Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025
Real-world comparison between neoadjuvant FLOT therapy and DCF therapy for resectable esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shiraishi Kazuhiro, Yamamoto Shun, Hirose Toshiharu, Imazeki Hiroshi, Yokoyama Kazuki, Honma Yoshitaka, Hashimoto Taiki, Kashihara Tairo, Kurita Daisuke, Ishiyama Koshiro, Oguma Junya, Igaki Hiroshi, Daiko Hiroyuki, Seto Yasuyuki, Kato Ken
Аннотация
BACKGROUNDS: In Western countries, the standard perioperative treatment for resectable locally advanced esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJ-AC) is 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) therapy based on the results of the FLOT4 and ESOPEC trials. On the other hand, there was little evidence based on optimal perioperative treatment for resectable locally advanced EGJ-AC in Japan. Our previous report showed that neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy demonstrated modest efficacy for resectable locally advanced EGJ-AC. Therefore, we compared neoadjuvant DCF to FLOT therapy in terms of efficacy and safety in this study.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who received DCF or FLOT therapy for resectable EGJ-AC between 2015 and 2024 in our hospital. We assessed the R0 resection rate, histopathological response, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Thirty-two patients in the DCF therapy group and 20 patients in the FLOT therapy group were analyzed. The patients' characteristics in the DCF group and FLOT group were as follows: median age, 63/59 years; ECOG PS 0, 66%/85%, respectively. The pCR rate was numerically higher in the FLOT group (20%) compared with the DCF group (3%) (p = 0.07). Similarly, the 1-year DFS rate was higher in the FLOT group (93%) than in the DCF group (68%) (p = 0.02), although this difference did not remain statistically significant after adjustment for baseline factors. Febrile neutropenia was significantly lower in the FLOT group (0%) than in the DCF group (12.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant FLOT therapy is well-tolerated and has comparable short-term efficacy to DCF therapy.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who received DCF or FLOT therapy for resectable EGJ-AC between 2015 and 2024 in our hospital. We assessed the R0 resection rate, histopathological response, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Thirty-two patients in the DCF therapy group and 20 patients in the FLOT therapy group were analyzed. The patients' characteristics in the DCF group and FLOT group were as follows: median age, 63/59 years; ECOG PS 0, 66%/85%, respectively. The pCR rate was numerically higher in the FLOT group (20%) compared with the DCF group (3%) (p = 0.07). Similarly, the 1-year DFS rate was higher in the FLOT group (93%) than in the DCF group (68%) (p = 0.02), although this difference did not remain statistically significant after adjustment for baseline factors. Febrile neutropenia was significantly lower in the FLOT group (0%) than in the DCF group (12.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant FLOT therapy is well-tolerated and has comparable short-term efficacy to DCF therapy.