56,57,58]. In recent years, five PNI-centered prognostic studies on ESCC have been reported; we have summarized the results in Table 4. The prevalence of PNI ranges from 7.9% to 42.7%, but neoadjuvant treatment may decrease the PNI rate [59,60,61,62,63]. PNI tends to be a statistically significant poor indicator of OS or DFS in most reports [59,60,62]. Some studies focused on the presence of PNI being a poor prognostic factor in the pN0 subgroup patients [60,61,62]. Our data also revealed that the presence of PNI brought a significantly worse outcome (p = 0.003) in the node-negative subgroup (Supplementary Figure S2a). In contrast, it only caused a trend of inferior survival (p = 0.058) in the node-positive subgroup (Supplementary Figure S2b). Some studies disclosed that cancer patients with T2DM tended to have higher incidence of pathological PNI [64,65,66]. However, there were no association between these two poor prognostic factors in the current study. Regarding the adjuvant treatment in locally advanced EC, patients treated with neoCRT and with pathologically residual disease took nivolumab for 1 year in a previous study [67] and derived benefits from nivolumab across all prespecified subgroups. In this era of staggering medical cost, to delineate subgroups that would obtain greater benefits from adjuvant nivolumab is worthy of investigation. According to our results and the results of others, the presence of PNI may be a potential biomarker to select patients for adjuvant treatment.
There are certain limitations to this study. First, this is a retrospective cohort design and all patients were from single center which might cause bias. Thus, data interpretation and its generalizability should be cautiously considered. Second, there was no standard systemic therapy for patients with residual disease after neoCRT and individualized therapy following the MDT discussion. Third, we did not perform immunohistochemical staining with stains such as anti-S-100 or anti-CD31 to detect nerve or vascular invasion. Therefore, identifying these pathological features may be less accurate.

5. Conclusions

The results of this retrospective cohort study of patients with locally advanced ESCC who were treated with neoCRT followed by surgery reflected real-world practice and evidence. The initial treatment goal of achieving a pCR is paramount to endorse patients with better survival outcomes. In patients with a non-pCR, preexisting T2DM and the presence of PNI are both significant poor prognostic factors. The unfavorable impacts of these two factors and the implications for possible adjuvant treatment warrant further investigations.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers15041122/s1, Figure S1: Kaplan–Meier curve of disease-free survival for comparison among patients with no risk factors, one risk factor, and both risk factors in the non-pCR patient subgroup. Figure S2: Kaplan–Meier curve of DFS for comparison between the presence and absence of PNI in the subgroup of (a) node-negative patients and (b) node-positive patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.-W.S., H.-C.L. (Hung-Chang Liu), W.-C.C., C.-H.Y., M.-C.W., H.-C.L. (Huan-Chau Lin), W.-C.H. and Y.-J.C.; Data curation, L.-M.M., M.-L.C. and T.-Y.S.; Formal analysis, H.-C.L. (Hung-Chang Liu); Investigation, L.-M.M. and M.-L.C.; Methodology, W.-C.C.; Project administration, C.-H.Y.; Software, T.-Y.S.; Supervision, M.-C.W., W.-C.H. and Y.-J.C.; Validation, H.-C.L. (Huan-Chau Lin); Writing—original draft, N.-W.S.; Writing—review & editing, Yu-Jen Chen. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of MacKay Memorial Hospital. The IRB approval number is 21MMHIS178e (approval date: 11 June 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to this study being retrospective design. All of the patients received routine diagnostic and treatment procedures according to the treatment guideline. The IRB of MacKay Memorial Hospital agreed that patient informed consent being waived.

Data Availability Statement

Deidentified data of the study are available and will be provided by reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff at the cancer registry section, MacKay Memorial Hospital (Taipei, Taiwan) for providing the esophageal cancer data registry.

Conflicts of Interest

All the authors claim no conflict of interest in this study.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rustgi, A.K.; El-Serag, H.B. Esophageal carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 2499–2509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Morgan, E.; Soerjomataram, I.; Rumgay, H.; Coleman, H.G.; Thrift, A.P.; Vignat, J.; Laversanne, M.; Ferlay, J.; Arnold, M. The global landscape of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and mortality in 2020 and projections to 2040: New estimates from GLOBOCAN 2020. Gastroenterology 2022, 163, 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Arnold, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Ferlay, J.; Forman, D. Global incidence of oesophageal cancer by histology subtype in 2012. Gut 2015, 64, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, Y.; Xu, J.; Gu, Y.; Sun, X.; Dong, H.; Chen, C. The disease and economic burdens of esophageal cancer in China from 2013 to 2030: Dynamic cohort modeling study. JIMI Public Health Surveill. 2022, 8, e33191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. GBD 2017 Oesophageal Cancer Collaborators. The global, regional, and national burden of oesophageal cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: A systemic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 5, 582–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Li, F.; Ding, N.; Zhao, Y.; Yuan, L.; Mao, Y. The current optimal multimodality treatments for oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 60, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Matsuda, S.; Kawakubo, H.; Okamura, A.; Takahashi, K.; Toihata, T.; Takemura, R.; Mayanagi, H.; Takeuchi, H.; Watanabe, M.; Kitagawa, Y. Prognostic significance of stratification using pathological stage and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 8438–8447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nakashima, Y.; Saeki, H.; Hu, Q.; Tsuda, Y.; Hisamatsu, Y.; Ando, K.; Oki, E.; Maehara, Y. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Anticancer. Res. 2018, 38, 6809–6814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. von Dobeln, G.A.; Klevebro, F.; Jacobsen, A.B.; Johannessen, H.O.; Nielsen, N.H.; Johnsen, G.; Harlevoll, I.; Glenjen, N.I.; Friesland, S.; Lundell, L.; et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction: Long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Dis. Esophagus 2019, 32, doy078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huang, T.C.; Hsu, C.H.; Lin, C.C.; Tu, Y.K. Systemic review and network meta-analysis: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locoregional esophageal cancer. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 45, 1023–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, J.; Ma, S. History and current situation of neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Thorac. Cancer 2021, 12, 2293–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. van der Wilk, B.J.; Eyck, B.M.; Legarde, S.M.; van der Gaast, A.; Nuyttens, J.J.M.E.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; van Lanschot, J.J.B. The optimal neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. J. Thorac. Dis. 2019, 11, S621–S631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. van Hagen, P.; Hulshof, M.C.C.M.; van Lanschot, J.B.; Steyerberg, E.W.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Richel, D.J.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; Hospers, G.A.P.; Bonenkamp, J.J.; et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junction cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 2074–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yang, H.; Liu, H.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, C.; Fang, W.; Yu, Z.; Mao, W.; Xiang, J.; Han, Y.; Chen, Z.; et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (NEOCRTEC5010): A phase III multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 2796–2803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Eyck, B.M.; van Lanschot, J.B.; Hulshof, M.C.C.M.; van der Wilk, B.J.; Shapiro, J.; van Hagen, P.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; van Laarhoven, H.W.M.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; et al. Ten-year outcome of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer: The randomized controlled CROSS trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 1995–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, H.; Liu, H.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, C.; Fang, W.; Yu, Z.; Mao, W.; Xiang, J.; Han, Y.; Chen, H.; et al. Long-term efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for the treatment of local advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. JAMA Surg. 2021, 15, 721–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chao, Y.K.; Chang, H.K.; Tseng, C.K.; Liu, Y.H.; Wen, Y.W. Development of a nomogram for the prediction of pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Dis. Esophagus 2017, 30, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Soro, T.; Kho, G.; Zhao, K.L.; Ismail, M.; Badakhshi, H. Impact of pathological complete response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer. J. Thorac. Dis. 2018, 10, 4069–4076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shen, J.; Kong, M.; Yang, H.; Jin, K.; Chen, Y.; Fang, W.; Yu, Z.; Mao, W.; Xiang, J.; Han, Y.; et al. Pathological complete response after neoadjuvant treatment determines survival in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients (NEOCRTEC5010). Ann. Transl. Med. 2021, 9, 1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smit, J.K.; Guler, S.; Beukema, J.C.; Mul, V.E.; Burgerhof, J.G.M.; Hospers, G.A.P.; Plukker, J.T.M. Different recurrence pattern after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared to surgery alone in esophageal cancer patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 20, 4008–4015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Al-Kaabi, A.; van der Post, R.S.; van der Werf, L.R.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Rosman, C.; Hulshof, M.C.C.M.; van Laarhoven, H.W.M.; Verhoeven, R.H.A.; Siersema, P.D. Impact of pathological tumor response after CROSS neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery on long-term outcome of esophageal cancer: A population-based study. Acta Oncol. 2021, 60, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Worrell, S.G.; Alvarado, C.E.; Thibault, D.; Towe, C.W.; Mitchell, J.D.; Vekstein, A.; Kosinski, A.S.; Hartwig, M.G.; Linden, P.A. Impact of diabetes on pathologic response to multimodality therapy for esophageal cancer. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2022; Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alvarado, C.E.; Kapcio, K.C.; Lada, M.J.; Linden, P.A.; Towe, C.W.; Worrell, S.G. The effect of diabetes on pathologic complete response among patients with esophageal cancer. Semin. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2022; Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ma, Y.; Chen, J.; Yao, X.; Li, Z.; Li, W.; Wang, H.; Zhu, J. Patterns and prognostic predictive value of perineural invasion in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. MBC Cancer 2022, 22, 1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Oguma, J.; Ishiyama, K.; Kurita, D.; Kanematsu, K.; Kubo, K.; Utsunomiya, D.; Yamamoto, S.; Honma, Y.; Kato, K.; Daiko, H. Significance of lymphovascular invasion in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy. Esophagus, 2022; Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Obermannova, R.; Alsina, M.; Cervantes, A.; Leong, T.; Lordick, F.; Nilsson, M.; van Grieken, N.C.T.; Vogel, A.; Smyth, E.C. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2022, 33, 992–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Shah, M.A.; Kennedy, E.B.; Catenacci, D.V.; Deighton, D.C.; Goodman, K.A.; Malhotra, N.K.; Willett, C.; Stiles, B.; Sharma, P.; Tang, L.; et al. Treatment of locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: ASCO guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 2677–2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Valmasoni, M.; Pierobon, E.S.; Zanchettin, G.; Briscolini, D.; Moletta, L.; Ruol, A.; Salvador, R.; Merigliano, S. Cervical esophageal cancer treatment strategies: A cohort study appraising the debated role of surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 25, 2747–2755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ohno, K.; Nasu, M.; Matsui, H.; Baba, Y.; Yasuda, T.; Sakuma, J.; Ikeda, K.; Maruo, T.; Narita, N.; Kato, H.; et al. Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in Japanese patients with cervical esophageal cancer. Esophagus 2022, 19, 576–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Toxopeus, E.; van der Schaaf, M.; van Lanschot, J.; Lagergren, J.; Lagergren, P.; van der Gaast, A.; Wijnhoven, B. Outcome of patients treated within and outside a randomized clinical trial on neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery for esophageal cancer: Extrapolation of a randomized clinical trial (CROSS). Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 25, 2441–2448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xi, M.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, L.; Yang, Y.D.; Liu, S.L.; Li, Y.; Fu, J.H.; Liu, M.Z. Comparing docetaxel plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 47, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Haisley, H.R.; Hart, K.D.; Nabavizadeh, N.; Bensch, K.G.; Vaccaro, G.M.; Thomas, C.R., Jr.; Schipper, P.H.; Hunter, J.G.; Dolan, J.P. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin/5-fluorouracil is associated with increased pathologic complete response and improved survival compared to carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Dis. Esophagus 2017, 30, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Motoyama, S.; Sato, Y.; Sasaki, T.; Wakita, A.; Kawakita, Y.; Liu, J.; Nagaki, Y.; Saito, H.; Imai, K.; Konno, H.; et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy following esophagectomy with Japanese-style extended 3-field lymphadenectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer. Anticancer. Res. 2017, 37, 5837–5843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. van den Ende, T.; de Clercq, N.C.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I.; Gisbertz, S.S.; Geijsen, E.D.; Verhoeven, R.H.A.; Meijer, S.L.; Schokker, S.; Dings, M.P.G.; Bergman, J.J.G.H.M.; et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy combined with atezolizumab for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma: A single-arm phase II feasibility study (PERFECT). Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 27, 3351–3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Yamamoto, S.; Kato, K.; Daiko, H.; Kojima, T.; Hara, H.; Abe, T.; Tsubosa, Y.; Nagashima, K.; Aoki, K.; Mizoguchi, Y.; et al. Feasibility study of nivolumab as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally esophageal carcinoma: FRONTiER (JCOG1804E). Future Oncol. 2020, 16, 1351–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Liu, J.; Lin, W.; Shao, D.; Depypere, L.; Zhang, Z.; Li, X.; Cui, F.; Du, Z.; Zeng, Y.; Jiang, S.; et al. Neoadjuvant camrelizumab plus chemotherapy for resectable, locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (NIC-ESCC2019): A multicenter, phase 2 study. Int. J. Cancer 2022, 151, 128–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. He, W.; Leng, X.; Mao, T.; Luo, X.; Zhou, L.; Yan, J.; Peng, L.; Fang, Q.; Liu, G.; Wei, X.; et al. Toripalimab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin as neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Oncologist 2022, 27, e18–e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, J.; Zhang, K.; Liu, T.; Song, Y.; Hua, P.; Chen, S.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, Y. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 974684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shlomai, G.; Neel, B.; LeRoith, D.; Gallagher, E.J. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cancer: The role of pharmacotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 4261–4269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Garcia-Jimenez, C.; Gutierrez-Salmeron, M.; Chocarro-Calvo, A.; Garcia-Martinez, J.M.; Castano, A.; De la Vieja, A. From obesity to diabetes and cancer: Epidemiological links and role of therapies. Br. J. Cancer 2016, 114, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zeng, X.; Xu, C.; Cheng, J.; Sun, C.; Wang, Z.; Gong, Z.; Long, H.; Zhu, B. Poor glycemic control might compromise the efficacy of chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with diabetes mellitus. Cancer Med. 2020, 9, 902–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kleeff, J.; Costelloa, E.; Jackson, R.; Halloran, C.; Greenhalf, W.; Ghaneh, P.; Lamb, R.F.; Lerch, M.M.; Mayerle, J.; Palmer, D.; et al. The impact of diabetes mellitus on survival following resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2016, 115, 887–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Maskarinec, G.; Shvetsov, Y.B.; Conroy, S.M.; Haiman, C.A.; Setiewan, V.W.; Le Marchand, L. Type 2 diabetes as a predictor of survival among breast cancer patients: The multiethnic cohort. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2019, 173, 637–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zheng, X.; Ma, X.; Deng, H.Y.; Zha, P.; Zhou, J.; Wang, R.L.; Jiang, R. Diabetes mellitus and survival of esophageal cancer patienta after esophagectomy: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Dis. Esophagus 2020, 33, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Backemar, L.; Djarv, T.; Wikman, A.; Johar, A.; Ross, P.; Lagergren, P.; Lagergren, J. The role of diabetes and other co-morbidities on survival after esophageal cancer surgery in a population-based study. Am. J. Surg. 2013, 206, 539–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Kitagawa, H.; Namikawa, T.; Munekage, M.; Fujisawa, K.; Kawanishi, Y.; Kobayashi, M.; Hanazaki, K. Preoperative patient-related factors associated with prognosis after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Esophagus 2017, 14, 360–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Okamura, A.; Watanabe, M.; Imamura, Y.; Hayami, M.; Yamashita, K.; Kurogochi, T.; Mine, S. Glycemic status and prognosis of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. World J. Surg. 2017, 41, 2591–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, B.; Cheng, B.; Wang, C.; Chen, P.; Cheng, Y. The prognostic significance of metabolic syndrome and weight loss in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 10101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Peng, F.; Hu, D.; Lin, X.; Chen, G.; Liang, B.; Zhang, H.; Dong, X.; Lin, J.; Zheng, X.; Nio, W. Analysis of preoperative metabolic risk factors affecting the prognosis of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: The Fujian Prospective Investigation of Cncer (FIESTA) study. EBioMedicine 2017, 16, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kim, Y.H.; Song, S.Y.; Shim, H.J.; Chung, W.K.; Ahn, S.J.; Yoon, M.S.; Jeong, J.U.; Song, J.Y.; Nam, T.K. Treatment outcomes of neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2015, 3, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Spierings, L.E.A.M.M.; Lagarde, S.M.; van Oijen, M.G.H.; Gisbertz, S.S.; Wilmink, J.W.; Hulshof, M.C.C.M.; Meijer, S.L.; Anderegg, M.C.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I. Metformin use during treatment of potentially curable esophageal cancer patients is not associated with better outcomes. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, S766–S771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yao, W.; Meng, Y.; Lu, M.; Fan, W.; Huang, J.; Li, J.; Zhu, Z. Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus on short-term and long-term outcomes of patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer undergoing resection: A propensity score analysis. Cancer Commun. 2018, 38, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bakst, R.L.; Glastinbury, C.M.; Parvathaneni, U.; Katabi, N.; Hu, K.S.; Yom, S.S. Perineural invasion and perineural tumor spread in head and neck cancer. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2019, 103, 1109–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Liang, D.; Shi, S.; Xu, J.; Zhang, B.; Qin, Y.; Ji, S.; Xu, W.; Liu, J.; Liu, L.; Liu, C.; et al. New insights into perineural invasion of pancreatic cancer: More than pain. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2016, 1865, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, S.H.; Zhang, B.Y.; Zhou, B.; Zhu, C.Z.; Sun, L.Q.; Feng, Y.J. Perineural invasion of cancer: A complex crosstalk between cells and molecules in the perineural niche. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2019, 9, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Bakst, R.L.; Xiong, H.; Chen, C.H.; Deborde, S.; Lyubchik, A.; Zhou, Y.; He, S.; McNamara, W.; Lee, S.Y.; Olson, O.C.; et al. Inflammatory monocytes promote perineural invasion via CCL2-mediated recruitment and cathepsin B expression. Cancer Res. 2017, 77, 6400–6414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Demir, I.E.; Boldis, A.; Pfitzinger, P.L.; Teller, S.; Brunner, E.; Klose, N.; Kehl, T.; Maak, M.; Lesina, M.; Laschinger, M.; et al. Investigation of Schwann cells at neoplastic cell sites before the onset of cancer invasion. J. Natl. Cancer Int. 2014, 106, dju184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhou, J.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Luan, S.; Xiao, X.; Li, X.; Fang, P.; Gu, Y.; Chen, L.; Zeng, X.; et al. Lymphovascular and perineural invasion after neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chen, J.W.; Xie, J.D.; Ling, Y.H.; Li, P.; Yan, S.M.; Xi, S.Y.; Luo, R.Z.; Yun, J.P.; Xie, D.; Cai, M.Y. The prognostic effect of perineural invasion in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2014, 14, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Guo, Y.N.; Tian, D.P.; Gong, Q.Y.; Huang, H.; Yang, P.; Chen, S.B.; Billan, S.; He, J.Y.; Huang, H.H.; Xiong, P.; et al. Perineural invasion is a better prognostic indicator than lymphvascular invasion and a potential adjuvant therapy indicator for pN0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 27, 4371–4381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Kim, H.E.; Park, S.Y.; Kim, H.; Kim, D.J.; Kim, S.I. Prognostic effect of perineural invasion in surgically treated esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Thorac. Cancer 2021, 12, 1605–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Zhang, L.; Shao, J.; Liu, Z.; Pan, J.; Li, B.; Yang, Y.; He, Y.; Han, Y.; Li, Z. Occurrence and prognostic value of perineural invasion in esophageal squamous cell cancer: A retrospective study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 29, 586–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wu, C.H.; Wu, T.Y.; Li, C.C.; Lui, M.T.; Chang, K.W.; Kao, S.Y. Impact of diabetes mellitus on the prognosis of patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective cohort study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 17, 2175–2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Li, J.; Ma, Q.; Liu, H.; Gui, K.; Li, F.; Li, W.; Han, L.; Wang, F.; Wu, E. Relationship between neural alteration and perineural invasion in pancreatic cancer patients with hyperglycemia. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e17385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Sahin, I.H.; Shama, M.A.; Tanaka, M.; Abbruzzese, J.L.; Curley, S.A.; Hassan, M.; Li, D. Association of diabetes and perineural invasion in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Med. 2012, 1, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kelly, R.J.; Ajani, J.A.; Kuzdzal, J.; Zander, T.; Van Cutsem, E.; Piessen, G.; Mendez, G.; Feliciano, J.; Motoyama, S.; Lievre, A.; et al. Adjuvant nivolumab in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 1191–1203. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Cancers 15 01122 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart of patient enrollment and exclusion. Abbreviations: ESCC: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; neoCRT: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; PD: progression of disease.
Figure 1. Flow chart of patient enrollment and exclusion. Abbreviations: ESCC: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; neoCRT: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; PD: progression of disease.
Cancers 15 01122 g001
Cancers 15 01122 g002a 550Cancers 15 01122 g002b 550
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curve for comparison between pCR and non-pCR patient subgroups. (a) OS; (b) DFS; and (c) MFS. Abbreviation: pCR: pathological complete response; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; and MFS: metastasis-free survival.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curve for comparison between pCR and non-pCR patient subgroups. (a) OS; (b) DFS; and (c) MFS. Abbreviation: pCR: pathological complete response; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; and MFS: metastasis-free survival.
Cancers 15 01122 g002aCancers 15 01122 g002b
Cancers 15 01122 g003 550
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curve of disease-free survival for comparison between patients (a) with vs. without preexisting T2DM; (b) with vs. without PNI; and (c) N0/N1 vs. N2/N3. Abbreviations: T2DM: type 2 diabetes; PNI: perineural invasion.
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier curve of disease-free survival for comparison between patients (a) with vs. without preexisting T2DM; (b) with vs. without PNI; and (c) N0/N1 vs. N2/N3. Abbreviations: T2DM: type 2 diabetes; PNI: perineural invasion.
Cancers 15 01122 g003
Table
Table 1. Patient clinical characteristics.
Table 1. Patient clinical characteristics.
VariableOverall (N = 140)pCR (N = 45)Non-pCR (N = 95)
Age57.5 ± 8.759.6 ± 8.856.6 ± 8.5
Sex
 Male
 Female
130 (92.9%)
10 (7.1%)
41 (91.1%)
4 (8.9%)
89 (93.7%)
6 (6.3%)
ECOG
 0
 1
42 (30%)
98 (70%)
12 (26.7%)
33 (73.3%)
30 (31.6%)
65 (68.4%)
Tumor Location
 Cervical
 Upper Thoracic
 Middle Thoracic
 Lower Thoracic
10 (7.1%)
31 (22.1%)
60 (42.9%)
39 (27.9%)
2 (4.4%)
8 (17.8%)
23 (51.1%)
12 (26.7%)
8 (8.4%)
24 (25.3%)
36 (37.9%)
27 (28.4%)
Clinical T Stage
 T1
 T2
 T3
 T4
5 (3.6%)
39 (27.9%)
86 (61.4%)
10 (7.1%)
3 (6.7%)
14 (31.1%)
28 (62.2%)
0
2 (2.1%)
25 (26.3%)
58 (61.1%)
10 (10.5%)
Clinical N Stage
 N0
 N1
 N2
 N3
11 (7.9%)
47 (33.6%)
63 (45%)
19 (13.6%)
2 (4.4%)
15 (33.3%)
26 (57.8%)
2 (4.4%)
9 (9.5%)
32 (33.7%)
37 (38.9%)
17 (17.9%)
Clinical Stage
 II
 III
 Iva
24 (17.1%)
89 (63.6%)
27 (19.3%)
7 (15.6%)
36 (80%)
2 (4.4%)
17 (17.9%)
53 (55.8%)
25 (26.3%)
CT regimen
Platinum/Paclitaxel
Platinum Only
63 (45%)
77 (55%)
19 (42.2%)
26 (57.8%)

44 (46.3%)
51 (53.7%)
CT Cycles
 ≥5
 <5
102 (72.8%)
38 (27.2%)
38 (84.4%)
7 (15.6%)
70 (73.7%)
25 (26.3%)
RT Dose (cGy)4704 ± 328.74742 ± 231.14686 ± 365.8
CRT_Op Time (days)
 ≤42 days
 >42 days		41.5 ± 10.2
78 (55.7%)
62 (44.3%)		38.8 ± 10.3
32 (71.1%)
13 (28.9%)		42.8 ± 9.9
46 (48.4%)
49 (51.6%)
History of HNSCC
  No
  Yes
127 (90.7%)
13 (9.3%)
41 (91.1%)
4 (8.9%)
86 (90.5%)
9 (9.5%)
History of T2DM
  No
  Yes
119 (85%)
21 (5%)
36 (80%)
9 (20%)
83 (87.4%)
12 (6.3%)
Abbreviations: pCR: pathological complete response; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group CT: chemotherapy; RT: radiotherapy; CRT: chemoradiotherapy; Op: operation; HNSCC: head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; and T2DM: type 2 diabetes.
Table
Table 2. Pathological characteristics of patients with a non-pCR (N = 95).
Table 2. Pathological characteristics of patients with a non-pCR (N = 95).
Pathologic T Stage
 T0
 T1
 T2
 T3
 T4
7 (7.4%)
15 (15.8%)
35 (36.8%)
33 (34.7%)
5 (5.3%)		Differentiation
 Well
 Moderate
 Poor
4 (4.2%)
72 (75.8%)
19 (20.0%)
Pathologic N Stage
 N0
 N1
 N2
 N3
47 (49.5%)
25 (26.3%)
18 (18.9%)
5 (5.3%)		LVI
 Yes
 No
25 (26.3%)
70 (73.7%)
Residual Disease Status
 Residual T Only
 Residual N Only
 Residual T + N
47 (49.5%)
7 (7.4%)
41 (43.1%)		PNI
 Yes
 No
27 (28.4%)
68 (71.6%)
ypStage
Stage I
Stage II
Stage IIIa
Stage IIIb
Stage Iva
27 (28.4%)
16 (16.8%)
16 (16.8%)
26 (27.4%)
10 (10.5%)		Dissected Lymph Nodes
 <15
 ≥15
44 (46.3%)
51 (53.7%)
Abbreviations: pCR: pathological complete response; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; and PNI: perineural invasion.
Table
Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analyses of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with a non-pCR.
Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analyses of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with a non-pCR.
Univariate Analysis of DFSMultivariate Analysis of DFS
Variables HR (95% CI)p-Value HR (95% CI)p-Value
Age (years)
 <57
 ≥57
Ref
1.081 (0.689–1.695)

0.734
Sex
 Male
 Female
Ref
0.566 (0.178–1.800)

0.335
ECOG
 0
 1
Ref
1.278 (0.787–2.075)

0.322
Tumor Location
 cervical + upper
 middle + lower
Ref
1.321 (0.797–2.189)

0.280
History of HNSCC
 No
 Yes
Ref
1.606 (0.768–3.360)

0.208
History of T2DM
 No
 Yes
Ref
2.139 (1.141–4.011)

0.018
Ref
2.354 (1.270–4.467)

0.009
CT Regimen
Platinum/Paclitaxel
Others
Ref
1.349 (0.855–2.219)

0.199
CT Cycles
 ≥5
 <5
Ref
0.780 (0.472–1.289)

0.333
neoCRT to Op time
 ≤42 days
 >42 days		-
Ref
0.846 (0.542–1.320)

0.461
Differentiation
 Well + moderate
 Poor
Ref
1.434 (0.845–2.434)

0.182
Dissected LNs
 ≥15
 <15
Ref
0.922 (0.587–1.447)

0.723
Presence of LVI
 No
 Yes
Ref
1.235 (0.751–2.031)

0.405
Presence of PNI
 No
 Yes
Ref
2.449 (1.497–4.007)

0.001
Ref
2.368 (1.351–4.150)

0.003
Pathological T Stage
 T0–T2
 T3–T4
Ref
1.390 (0.887–2.177)

0.151
Pathological N Stage
 N0–N1
 N2–N3
Ref
1.843 (1.117–3.041)

0.017
Ref
1.231 (0.688–2.203)

0.483
Presence of LVI
 No
 Yes
Ref
1.235 (0.751–2.031)

0.405
Presence of PNI
 No
 Yes
Ref
2.449 (1.497–4.007)

0.001
Ref
2.368 (1.351–4.150)

0.003
Pathological T Stage
 T0–T2
 T3–T4
Ref
1.390 (0.887–2.177)

0.151
Abbreviations: HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; Ref: reference for comparison; HNSCC: head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; T2DM: type 2 diabetes; CT: chemotherapy; neoCRT: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; Op: operation; LN: lymph node; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; PNI: perineural invasion.
Table
Table 4. Summary of PNI-centered ESCC studies in the literature.
Table 4. Summary of PNI-centered ESCC studies in the literature.
Author/Reference
/Country		Year of StudyTotal Patient NumberPre-Op TreatmentPNI No. (Percentage)Results
Zhou, et al. [59] China2017–2020321neoCRT (all patients)57 (17.8%) Inferior OS, DFS (univariate only)
Chen, et al. [60]
China		2000–2007433No pre-op
Treatment		209 (47.7%)Inferior OS in overall and pN0
subgroup
Gou, et al. [61]
China		2009–2013162
(all pN0M0)		No pre-op
Treatment		119 (73.5%)Inferior OS in pN0 patients
Kim, et al. [62]
Korea		2007–2016316Neoadjuvant treatment (22.2%)25 (7.9%)Inferior DFS in
overall and pN0
subgroup
Zhang, et al. [63]
China		2017–2018794No pre-op
Treatment		125 (15.7%)Not a poor prognostic factor
Abbreviation: PNI: perineural invasion; ESCC: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; OS: overall survival; DFS: disease-free survival; pN0: pathological node negative.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Su, N.-W.; Mok, L.-M.; Chan, M.-L.; Liu, H.-C.; Chang, W.-C.; Yun, C.-H.; Shieh, T.-Y.; Wu, M.-C.; Lin, H.-C.; Huang, W.-C.; et al. Impact of Perineural Invasion and Preexisting Type 2 Diabetes on Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy. Cancers 2023, 15, 1122. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041122

AMA Style

Su N-W, Mok L-M, Chan M-L, Liu H-C, Chang W-C, Yun C-H, Shieh T-Y, Wu M-C, Lin H-C, Huang W-C, et al. Impact of Perineural Invasion and Preexisting Type 2 Diabetes on Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy. Cancers. 2023; 15(4):1122. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041122

Chicago/Turabian Style

Su, Nai-Wen, Lai-Man Mok, Mei-Lin Chan, Hung-Chang Liu, Wei-Chin Chang, Chun-Ho Yun, Tze-Yu Shieh, Ming-Che Wu, Huan-Chau Lin, Wen-Chien Huang, and et al. 2023. "Impact of Perineural Invasion and Preexisting Type 2 Diabetes on Patients with Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy" Cancers 15, no. 4: 1122. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041122

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop