Next Article in Journal
Oral Findings in Male Prisoners: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Association between Left Atrial Appendage Morphology and Clot Histology in Patients with Embolic Ischemic Stroke: An Exploratory Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm13061735
jcm-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

Comparing the Efficacy of Carboplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil, Cisplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil, and Best Supportive Care for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis from a Tertiary Hospital in Southern Thailand

by
Jirapat Wonglhow
1,
Panu Wetwittayakhlang
2,
Patrapim Sunpaweravong
1,
Chirawadee Sathitruangsak
1 and
Arunee Dechaphunkul
1,*
1
Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
2
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(6), 1735; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061735
Submission received: 22 February 2024 / Revised: 13 March 2024 / Accepted: 15 March 2024 / Published: 17 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Oncology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Although cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is the standard first-line treatment for advanced-stage esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), carboplatin was substituted for cisplatin in cisplatin-ineligible patients. The efficacy of carboplatin plus 5-FU for advanced-stage ESCC remains unreported. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed first-line treatment—carboplatin plus 5-FU, cisplatin plus 5-FU, or best supportive care (BSC)—in advanced-stage ESCC patients at a tertiary hospital in Thailand (2012–2022). Survival was assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method, compared via the log-rank test, and adjusted through propensity score matching. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Of 256 patients, 39.9% received carboplatin plus 5-FU, 27.7% cisplatin plus 5-FU, and 32.4% BSC. Carboplatin was significantly associated with older age, poorer performance status, more comorbidities, chronic kidney disease, and lower creatinine clearance. Median overall survival (OS) for carboplatin plus 5-FU, cisplatin plus 5-FU, and BSC was 8.05 (HR 0.31 [0.23, 0.43] vs. BSC, p < 0.001; HR 1.06 [0.78, 1.44] vs. cisplatin plus 5-FU, p = 0.7), 8.43, and 3.64 months, respectively. No significant OS difference was observed between carboplatin and cisplatin treatments after propensity score matching. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR) showed no significant difference between carboplatin and cisplatin treatments. Conclusions: Despite less favorable baseline characteristics of patients receiving carboplatin plus 5-FU, this combination exhibited comparable OS, PFS, and ORR to cisplatin plus 5-FU in real-world scenarios. Furthermore, it significantly improved OS over BSC. Consequently, carboplatin plus 5-FU should be considered as an alternative regimen, particularly for advanced-stage ESCC patients who are ineligible for cisplatin.

1. Introduction

Esophageal cancer was diagnosed in approximately 604,100 cases globally in 2020, up from 450,000 cases in 2012 [1,2]. Notably, it ranks as the seventh most common cancer worldwide. Unfortunately, there has been little development in the treatment of esophageal cancer in the last two decades [3,4], and it holds the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. In 2020, 544,000 deaths resulted from esophageal cancer, which reflects an increase from 400,000 cases in 2012 [1,2].
Esophageal cancer has two main histological subtypes: esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). In Asia and Africa, ESCC remains the most common form of this cancer, whereas in Europe and the United States, EAC is predominant. In the most susceptible area, known as the esophageal cancer belt, spanning from northern Iran across Central Asia to the north-central regions of China, approximately 90% of individuals diagnosed with esophageal cancer exhibit ESCC [3,5]. At the time of diagnosis, approximately 50–60% of patients are unsuitable candidates for surgery [5,6]. This may be because of various reasons, such as tumor growth into adjacent structures, extensive lymph node metastases in the upper mediastinal or cervical regions, the presence of distant metastases, or the patient’s inability to undergo surgery because of medical conditions or poor performance status (PS). For most patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal cancer, the primary focus of treatment is effective palliative care aimed at enhancing quality of life and extending survival.
In the context of metastatic or recurrent ESCC, the availability of effective and well-tolerated palliative chemotherapy options is limited, and phase III studies in this area are lacking [7]. Despite advancements in chemotherapy over the past three decades, individuals with metastatic ESCC typically experience a median overall survival (OS) of only around 8–11 months with combination chemotherapy [3,4,8,9]. In contrast to EAC, where survival benefits of targeted therapy for HER2 overexpressive tumors are observed, successful targeted therapy for ESCC has not yet been achieved [10,11,12]. However, with recent developments, a breakthrough in the use of immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has led to an OS prolongation of approximately 15 months [4,13,14,15]. Unfortunately, access to immunotherapy in Thailand remains limited because of its high cost. Among chemotherapeutic agents, cisplatin is one of the most effective, with a consistent single-agent response rate (RR) of 10–20% [8,16]. The combination of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) has been extensively studied and is the most frequently used regimen in patients with esophageal cancer. The reported RRs for these two-drug combinations vary from 20% to 50% [5,8,16,17]. Nevertheless, cisplatin is known to cause renal toxicity, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, emesis, and peripheral neuropathy [18]. Hence, alternative chemotherapy regimens have been used, particularly in patients who are ineligible for cisplatin.
The REAL-2 trial, a phase III study, demonstrated the comparable efficacy of oxaliplatin to cisplatin in a three-drug combination regimen for patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer who had not received prior treatment, achieving an RR of 40–47% [19]. However, only approximately 10% of patients with ESCC were included in the REAL-2 trial. Carboplatin, another platinum analog, has shown limited effectiveness as a single-agent therapy for esophageal cancer [8,20]. Nevertheless, the results from phase II and retrospective trials evaluating carboplatin in combination with taxanes have shown encouraging outcomes [21,22,23]. Additionally, the combination of carboplatin and paclitaxel coupled with concurrent radiation therapy (RT) has become an internationally recognized standard of care for locally advanced diseases [17,24,25]. The efficacy of carboplatin and 5-FU concurrent with RT is comparable to that of cisplatin and 5-FU [26]. Taken together, carboplatin, when used in combination treatment, could be considered an alternative option for individuals ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy.
At our institution, carboplatin plus 5-FU has been used in patients with advanced ESCC who are not eligible for a cisplatin-based regimen. To the best of our knowledge, no information regarding the effectiveness of carboplatin plus 5-FU for the treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC has been reported. Therefore, this study is the first to aim at presenting the real-world efficacy of first-line palliative chemotherapy with carboplatin plus 5-FU versus cisplatin plus 5-FU and best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced-stage ESCC at the Medical Oncology Service of a tertiary-care hospital in Southern Thailand.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Participants

From January 2012 to December 2022, we retrospectively reviewed the medical information of patients newly diagnosed with ESCC at Songklanagarind Hospital, Prince of Songkla University. The main inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients with histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus; (2) patients with advanced-stage disease according to the definition of clinical stage IV (cT4NxMx, cTxN3Mx, or cTxNxM1) according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC); (3) patients receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy as carboplatin plus 5-FU or cisplatin plus 5-FU with or without concurrent RT or BSC; and (4) patients aged 18 years or older. The main exclusion criterion was receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy with other regimens.
Patient information was obtained from electronic medical records using the hospital information system of Songklanagarind Hospital. Information on initial clinical characteristics, including age at diagnosis, sex, body mass index (BMI), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS, smoking and alcohol drinking status, comorbidities, including previous cancer and other concurrent primary cancers, tumor location, TNM staging, tumor differentiation from histopathology, site of metastasis, baseline laboratory data, and previous treatments, including surgery, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), and palliative RT, was collected.
This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Research Center of the Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University (REC.66422141). The requirement for written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study. To ensure patient safety, all identifying information was excluded from the study.

2.2. Study Procedures

The chemotherapy regimen using carboplatin plus 5-FU was administered as follows: carboplatin was infused at an AUC of 5 over 1 h on day 1. Subsequently, a 24 h intravenous infusion of 5-FU was administered at a dose of 800 mg/m2 on days 1–5 or a dose of 1000 mg/m2 on days 1–4. The cisplatin plus 5-FU regimen involved the infusion of cisplatin at a dose of 80 or 100 mg/m2 over 1 h on day 1, followed by 5-FU administration in a manner similar to that of the carboplatin plus 5-FU regimen. Both chemotherapy regimens were repeated at 4-week intervals and continued for a maximum of four or six cycles, or until disease progression, death, onset of intolerable side effects, or upon the patient’s indication of preference. The chemotherapy dose was adjusted by primary oncologists based on the patient’s ECOG PS and baseline laboratory values.
If the first-line chemotherapy regimen was ineffective, subsequent therapeutic protocols were considered. The decision was made based on the patient’s performance status, personal preference, or the feasibility of using alternative agents.

2.3. Measurement

The primary objective of this study was to compare the OS of carboplatin plus 5-FU as first-line palliative chemotherapy with that of cisplatin plus 5-FU and BSC for advanced-stage ESCC. The secondary objectives were to compare OS using propensity score matching between carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) between carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU. The prognostic factors for OS were also determined as secondary objectives. OS was defined as the period from the date of diagnosis of advanced-stage ESCC to death from any cause. PFS was defined as the period from the date of diagnosis to either radiologically identified tumor progression or death, whichever occurred first. Death status was validated and crosschecked using the Thai Social Security Death Index database. RR was evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria. Chest and abdominal computed tomography were performed every 2–3 months to elucidate treatment responses. RRs were determined for all patients (intention-to-treat analysis) and for those with assessable data.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The sample size was calculated for survival based on a two-sample test to assess a difference in disease hazard (unequal sample) from the previous study [25], which evaluated carboplatin plus 5-FU concurrent with RT in localized-stage ESCC, as there was no previous study reporting the efficacy of carboplatin plus 5-FU in advanced-stage ESCC. A significance level (alpha) of 5% and a power level (beta) of 20% with a 10% allowance for missing data were used, resulting in a total requirement of 94 patients.
In terms of baseline characteristics, continuous variables are presented as median and interquartile range or as mean and standard deviation, where appropriate. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and corresponding percentages. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to generate survival curves, which were compared using the log-rank test. The propensity score-matching principle with a 1:1 matching approach employing a nearest neighbor algorithm without replacement sampling was implemented for age, sex, ECOG PS, comorbidity, BMI, baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl), and metastatic status. The baseline characteristics of the patients were reassessed after matching. R software version 3.3.2 (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) was used to perform statistical analyses. All p-values were two-sided, and statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

In total, 256 patients with advanced-stage ESCC were included in this study. Of these patients, 102, 71, and 83 received first-line palliative chemotherapy with carboplatin plus 5-FU (39.9%), cisplatin plus 5-FU (27.7%), or BSC (32.4%), respectively. The baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. Compared with cisplatin plus 5-FU, patients receiving carboplatin plus 5-FU were associated with older age, poorer ECOG PS, more comorbidities, especially hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, more histologically well-differentiated SCC, lower baseline hemoglobin and CrCl levels, and more palliative RT prior to palliative chemotherapy. Other factors were not significantly different between the groups.

3.2. Treatment Information

The median number of chemotherapy cycles was three and four cycles in carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU, respectively. The median dose of carboplatin in the carboplatin plus 5-FU group was AUC 5, and the median dose of cisplatin in the cisplatin plus 5-FU group was 80 mg/m2.
In both groups, the median 5-FU dose was 4000 mg/m2/cycle. Notably, patients in the carboplatin plus 5-FU group experienced a higher rate of chemotherapy dose reduction than did those in the cisplatin plus 5-FU group. CCRT was more prevalent in the cisplatin plus 5-FU group (71.8% vs. 46.1%; p = 0.001), with a median radiation dose of 5040 Gy.
Patients in the carboplatin plus 5-FU group most commonly discontinued treatment because of disease progression, followed by death and completion of the full treatment course. In contrast, patients in the cisplatin plus 5-FU group tended to discontinue treatment after completing the full treatment course, which was followed by disease progression and death. Approximately one-fourth of all patients received subsequent treatment (Table 2, Supplementary Table S1).

3.3. Effectiveness

3.3.1. OS between Carboplatin plus 5-FU, Cisplatin plus 5-FU, and BSC

The median follow-up was 6.39 months. The median OS was 8.05 months in patients treated with carboplatin plus 5-FU (hazard ratio [HR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23–0.43, compared to that of BSC, p < 0.001; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.78–1.44, compared to that of cisplatin plus 5-FU, p = 0.7), 8.43 months in those treated with cisplatin plus 5-FU (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.21–0.41, compared to that of BSC, p < 0.001), and 3.64 months in those treated with BSC (Figure 1). The 1-year OS rates for patients treated with carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU were 27.5% and 32.4, respectively (HR, 1.14; p = 0.468).

3.3.2. OS between Carboplatin plus 5-FU and Cisplatin plus 5-FU with Propensity Score Matching

After applying propensity score matching with age, sex, ECOG PS, comorbidity, BMI, baseline CrCl, and metastatic status, at a 1:1 ratio, 71 patients in the carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU groups were assessed. The baseline characteristics of the patients were reassessed after matching, revealing balance between the groups (Supplementary Table S2). The median OS times were 8.75 and 8.43 months for patients treated with carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU, respectively (Figure 2). There was no statistically significant difference between groups (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71–1.40; p = 0.984).

3.3.3. PFS between Carboplatin plus 5-FU and Cisplatin plus 5-FU

The median PFS for patients receiving carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU was 4.14 and 5.11 months (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85–1.56, p = 0.364), respectively (Figure 3).
Regarding the RR (Table 3), the ORR for carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU in the entire population was 30.4% and 36.6%, respectively (p = 0.436). Approximately one-fourth of the participants lacked a response evaluation. Thus, in patients with an available response assessment, the ORR was 41.9% and 47.3% for the carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU (p = 0.531), respectively.

3.4. Prognostic Factors

Various parameters were calculated using univariate Cox regression analysis to define the prognostic factors for OS. The significant factors were subsequently subjected to multivariate Cox regression analysis (Table 4). Patients who received palliative chemotherapy with either carboplatin or cisplatin plus 5-FU had significantly better OS when compared to those who received BSC alone. Patients with ECOG PS ≥ 2, presence of liver metastasis, presence of leukocytosis, declined CrCl (<60 mL/min), and hypoalbuminemia were significantly associated with poor OS.

4. Discussion

This study highlights the real-world efficacy of carboplatin plus 5-FU as first-line palliative chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage ESCC. This regimen has been shown to provide outcomes comparable to the commonly used and standard regimen, cisplatin plus 5-FU. Furthermore, carboplatin plus 5-FU demonstrated superior outcomes compared to those of BSC alone.
The conventional first-line chemotherapy for advanced ESCC combines platinum and fluoropyrimidine [9,17,27,28]. Despite the majority of randomized trials focusing on esophageal adenocarcinoma, the overall findings are often extrapolated for application in ESCC [27]. Cisplatin plus 5-FU is the most apparent regimen for advanced-stage ESCC, although its benefits have not been confirmed in phase III clinical trials [29,30]. Nevertheless, several phase II studies have provided supportive data for cisplatin plus 5-FU, specifically in an ESCC population [16,31,32]. Hence, it has gained acceptance as a standard treatment regimen in various guidelines [17,27,33]. Nonetheless, cisplatin is known to cause renal toxicity, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss, emesis, and peripheral neuropathy [18]. Therefore, alternative chemotherapy regimens have been used, particularly in patients who are ineligible for cisplatin.
Oxaliplatin, another platinum agent recommended as a substitute for cisplatin, has mostly been studied in adenocarcinoma [19]. Although previous studies have indicated an equivalence between cisplatin- and oxaliplatin-based regimens in patients with locoregionally advanced ESCC [34], oxaliplatin-containing regimens have been infrequently used in our institution because of reimbursement issues. In our practice, carboplatin can serve as an alternative agent in cisplatin-ineligible patients. The findings of the current study indicate that patients receiving carboplatin plus 5-FU demonstrated frailty markers, including older age, poorer ECOG PS, more comorbidities, lower baseline hemoglobin, and lower CrCl. These conditions represent real-world scenarios in which cisplatin is contraindicated.
In our study, the median OS for cisplatin plus 5-FU was 7.89 months, lower than that reported in recent studies of patients in the controlled arm of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cisplatin plus 5-FU with or without immunotherapy (9.8–10.7 months) [13,35]. This finding may be explained by the fact that our study, rooted in a real-world setting, comprised a population typically excluded from clinical trials because of increased fragility. Significantly, 13.7% of our patients receiving cisplatin plus 5-FU had ECOG PS 2, a subgroup not represented in any RCTs, and none in our study had ECOG PS 0, differing from RCTs where ECOG 0 accounted for approximately 40–48% [13,35]. Another factor contributing to the OS disparity was subsequent treatment, with only 25% of our study participants receiving subsequent systemic treatment compared to approximately 50% in RCTs [13,35]. Furthermore, real-world data from Japan reported a median OS of 10.4 months for cisplatin plus 5-FU, which is longer than that of our results, likely because of a higher percentage of patients with an ECOG PS of 0 (36.8%) and more patients receiving subsequent treatment (72.2%) [36]. PFS in our study was 5.1 months, comparable to that of other studies, ranging from approximately 3.6 to 5.8 months [13,32,35,36]. The ORR was also in line with previous reports, at 27.0–38.4% [13,31,35,36,37]. Taken together, our findings align with those of previous studies underscoring OS variations based on different baseline clinical characteristics and subsequent treatments.
Carboplatin plus 5-FU has not been extensively studied in advanced ESCC; however, our results suggest that this regimen could serve as a viable alternative when cisplatin is ineligible. Despite the retrospective study design, propensity score matching analysis confirmed a comparable OS between carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU, which is consistent with a previous study showing comparable efficacy of CCRT using carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU in localized-stage esophageal carcinoma [26].
Here, we also identified the prognostic factors for OS. Receiving palliative chemotherapy has emerged as a favorable prognostic factor, while leukocytosis, hypoalbuminemia, decreased CrCl, presence of liver metastasis, and poor ECOG PS were identified as unfavorable ones. Leukocytosis, an inflammatory signal crucial for cancer progression and metastasis, inhibits regulatory lymphocyte-T cell antitumor immunity and stimulates thrombosis, angiogenesis, and stromal remodeling [38]. Our results correlate with those of previous reports of poorer outcomes [39,40]. A diminished serum albumin level, beyond being a nutritional gauge, also serves as an inflammatory marker independently associated with poor survival [41]. Moreover, esophageal cancer particularly affects oral intake difficulty compared to other cancers, leading to cachexia and compromising survival, which is consistent with previous reports [42,43]. Renal dysfunction has also been reported to predict nephrotoxicity in patients receiving chemotherapy for esophageal cancer, which could affect survival [44]. Notably, the compromised kidney function impairs drug clearance and increases the risk of toxicity. This impairment also restricts the choice of chemotherapeutic drugs and challenges a patient’s tolerance to cancer treatments, potentially prompting modifications or dose reductions in chemotherapy regimens and impacting treatment effectiveness. Additionally, liver metastasis can result in complications such as liver failure, jaundice, and ascites, significantly affecting a patient’s quality of life and contributing to disease severity. Our study’s results align with Luo’s findings, in which the presence of liver metastasis led to shorter survival [45]. In the liver metastasis group, individuals with upper esophageal cancer had the worst survival rates, followed by those with middle- and lower-segment involvement [46].
A key strength of our study, based on the current knowledge, is that it is the first to examine the effectiveness of carboplatin plus 5-FU as a first-line palliative treatment for patients with advanced-stage ESCC. We implemented propensity score-matching analysis to mitigate selection bias. Our findings underscore that the OS, PFS, and ORR of the carboplatin plus 5-FU regimen were not significantly different from those of the cisplatin plus 5-FU regimen in a real-world context. Additionally, we identified the prognostic factors associated with OS in patients with advanced ESCC. Our findings can help guide physicians in tailoring treatment and decision-making processes for individuals.
However, it is essential to consider the limitations of this study; its retrospective nature led to missing data and a selection bias. Regarding the single-center design, the study’s sample size may be relatively small, warranting caution when generalizing the findings to other settings based on patient baseline characteristics.
In summary, despite the less favorable baseline characteristics of patients receiving carboplatin plus 5-FU, this combination demonstrated acceptable effectiveness in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR in real-world scenarios. No significant differences were observed when compared to individuals treated with cisplatin plus 5-FU, even after propensity score matching. Notably, carboplatin plus 5-FU significantly improved OS compared to the use of BSC. Consequently, it should be considered as an alternative regimen, particularly for patients with advanced-stage ESCC who are ineligible for cisplatin. However, additional studies are required to illustrate the efficacy of carboplatin plus 5-FU in a larger prospective cohort.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm13061735/s1, Table S1: Baseline characteristics and treatment information; Table S2: Baseline characteristics after propensity score matching.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W., P.W. and A.D.; methodology, J.W., P.W. and A.D.; software, J.W.; validation, A.D.; formal analysis, J.W and P.W.; investigation, J.W.; resources, J.W., C.S., P.S. and A.D.; data curation, J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W., P.W. and A.D.; writing—review and editing, J.W., P.W., C.S., P.S. and A.D.; visualization, J.W.; supervision, J.W. and A.D.; project administration, J.W. 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 in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Prince of Songkla University (REC.66422141/10 November 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study and approved by the Ethics Committee of Prince of Songkla University. Patient information was anonymized for confidentiality.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the patients and their families for participating in this study and our colleague Jayuphan J for helping with the statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

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]
  2. Arnold, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Ferlay, J.; Forman, D. Global Incidence of Oesophageal Cancer by Histological Subtype in 2012. Gut 2015, 64, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lagergren, J.; Smyth, E.; Cunningham, D.; Lagergren, P. Oesophageal Cancer. Lancet 2017, 390, 2383–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. DaSilva, L.L.; Aguiar, P.N., Jr.; de Lima Lopes, G. Immunotherapy for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma-Renewed Enthusiasm and a Lingering Challenge. JAMA Oncol. 2021, 7, 1613–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. van Rossum, P.S.N.; Mohammad, N.H.; Vleggaar, F.P.; van Hillegersberg, R. Treatment for Unresectable or Metastatic Oesophageal Cancer: Current Evidence and Trends. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018, 15, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mukkamalla, S.K.R.; Recio-Boiles, A.; Babiker, H.M. Esophageal Cancer; StatPearls Publishing: St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  7. Shah, M.A.; Schwartz, G.K. Treatment of Metastatic Esophagus and Gastric Cancer. Semin. Oncol. 2004, 31, 574–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Ku, G.Y. Systemic Therapy for Esophageal Cancer: Chemotherapy. Chin. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 6, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Grünberger, B.; Raderer, M.; Schmidinger, M.; Hejna, M. Palliative Chemotherapy for Recurrent and Metastatic Esophageal Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2007, 27, 2705–2714. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Harada, K.; Rogers, J.E.; Iwatsuki, M.; Yamashita, K.; Baba, H.; Ajani, J.A. Recent Advances in Treating Oesophageal Cancer. F1000Research 2020, 9, 1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Smyth, E.C.; Lagergren, J.; Fitzgerald, R.C.; Lordick, F.; Shah, M.A.; Lagergren, P.; Cunningham, D. Oesophageal Cancer. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2017, 3, 17049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Valkema, M.J.; Mostert, B.; Lagarde, S.M.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; van Lanschot, J.J.B. The Effectivity of Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Patients with Advanced Metastatic and Non-Metastatic Cancer of the Esophagus and Esophago-Gastric Junction. Updates Surg. 2023, 75, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Doki, Y.; Ajani, J.A.; Kato, K.; Xu, J.; Wyrwicz, L.; Motoyama, S.; Ogata, T.; Kawakami, H.; Hsu, C.-H.; Adenis, A.; et al. Nivolumab Combination Therapy in Advanced Esophageal Squamous-Cell Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 386, 449–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Harada, K.; Yamamoto, S.; Kato, K. Pembrolizumab: First Anti-PD-1/L1-Based Regimen for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Esophageal Cancer in Japan. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2022, 22, 1333–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Puhr, H.C.; Prager, G.W.; Ilhan-Mutlu, A. How We Treat Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. ESMO Open 2023, 8, 100789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bleiberg, H.; Conroy, T.; Paillot, B.; Lacave, A.J.; Blijham, G.; Jacob, J.H.; Bedenne, L.; Namer, M.; De Besi, P.; Gay, F.; et al. Randomised Phase II Study of Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) versus Cisplatin Alone in Advanced Squamous Cell Oesophageal Cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 1997, 33, 1216–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ajani, J.A.; Barthel, J.S.; Bentrem, D.J.; D’Amico, T.A.; Das, P.; Denlinger, C.S.; Fuchs, C.S.; Gerdes, H.; Glasgow, R.E.; Hayman, J.A.; et al. Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2011, 9, 830–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barabas, K.; Milner, R.; Lurie, D.; Adin, C. Cisplatin: A Review of Toxicities and Therapeutic Applications. Vet. Comp. Oncol. 2008, 6, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cunningham, D.; Starling, N.; Rao, S.; Iveson, T.; Nicolson, M.; Coxon, F.; Middleton, G.; Daniel, F.; Oates, J.; Norman, A.R.; et al. Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin for Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Queisser, W.; Preusser, P.; Mross, K.B.; Fritze, D.; Rieche, K.; Beyer, J.H.; Achterrath, W.; Edler, L. Phase II Evaluation of Carboplatin in Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma. A Trial of the Phase I/II Study Group of the Association for Medical Oncology of the German Cancer Society. Onkologie 1990, 13, 190–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. El-Rayes, B.F.; Shields, A.; Zalupski, M.; Heilbrun, L.K.; Jain, V.; Terry, D.; Ferris, A.; Philip, P.A. A Phase II Study of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Esophageal Cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2004, 15, 960–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Prithviraj, G.K.; Baksh, K.; Fulp, W.; Meredith, K.; Hoffe, S.; Shridhar, R.; Almhanna, K. Carboplatin and Paclitaxel as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Esophageal or Gastric Cancer: Chemotherapy in Advanced Esophageal Cancer. Dis. Esophagus 2015, 28, 782–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. de Man, F.M.; van Eerden, R.A.G.; Oomen-de Hoop, E.; Veraart, J.N.; van Doorn, N.; van Doorn, L.; van der Gaast, A.; Mathijssen, R.H.J. Efficacy and Toxicity of Weekly Carboplatin and Paclitaxel as Induction or Palliative Treatment in Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients. Cancers 2019, 11, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shapiro, J.; van Lanschot, J.J.B.; Hulshof, M.C.C.M.; van Hagen, P.; van Berge Henegouwen, M.I.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; van Laarhoven, H.W.M.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; Hospers, G.A.P.; Bonenkamp, J.J.; et al. Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy plus Surgery versus Surgery Alone for Oesophageal or Junctional Cancer (CROSS): Long-Term Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, 1090–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. van Hagen, P.; Hulshof, M.C.C.M.; van Lanschot, J.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 Junctional Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 2074–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Athauda, A.; Watkins, D.; Mohammed, K.; Chau, I.; Starling, N.; Rao, S.; Tait, D.; Aitken, K.; Cunningham, D. Cisplatin Substitution with Carboplatin during Radical Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophagogastric Carcinoma: Outcomes from a Tertiary Centre. Anticancer Res. 2018, 38, 5943–5949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Obermannová, R.; Alsina, M.; Cervantes, A.; Leong, T.; Lordick, F.; Nilsson, M.; van Grieken, N.C.T.; Vogel, A.; Smyth, E.C.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: [email protected] Oesophageal Cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up. Ann. Oncol. 2022, 33, 992–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Xu, J.; Bai, Y.; Li, E.; Xu, N.; Shi, D.; Qian, J. Efficacy and Safety of Chemotherapy Regimens for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Asia: A Systematic Review. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2022, 22, 981–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Homs, M.Y.V.; vd Gaast, A.; Siersema, P.D.; Steyerberg, E.W.; Kuipers, E.J. Chemotherapy for Metastatic Carcinoma of the Esophagus and Gastro-Esophageal Junction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006, 4, CD004063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Levard, H.; Pouliquen, X.; Hay, J.M.; Fingerhut, A.; Langlois-Zantain, O.; Huguier, M.; Lozach, P.; Testart, J. 5-Fluorouracil and Cisplatin as Palliative Treatment of Advanced Oesophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial. The French Associations for Surgical Research: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial. Eur. J. Surg. 1998, 164, 849–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hayashi, K.; Ando, N.; Watanabe, H.; Ide, H.; Nagai, K.; Aoyama, N.; Takiyama, W.; Ishida, K.; Isono, K.; Makuuchi, H.; et al. Phase II Evaluation of Protracted Infusion of Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil in Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus: A Japan Esophageal Oncology Group (JEOG) Trial (JCOG9407). Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 31, 419–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lorenzen, S.; Schuster, T.; Porschen, R.; Al-Batran, S.-E.; Hofheinz, R.; Thuss-Patience, P.; Moehler, M.; Grabowski, P.; Arnold, D.; Greten, T.; et al. Cetuximab plus Cisplatin-5-Fluorouracil versus Cisplatin-5-Fluorouracil Alone in First-Line Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus: A Randomized Phase II Study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie. Ann. Oncol. 2009, 20, 1667–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Janmaat, V.T.; Steyerberg, E.W.; van der Gaast, A.; Mathijssen, R.H.; Bruno, M.J.; Peppelenbosch, M.P.; Kuipers, E.J.; Spaander, M.C. Palliative Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapies for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 11, CD004063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Conroy, T.; Galais, M.-P.; Raoul, J.-L.; Bouché, O.; Gourgou-Bourgade, S.; Douillard, J.-Y.; Etienne, P.-L.; Boige, V.; Martel-Lafay, I.; Michel, P.; et al. Definitive Chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX versus Fluorouracil and Cisplatin in Patients with Oesophageal Cancer (PRODIGE5/ACCORD17): Final Results of a Randomised, Phase 2/3 Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sun, J.-M.; Shen, L.; Shah, M.A.; Enzinger, P.; Adenis, A.; Doi, T.; Kojima, T.; Metges, J.-P.; Li, Z.; Kim, S.-B.; et al. Pembrolizumab plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Oesophageal Cancer (KEYNOTE-590): A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Study. Lancet 2021, 398, 759–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hiramoto, S.; Kato, K.; Shoji, H.; Okita, N.; Takashima, A.; Honma, Y.; Iwasa, S.; Hamaguchi, T.; Yamada, Y.; Shimada, Y.; et al. A Retrospective Analysis of 5-Fluorouracil plus Cisplatin as First-Line Chemotherapy in the Recent Treatment Strategy for Patients with Metastatic or Recurrent Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 23, 466–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, Y.; Ren, Z.; Yuan, L.; Xu, S.; Yao, Z.; Qiao, L.; Li, K. Paclitaxel plus Cisplatin vs. 5-Fluorouracil plus Cisplatin as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Advanced Squamous Cell Esophageal Cancer. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2016, 6, 2345–2350. [Google Scholar]
  38. Singel, K.L.; Segal, B.H. Neutrophils in the Tumor Microenvironment: Trying to Heal the Wound That Cannot Heal. Immunol. Rev. 2016, 273, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Qiu, M.-Z.; Xu, R.-H.; Ruan, D.-Y.; Li, Z.-H.; Luo, H.-Y.; Teng, K.-Y.; Wang, Z.-Q.; Li, Y.-H.; Jiang, W.-Q. Incidence of Anemia, Leukocytosis, and Thrombocytosis in Patients with Solid Tumors in China. Tumour Biol. 2010, 31, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Schernberg, A.; Moureau-Zabotto, L.; Rivin Del Campo, E.; Escande, A.; Ducreux, M.; Nguyen, F.; Goere, D.; Chargari, C.; Deutsch, E. Leukocytosis and Neutrophilia Predict Outcome in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer Treated with Definitive Chemoradiation. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 11579–11588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Almasaudi, A.S.; Dolan, R.D.; Edwards, C.A.; McMillan, D.C. Hypoalbuminemia Reflects Nutritional Risk, Body Composition and Systemic Inflammation and Is Independently Associated with Survival in Patients with Colorectal Cancer. Cancers 2020, 12, 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sohda, M.; Sakai, M.; Yamaguchi, A.; Watanabe, T.; Nakazawa, N.; Ubukata, Y.; Kuriyam, K.; Sano, A.; Yokobori, T.; Ogawa, H.; et al. Pre-Treatment CRP and Albumin Determines Prognosis for Unresectable Advanced Oesophageal Cancer. Vivo 2022, 36, 1930–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ikoma, T.; Shimokawa, M.; Matsumoto, T.; Boku, S.; Yasuda, T.; Shibata, N.; Kurioka, Y.; Takatani, M.; Nobuhisa, T.; Namikawa, T.; et al. Inflammatory Prognostic Factors in Advanced or Recurrent Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with Nivolumab. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2023, 72, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mohri, J.; Katada, C.; Ueda, M.; Sugawara, M.; Yamashita, K.; Moriya, H.; Komori, S.; Hayakawa, K.; Koizumi, W.; Atsuda, K. Predisposing Factors for Chemotherapy-Induced Nephrotoxicity in Patients with Advanced Esophageal Cancer Who Received Combination Chemotherapy with Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and 5-Fluorouracil. J. Transl. Int. Med. 2018, 6, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Luo, P.; Wei, X.; Liu, C.; Chen, X.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, R.; Kang, X.; Qin, J.; Qi, X.; Li, Y. The Risk and Prognostic Factors for Liver Metastases in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Large-Cohort Based Study. Thorac. Cancer 2022, 13, 2960–2969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ai, D.; Chen, Y.; Liu, Q.; Deng, J.; Zhao, K. The Effect of Tumor Locations of Esophageal Cancer on the Metastasis to Liver or Lung. J. Thorac. Dis. 2019, 11, 4205–4210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 13 01735 g001
Figure 1. Overall survival between carboplatin plus 5-FU, cisplatin plus 5-FU, and best supportive care. OS: Overall survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil.
Figure 1. Overall survival between carboplatin plus 5-FU, cisplatin plus 5-FU, and best supportive care. OS: Overall survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil.
Jcm 13 01735 g001
Jcm 13 01735 g002
Figure 2. Overall survival between carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU with propensity score matching. OS: overall survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil.
Figure 2. Overall survival between carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU with propensity score matching. OS: overall survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil.
Jcm 13 01735 g002
Jcm 13 01735 g003
Figure 3. Progression-free survival between carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU. PFS: Progression-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil.
Figure 3. Progression-free survival between carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU. PFS: Progression-free survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil.
Jcm 13 01735 g003
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Carboplatin
Plus 5-FU
(n = 102)		Cisplatin
Plus 5-FU
(n = 71)		Best Supportive Care
(n = 83)
Median Age, years (IQR) *,**63.0 (58.2, 68.6)54.6 (49.9, 59.9)62.1 (54.2, 71)
Age ≥ 65 years, n (%) *,**40 (39.2)5 (7.0)37 (44.6)
Sex, n (%)
Male96 (94.1)67 (94.4)76 (91.6)
Female6 (5.9)4 (5.6)7 (8.4)
ECOG PS, n (%) *,**
02 (2)0 (0)0 (0)
170 (68.6)61 (85.9)11 (13.3)
229 (28.4)10 (14.1)48 (57.8)
31 (1)0 (0)22 (26.5)
40 (0)0 (0)2 (2.4)
BMI, n (%) **
<18.5 kg/m259 (57.8)40 (56.3)63 (75.9)
18.5–22.9 kg/m233 (32.4)23 (32.4)19 (22.9)
23.0–24.9 kg/m25 (4.9)5 (7.0)1 (1.2)
≥25 kg/m25 (4.9)3 (4.2)0 (0)
Smoking, n (%) **
Current or former92 (90.2)63 (88.7)60 (72.3)
Never10 (9.8)8 (11.3)23 (27.7)
Alcohol drinking, n (%) **
Current or former88 (86.3)62 (87.3)55 (66.3)
Never14 (13.7)9 (12.7)28 (33.7)
Comorbidities, n (%) *,**59 (57.8)26 (36.6)38 (45.8)
Hypertension *,**35 (34.3)11 (15.5)26 (31.3)
Diabetes mellitus7 (6.9)4 (5.6)9 (10.8)
Ischemic heart disease3 (2.9)1 (1.4)5 (6)
Cerebrovascular disease8 (7.8)2 (2.8)6 (7.2)
COPD5 (4.9)2 (2.8)2 (2.4)
Cirrhosis6 (5.9)4 (5.6)1 (1.2)
Chronic kidney disease *,**78 (76.5)43 (60.6)75 (90.4)
History of previous cancer, n (%)11 (10.8)2 (2.8)5 (6)
Concurrent second primary cancer, n (%) **3 (2.9)7 (9.9)0 (0)
Tumor Location, n (%)
Cervical7 (6.9)10 (14.1)2 (2.4)
Upper thoracic23 (22.5)10 (14.1)16 (19.3)
Middle thoracic53 (52)28 (39.4)42 (50.6)
Lower thoracic17 (16.7)21 (29.6)20 (24.1)
Esophagogastric junction2 (2)2 (2.8)3 (3.6)
T stage, n (%)
T10 (0)0 (0)1 (1.2)
T25 (4.9)4 (5.6)6 (7.2)
T348 (47.1)25 (35.2)37 (44.6)
T449 (48)42 (59.2)39 (47)
N stage, n (%)
N05 (4.9)2 (2.8)5 (6)
N156 (54.9)42 (59.2)45 (54.2)
N222 (21.6)17 (23.9)21 (25.3)
N319 (18.6)10 (14.1)12 (14.5)
M stage, n (%) **
M038 (37.3)30 (42.3)17 (20.5)
M164 (62.7)41 (57.7)66 (79.5)
Tumor differentiation, n (%) *
Well differentiated SCC23 (22.5)8 (11.3)15 (18.1)
Moderately differentiated SCC44 (43.1)43 (60.6)41 (49.4)
Poorly differentiated SCC25 (24.5)18 (25.4)19 (22.9)
Missing10 (9.8)2 (2.8)8 (9.6)
Number of organ metastasis, n (%) **
140 (39.2)27 (38.0)41 (50.0)
218 (17.6)12 (16.9)18 (22.0)
≥36 (5.9)1 (1.4)6 (7.5)
Organ metastasis, n (%)
Lung24 (23.5)12 (16.9)16 (19.3)
Lymph node **28 (27.5)25 (35.2)41 (49.4)
Liver20 (19.6)13 (18.3)21 (25.3)
Bone10 (9.8)4 (5.6)12 (14.5)
Adrenal gland2 (2.0)1 (1.4)1 (1.2)
Peritoneum1 (1.0)0 (0)1 (1.2)
Pleura **3 (2.9)0 (0)6 (7.2)
Others4 (3.9)0 (0)0 (0)
Laboratory8905 (7090, 11,527)9530 (7650, 12,185)10,020 (7700, 13,185)
White blood cell count, per µL (IQR)10.811.7 10.6
Hemoglobin, g/dL (IQR) *,**(9.8, 11.9)(10.6, 12.9)(9.3, 11.8)
Platelet count, per µL (IQR)351,670 (124,937.5)379,169 (147,677.9)361,791.4 (133,515.2)
Creatinine, mg/dL (IQR) 0.8 (0.7, 0.9)0.7 (0.6, 0.9)0.8 (0.6, 1)
CrCl, mL/min (IQR) *,**50.4 (45.2, 58.3)57.5 (50.3, 65.3)45.2 (39.5, 53.1)
CrCl < 60 mL/min, n (%) *,**78 (76.5)43 (60.6)75 (90.4)
CrCl ≥ 60 mL/min, n (%) *,**24 (23.5)28 (39.4)8 (9.6)
Albumin, g/dL (SD) **3.5 (0.5)3.7 (0.6)3.2 (0.5)
Previous treatment, n (%)
Esophagectomy2 (2.0)2 (2.8)6 (7.2)
Definitive CCRT2 (2.0)0 (0)0 (0)
Palliative RT *,**27 (26.5)5 (7.0)38 (45.8)
* p-value significant (<0.05) between carboplatin plus 5-FU and cisplatin plus 5-FU; ** p-value significant (<0.05) among carboplatin plus 5-FU, cisplatin plus 5-FU, and best supportive care; 5-FU: 5-fluorouracil; IQR: interquartile range; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS: performance status; BMI: body mass index; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; CrCl: creatinine clearance; SD: standard deviation; CCRT: concurrent chemoradiotherapy; RT: radiotherapy.
Table 2. Treatment information.
Table 2. Treatment information.
Carboplatin Plus 5-FU
(n = 102)		Cisplatin Plus 5-FU
(n = 71)
Treatment
Number of chemotherapy cycles (IQR)3 (2, 4)4 (2, 4)
Dose of carboplatin, AUC (IQR)5 (4, 5)-
Dose of cisplatin, mg/m2-80 (80, 80)
Dose of 5-FU, mg/m2/cycle 4000 (3200, 4000)4000 (4000, 4000)
Any dose reduction, n (%)55 (53.9)21 (29.5)
One level52 (51.0)17 (23.9)
Two level3 (2.9)4 (5.6)
Concurrent RT, n (%) *47 (46.1)51 (71.8)
Dose of RT, Gray (IQR)5040 (5000, 5040)5040 (5000, 5040)
Discontinuation, n (%)
Complete treatment20 (19.6)24 (33.8)
Progressive disease35 (34.3)19 (26.8)
Death31 (30.4)16 (22.5)
Worsening ECOG PS10 (9.8)8 (11.3)
Patient preference5 (4.9)2 (2.8)
Refer0 (0)2 (2.8)
Loss of follow-up1 (1.0)0 (0)
Subsequent therapy, n (%)27 (26.5)19 (26.8)
Second line treatment27 (26.5)19 (26.8)
Third line treatment2 (2.0)4 (5.6)
Fourth line treatment1 (1.0)0 (0)
Fifth line treatment1 (1.0)0 (0)
* p-value significant (p < 0.05); 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; IQR, interquartile range; AUC, area under the curve; RT, radiotherapy; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status.
Table 3. Response rate.
Table 3. Response rate.
Carboplatin Plus 5-FU
(n = 102)		Cisplatin Plus 5-FU
(n = 71)		p-Value
Evaluable, n (%)74 (72.5)55 (77.5)
Complete response, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)
Partial response, n (%)31 (30.4)26 (36.6)
Stable disease, n (%)21 (20.6)15 (21.1)
Progressive disease, n (%)22 (21.6)14 (19.7)
Missing, n (%)28 (27.5)16 (22.5)
ORR in the entire population, n (%)31 (30.4)26 (36.6)0.436
ORR in available data, n (%)31 (41.9)26 (47.3)0.531
5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; ORR, objective response rate.
Table 4. Prognostic factors for overall survival.
Table 4. Prognostic factors for overall survival.
Univariate Cox
Regression Analysis		Multivariate Cox Regression Analysis
HR95% CIHR95% CI
Receiving chemotherapy0.31 *0.23, 0.400.46 *0.33, 0.64
Age ≥ 65 years1.41 *1.08, 1.841.160.85, 1.58
Sex–Male1.230.74, 2.04
ECOG PS ≥ 22.06 *1.60, 2.661.43 *1.06, 1.94
BMI < 18.5 kg/m21.270.98, 1.64
Smoking0.870.62, 1.22
Alcohol drinking0.790.58, 1.07
History of previous cancer0.890.55, 1.45
Concurrent two primary cancer1.510.80, 2.85
Tumor Location
CervicalRef
Upper thoracic1.250.74, 2.14
Middle thoracic1.180.73, 1.92
Lower thoracic1.270.75, 2.13
Esophagogastric junction1.170.49, 2.80
T stage
T1Ref
T20.12 *0.02, 0.920.690.08, 5.57
T30.11 *0.01, 0.810.440.06, 3.35
T40.10 *0.01, 0.710.440.06, 3.40
N stage
N0Ref
N11.030.56, 1.91
N21.080.56, 2.06
N30.990.51, 1.95
M stage–M11.56 *1.19, 2.031.210.86, 1.70
Tumor differentiation
Well differentiated SCCRef
Moderately differentiated SCC1.190.85, 1.68
Poorly differentiated SCC1.080.73, 1.60
Number of organ metastasis ≥ 21.010.79, 1.30
Liver metastasis1.57 *1.16, 2.131.43 *1.01, 2.03
White blood cell count > 10,000/uL1.78 *1.38, 2.301.86 *1.38, 2.50
Hemoglobin < 10 g/dL1.58 *1.19, 2.091.060.77, 1.45
Platelet
<150,000/uL0.990.51, 1.96
>450,000/uL1.090.82, 1.46
CrCl < 60 mL/min1.50 *1.12, 2.021.47 *1.05, 2.05
Albumin < 3.5 g/dL2.13 *1.65, 2.761.48 *1.09, 2.02
* p-value significant (p < 0.05). HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status; BMI, body mass index; Ref, reference; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; CrCl, creatinine clearance.
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

Wonglhow, J.; Wetwittayakhlang, P.; Sunpaweravong, P.; Sathitruangsak, C.; Dechaphunkul, A. Comparing the Efficacy of Carboplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil, Cisplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil, and Best Supportive Care for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis from a Tertiary Hospital in Southern Thailand. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1735. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061735

AMA Style

Wonglhow J, Wetwittayakhlang P, Sunpaweravong P, Sathitruangsak C, Dechaphunkul A. Comparing the Efficacy of Carboplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil, Cisplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil, and Best Supportive Care for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis from a Tertiary Hospital in Southern Thailand. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(6):1735. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061735

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wonglhow, Jirapat, Panu Wetwittayakhlang, Patrapim Sunpaweravong, Chirawadee Sathitruangsak, and Arunee Dechaphunkul. 2024. "Comparing the Efficacy of Carboplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil, Cisplatin plus 5-Fluorouracil, and Best Supportive Care for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis from a Tertiary Hospital in Southern Thailand" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 6: 1735. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061735

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